I was conversing with a woman at work the other day. We were talking about horses and horse racing. I know very, very little about either, so a good deal of our conversation consisted of my asking questions and listening to the answers.
We were talking about the great American thoroughbred racer American Pharoah (<– yes, that’s how they spell it.), the three-year old Triple Crown winner. My friend mentioned a five-year old female horse who has a good chance of challenging American Pharoah in October’s Breeder’s Cup race.
I brought up the fact that I’d heard of other female horses who’d been wonderful racers too — Ruffian comes to mind — and asked my friend why there weren’t more.
Her answer was really interesting. She said that, well, females can be great horses, and great racers, but they usually tend to get all girly and feminine. They’re hormonally different, she said perfectly matter-of-factly. She added further that when male horses get startled or challenged, their first instinct is to fight and to charge forward at the thing that’s startled them. The females’ first instinct, she said, is to shy away and to go “Eeek!” ( <– my friend’s word) Also, the fillies and mares tend to be a bit smaller, and while there are great female racers, like Ruffian, there just aren’t all that many.
I’ve also conversed with my friend the veterinarian about animals, and she also makes no bones about it: the females of just about every species of animal — large or small — are very different from the males, and are a lot easier to deal with in her job. The females are generally easier to subdue, not as strong, generally smaller, easier to operate on, and they come out of surgery better and more calmly. My friend the vet used the same terms as my friend at work: The females of the various species are just, she said, more “girlish,” more “feminine.” The males, simply, fight more… in most or all circumstances.
Sounds a lot like pure biology.
Watch the various nature specials on television. I used to be an enthusiastic watcher of them all. Until, that is, I realized that their agenda — for every dadblasted, frustratingly maddening show! — was to pound home the hogwash that humans are a huge problem in the world. Because, you see, we’re destroying the animals’ habitats, and ravaging the planet. Every single animal ever portrayed in these shows is “endangered,” whether there are freakin’ zillions of them or not.
Well, while they were busy hammering home that agenda, the left and environmentalists forgot to tell the nature show hosts to hammer home a feminist agenda as well! Because all those shows pointed out the vastly different behaviors between the males and females of the species. Of all species.
Take a look, for example, at how all those oh so great and noble big cats operate — like the recently departed Cecil, for example — if you want an example of where western feminists should think they’re desperately needed!
Interestingly, I’ve never once heard a single one of these shows try to make the case that all the apparent “sexism” in the animal world is even remotely a bad thing.
To the contrary, they always point out quite naturally — as if it’s as normal, and desirable, as can be — how the differences in the sexes’ behavior shows how the animals act cooperatively, in a logical, common sense division of labor, to help the species survive.
But not for that other animal: You and me.
We’re supposed to believe that every animal with two sexes in the world exhibits dramatic differences between the sexes … except humans.
All the differences between the male and the female of the human species are, you see, nothing more than “social constructs.”
Everywhere else in the entire freakin’ world, the two sexes are as different as can be, and that’s a really good thing.
But not for humans.
All just a bunch of social constructs invented by those nasty-wasty men to keep the womenfolk down and in their place.
No one ever says, by the way, how that could even happen, if, after all, male humans and female humans are all just the same. How did we men win? How were we dudes even able to get those big, strong women down, and under our collective thumbs, and then to keep these collossi of society down — and under our collective thumbs?
No mention either of why on earth we men didn’t just keep it that way!
I mean, let’s face it… feminists — with all their we’re-oh-so-powerful, and hear-us-roar, and special-needs, and waaaaaahhh-he-looked-at me, and whine about micro-freakin’-aggressions this, and whine about patriarchy that — feminists are … as annoying as H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks!
And kinda pathetic.
So, again, why didn’t we men just keep ’em down and shut ’em up.
After all, if you listen to the feminists, we had ’em down where, so they say, we wanted ’em. Why on earth did we dudes just let ’em the heck up?!?
Were we men (1) really a whole heckuva lot nicer and more enlightened the whole time? Did we simply decide, when women started to complain in earnest — ’round about the time labor-saving, free-time-making devices came along — to say, ummmmm… Okay, fine?
