She will be sentenced within 90 days and must resign if the convictions are not overturned.

Kane showed a penchant early on for violating protocol and the limits of her office when in her first year she refused to defend the state’s marriage law in court. Thus began a statewide career of reckless abandon.

In the course of her quick rise to power, Kane damaged her family as well. She divorced her husband, the father of her two sons, and he is seeking recovery of the $1.5 million he devoted to her campaign. Needless to say, she has not spent a great deal of time with her young sons over these years. Indeed, Kane’s crimes against her family appear to be far, far more serious than her crimes against the state. She is, of course, a victim too — a victim of her culture and its insane expectations.

Most women in government and politics are not corrupt. Many work hard and truly sacrifice themselves for their constituencies, especially in local politics, but their influence in general has not made our government or cultural life better. This is not surprising. The entry of women in large numbers into politics was a strike against democracy in the first place, as most women didn’t even want the women’s  vote when it was shoved down the throats of the nation’s citizens by extremist suffragettes who were bitter, marriage-hating socialists. The anti-suffragists — ignored by mainstream historians — organized by the tens of thousands and churned out eloquent arguments in their magazines and newsletters against women’s greater participation in politics. Most women cared about influencing their homes and families and communities through their customary roles, and not through the female vote or political careers. When women were given the vote and encouraged to go into politics in large numbers, they ironically lost some of their political power, which was based on their organized non-partisan influence. It was precisely because their influence was not connected to career, money or self-advancement that their voice and petitions had a special moral power. The whole rise of the female politician has not been a grassroots movement at all. It represents the revolutionary few against the many. Ordinary women fought the rise of the suffragette — but they lost because powerful, elite forces were against them. Kathleen Kane’s downfall is merely the latest episode in this story. Given this history and the ideological lies behind it, female politicians at the higher levels, I maintain, are more likely to be arrogant and beholden to no one. The feminist politician represents the reverse of what she is claimed to be. She is the emblem of a loss of feminine influence and power.

Many male politicians have been guilty of corruption, of course, but they never gained power on the ridiculous, liberating idea that their entire sex is saintly. Kane was not qualified to be attorney general in the first place and it was feminist-style affirmative action that was most definitely partly responsible for her success and feminist-style arrogance that contributed to her downfall.

Not only do women not make politics better, they are more likely to make things much worse — for themselves, for their constituencies, and, most tragically of all, for their families.