The female mother instinct is absolutely wonderful and necessary inside the home, but since allowing it into the realm of politics by way of women's suffrage, it has been one of the greatest contributing factors to the decline of the West.
When designing law or public policy, very difficult and extremely high-stakes decisions must be made, and frequently for women, it is hard to view these trade-offs outside the confined space of the empathizing female mind.
Men think in terms of systems and things. When we encounter an object, idea, or even a person, we tend to mentally break it down into its component parts so it can be understood, and any relevant problems at hand can be solved.
Women think in terms of empathy, people, and relationships. When they see a picture of a crying child in the news, their heart aches. "Why doesn't someone DO something?!", they ask.
They tend to think that society should fix this problem, as quickly as possible, and they tend not to consider what the costs of the solution might be, or who they might impose costs on by advocating for a particular public policy.
When men see the same picture, we think "that's sad, but unfortunately there's not much we can do about it."
Men think: "you could open the borders and let these families in, but there will be various non-trivial costs associated with this action, and by letting them in you'll be imposing costs on people who do not want to have costs imposed on them."
The woman responds: "So what?! People are selfish. What the world needs is love, and those families need help."
Men: "Our resources are limited. Historically, mass migration has led to ethnic tension, strained public finances, and war. In addition, we value the ethnic and cultural homogeneity of our homeland. Opening the borders simply isn't worth the cost."
The woman responds again: "Who is going to help these people? My heart aches for them."
This sort of conversational dynamic will go on ad finitum, on nearly every public policy issue:
-Private access to firearms ("they're too dangerous! Children will be hurt")
-Immigration ("we need to help the poor people of the world")
-Government surveillance ("society is dangerous - if our leaders can monitor it, we'll be safer")
-Freedom of speech (quoting Cathy Newman from BBC: "why should your right to free speech trump a trans person's right not to be offended"?)
Notice how the female mind is concerned with danger, safety, and protecting the vulnerable in every instance (empathizing), while the male mind breaks down the situation as a cost-benefit analysis (systemizing).
Women were given a specific set of mental tools to protect their incredibly dependent and vulnerable children, and it is this mother instinct that serves as the lens through which women see the world.
While this is necessary in the family context, it becomes quite short-sighted and dangerous in the political context. Since women began voting, Western politics has been increasingly dominated by the empathizing mindset on nearly every issue, and has accordingly failed to take into account all the relevant costs of the many high-stakes decisions that have to be made for millions of people at a time.
Mass migration into the West is displacing the ethnic groups that built the West, threatening their majority status, placing a large strain on the already mismanaged public purse, and imposing various costs on our cultural commons, which is leading to massive amounts of resentment and anger that, if unchecked, will eventually lead to bloodshed.
This is a serious lesson from history, and if it is ignored, will result in much more suffering for all groups involved than if the borders had remain closed to begin with. Government surveillance is ostensibly for public safety, but gives corrupt politicians and big business ultimate control over our lives, and is easily abused. Banning private ownership of firearms is also sold as a public safety measure, but tyrants who seek ultimate control of their subjects know that if citizens are armed, they can resist, fight back, and have sovereign control of their lives and the lives of their communities. Being polite is nice, but the world is a harsh place, and treating adults like children actually does them more harm than good. Human beings are beasts of burden, so rather than being protected everywhere we go, we must be exposed to new and sometimes offensive ideas and people who challenge us and sharpen our intellect. In addition, without the freedom to speak the truth, the world slowly becomes full of lies, and the consequences can literally be murderous.
Of course, we should empathize with others. That's part of what makes us human. Harshly ignoring the suffering of others is indeed repulsive, but especially in the political context, everything is a trade-off that must be analyzed by the adults in the room. Simply following our feelings without carefully weighing costs will result in disasters of far greater magnitude than whatever triggered our emotions to begin with.