Or, as seems just as likely, were women (2) simply not all that oppressed to begin with? Were they just acting, as all species with two sexes always have, and likely always will, according to certain commonsensical divisions of labor that help the family, and therefore the species, to survive?
Or, (3) both?
Between you and me, I was there, I saw the whole thing. I’m going with #3.
Furthermore, I’m figuring that feminism was nothing more than a fraudulent excuse for a leftist power grab all along. You can’t get a whole bunch o’people — a whole bunch o’women — all in a lather with a clarion call to arms, to go out in the street and demand that we Improve Things That Aren’t All That Bad!
No, you have to convince women that they’ve been squashed, lo these many decades, and that it’s all men’s fault, as they conspired to keep the evil patriarchy in place, and continued to oppress women.
If you do that you get just a whole bunch of women going, “I’m buying into that! Looks like a whole bunch of goodies coming my way!” While, you get a whole bunch of men too — the ones for whom chivalry is still a strong component of their character. A surprisingly large bunch, I might add.
But, if you want women to continue to demand action that only the government can produce, you have to continue to paint a lurid picture of violence, rape, harassment in the workplace and on the streets, of regular, every-day, under-every-rock and ’round-every-corner trauma for the American, for the western, woman…
Western women who are really, on the whole, the most pampered, mollycoddled identity group in the history of the planet.
Serious Question: what real threat do western women face today? What real threat have they faced in the last century? Oh, don’t get me wrong, there are jerks, morons, psychos and lunatics out there among the ranks of men, but the vast majority of men are no threat to any woman on the face of the earth in any sense whatsoever.
You and I both know that.
Like the Race Grievance Industry, the Feminist Grievance Industry has had to discern their great bogeyman — “sexism” — in obscure, shadows-filled corners, where only those with the proper indoctrination, and the decoder ring, are able to see things.
Invisible to all but the properly educated adepts, these terrible, menacing, rage-filled and violent oppressions are perfectly unknown to those women and men who are required to live their lives in a much more reality-based way in today’s society.
The “genius”(1) of feminism is that they sold all that invisible codswallop(2) to America. They sold all the nonexistent, unseen, unknowable stuff, as all very real, and just waiting to strike any woman, at any moment of her life.
Likewise, early and later feminist propagandists had serious skills in the “art” of convincing people of the largely absurd.
But otherwise they were halfwits.
They couldn’t have survived in a society that demanded that they actually produce a good or a service that society needed.
As had been required in previous decades and centuries.
The feminists, though, were halfwits with real communications skills, and American educations. In other words, they were perfectly positioned to thrive in a self-obsessed, navel-gazing, whimpering world that valued the ability to toss off glib nostrums that sound intelligent, but are completely specious.
Feminism is one of the most destructive thought trends ever to raise its ugly head in America. Worse, feminism was just yet another of those many leftist movements that were born, and continue to flourish in America, precisely because the lot of the American woman was so darned good.
American and western feminism, and feminists, never faced any threat of any kind of serious consequences or pushback from any corner — governmental or otherwise. Western men basically all rolled over immediately and entirely, and allowed feminism to transform America and the west into a kindergarten full of whining, simpering, politically correct, fragile, infantile milquetoasts, who curl up in the fetal position at the merest hint of real life.
Feminism’s success resulted not from the intelligence of its ideas, the clarity of its vision, the wisdom of its thought, but rather the lazy, namby-pamby, effeminate, indifference of western men.
Don’t take this wrong. This is not an indictment of women. Rather, this is an indictment of western men. Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
When feminism came along and accused all men of being largely brutish, violent power-hungry clods, we men said and did nothing in our own defense.
It was a grotesque, brutish slander — since it was especially directed at a group who, when given the chance as in America, to establish a whole new country, had established a society that specifically had not oppressed women.
Oh, there was oppression of women in society alright, but not discernibly more than that of men. In all early societies, real life consisted of a whole lot of “oppressions.” As Thomas Hobbes said, “the life of man (is) solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” When people talk about the bear outside, or the wolf at the door, it’s because those were very real dangers in the pre-19th and -20th Centuries.
