To support his contention that women - all women - should not vote, Lawrence Auster gives the example of a woman - one woman - who admitted to changing her mind on the basis of a "friendly note". Auster comments:

Now, in quoting this story, I don't mean to suggest that men do not sometimes base their votes on personal considerations rather than on a view of the public good. But can anyone imagine a man, not only changing his vote to the party he normally opposes because of a friendly note from a candidate belonging to that party, but making sure that this change of vote and the reason for it were announced on television?

First, is it any better for the public good if a man keeps quiet about changing his vote for silly  reasons? Secondly, and more importantly, how logical is it to generalise from one example to half the population? Many more men who vote become criminals than do women who vote. Should we therefore abolish the male franchise? Logically we should. But logic is not Auster's strong point.

Can you imagine a woman being so illogical?

Update: Larry is getting his knickers in a twist:

I was not making that one instance an argument for denying women the vote. I was not saying or suggesting: "This woman is silly, therefore women shouldn't vote." Rather I was treating that instance as a particular indication of a distinct feminine mentality...

Likewise, when I said that far more men than women become criminals, I wasn't suggesting that men shouldn't vote. Rather I was treating criminality as a particular instance of a distinct masculine mentality.