America of the late 19th Century had largely abolished the solitude, the poverty, the nastiness and brutishness of life, and was well on her way to getting rid of its shortness. For all Americans.
Note: we didn’t send the womenfolk out to fix the wolf or bear problems. Not because we were “discriminating against women,” but rather because of two things that everyone knew quite well at the time: (1) we wanted — needed — the problem fixed — our family’s very life was on the line, and (2) we knew that to send the man out to fix it represented the best strategy to get it fixed.
Still, all research into early American history shows a society well on the road to advancing the rights of all people, without regard to race, sex, religion or anything else for that matter(3).
Now, though, we’ve reversed all that. Where there was not discrimination before, we’ve instituted discrimination by actual government policy. Where we were advancing as a country down the road of pretty much equal treatment for all, we’ve now established a society that actively abuses, and punishes well-identified demographic groups for the tiniest infractions.
Don’t believe me? Think I’m exaggerating? Do a little thought exercise with me.
Scenario #1: Imagine yourself saying something just slightly disparaging about white, heterosexual men in general. “You know, men can be jerks. They’re insensitive, unfeeling, unthinking — except with the little head, ha ha ha — and sometimes they’re really stupid.”
Scenario #2: Now, imagine yourself saying the exact same thing, only about women: “You know, women can be jerks. They’re insensitive, unfeeling, unthinking — except with their hormones — and sometimes they’re really stupid.”
Scenario #3: Now, imagine yourself saying the exact same thing, only about black men or women: “You know, blacks can be jerks. They’re insensitive, unfeeling, unthinking — except with their hormones, ha ha ha — and sometimes they’re really stupid.”
Scenario #4: Now, imagine yourself saying the exact same thing, only about a gay person
Scenario #5: Now, imagine yourself saying the exact same thing, only about a hispanic person.
Scenario #6: Now, imagine yourself saying the exact same thing, only about a muslim.
No need to noodle it over too long. Scenario #1 would have no effect whatsoever on your career, while Scenarios #2 – 6, would sink your career completely. You’d possibly be forced to move, and take on a whole new identity.
Don’t believe me? Google “Tim Hunt.(4)”
That’s the society that men’s timidity has brought about. Our cowardice put the inmates — the feminists, and the rest of the grievance goons — in charge of the asylum: society.
Is it reversible? Heck, anything’s reversible in society! Just wait a generation, and it’ll all be different. Is it reversible without massive societal dislocation, is The Real Question.
I don’t know the answer to The Real Question. But it’s a lead pipe cinch that you and I, dudes, can’t sit on the sidelines anymore.
Or else it’ll only get worse.
(1) – “Genius” is in quotes because I subscribe to the idea that “genius is never destructive.” Not sure who said it, but it makes sense to me. It allows me to exile people like Hitler and Stalin — who surely had incredible talents, and “accomplished” much — from the ranks of those whom I consider geniuses. There is, in my mind, no such thing as an “evil genius.”
(2) – The Race Grievance Industry (the RGI) has had massive success in selling imaginary racism to America as well. For example: “institutional racism,” “systemic racism,” “internalized racism,” “subtle racism” and more.
These are all examples of unseeable, invisible, unmeasurable, unknowable, and indiscernible racism… except by those who are specially attuned, who are “properly” educated, who simply see it better than we, and who have the decoder ring. In other words: the RGI.
Or by those who are simply paranoid. Or, worse: those whose livelihoods are dependent on discerning racism in America where it doesn’t exist.
See here and here for example. I’ve pointed you to the oeuvre of two firm, unshakeable, true believers in unprovable, invisible, unknowable, likely nonexistent racism.
(3) – See, for example: Obergefell v. Hodges.
(4) – I googled it for you. I even found a left-wing source for you. It tells the story, along with pathetic, typically left-wing “rationales(5)” for Hunt’s exile from polite society.
(5) – In quotes because there’s nothing rational about it.