This is the place to which feminism has brought us all.
In India, the Prime Minister said something that caused anathema to rain down on his head. The upshot was that he was trying to praise the Bangladeshi Prime Minister, one Sheikh Hasina, who “despite being a woman,” he said, was admirably tough on terrorism.
Needless to say the response from woman all over the world was one of spittle-flecked outrage, scorn, sarcastic derision. Any feminist worth her salt immediately pronounced herself deeply offended.
Then somewhere in Europe one Tim Hunt, scientist and Nobel Laureate, said of women: “Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them, they cry.”
Wow! Needless to say, anathema had to be pronounced against this neanderthal, whose work and life, by the way, have never exhibited the slightest animus or prejudice against anyone. I know this because it’s common knowledge.
Same with the Prime Minister of India, whose work has never given the slightest hint of bias, or even mild disdain, toward women.
Women: get a grip! I’m a man, and I love you, more than I can ever say. It’s time, though, for you to hear some difficult truths.
Those of you who bought the past more than half-century of feminist flapdoodle have been acting like little spoiled brats; babies, lacking the maturity or character necessary to be contributing members of society.
You blanche at the slightest slight, the merest hint of a possibly misinterpretable word or phrase. You get all outraged — outraged! — at the thought that some man somewhere might exhibit even the teentsiest-weentsiest suggestion of a sign that his opinion toward women in general is anything less than jaw-agape awe and wonderment, anything less than sheer astonishment at your strength, at your wisdom, at your incredible abilities, your stupendous, unbelievable, powerful, sheer womanness.
News flash, women: we know that we have to act in public as if all women are titans of power and character and sturdy, unflagging steadfastness, simply being held back by us bumbling fools who, without you, wouldn’t be able to get out of our own ways. (That last isn’t too far from the truth, by the way. So’s the reverse.) But, behind the scenes, behind closed doors, conversing among ourselves, we men speak honestly, and we have nothing but eye-rolling disdain for the whining and the fragile, special needs, feebleness of feminism. That’s not sexism, it’s an accurate assessment of what feminism has done to society, to women and to men.
Neither sex could get along successfully without the other. Simple as that. We know that, you know that.
So we men act in work and in public as if women are all strong, and wise, and the only ones keeping the company, and the country, and the world from plunging into snarling anarchy, but every time women loudly and publicly get the vapors at these trivial things, we lose respect for those of you who do. Worse, we tend to worry that there are a whole lot more brainless bimbos like that around! At this point, in the view of most men, feminism has turned all too many women into whining, fragile, massively needy, sniveling wretches. Strength? Wisdom? In the minds of most men, things like the inability to poke fun at yourselves shows nothing more than feeble, self-absorbed, infantile nitwittery.
And that’s a real shame. Because women are not all whiny little half-wits. Some are, and it’s probably only the famous, the loud, the five-percent. But we have to act as if all are fragile little flowers in order to be sure to avoid offending the one self-obsessed, omphaloskepsistic nitwit among them.
The Indian Prime Minister said, “Despite being a woman … yada, yada, yada?” And that offended you?!? Seriously? If every woman were fired because she said something disparaging about men, there wouldn’t be a woman left in corporate America! I hear, “Well, he’s only a man.” Or, “What can you expect? He’s a man!” Or, “How would you/he know? He’s only a man!” Or, yep, “He did that despite being a man…” at least three times a day!
Guess what: I laugh at it! Why? Because it’s funny! It reflects a simple reality in inter-sex relations. See, I know about man-woman relationships. There is a simple law, probably the First Law: both sexes have a kind of general feeling that their own sex is a bit smarter, saner, stronger, more sensible, more reality-based, nicer, more civilized, wiser. Only, nowadays in western civilization has it become actual public policy that women are all those things more so than men. Despite the fact that men don’t believe it for a moment.
Another news flash: men went along with all this wackiness because they didn’t want to hurt or offend the fragile little women. That’s the only reason for the success of feminism’s whackadoodle ideology. Enough women fell for the whiny victimology, and the media pushed the Big Lie, but the only reason it all succeeded is because men rolled over for it.
It’s that idea chez men, that feminism will never be able to squash: that women need men’s protection, even now that we’ve tamed all the wildernesses and caged all the lions and bears that might threaten the family. So, when women seemed all to be whining about how horrible we men were, all we did was launch a massive effort at introspection and self-examination. Guess what: absent a few silly biases, with which we quickly dispensed, we men came out of that self-examination pretty darned good! At least western men did.
But, the feminists — those five-percent, whining, squeaky wheels — came along and pretended to speak for all women, and we men just said, “Uhhhh… okay. Whatever.” and went back to work, as we’d been doing for millennia. That was our mistake. With women’s cooperation, we should have simply reduced any silly barriers (only the silly ones, by the way) to employment or to elective office — most such barriers were imaginary anyway — and that was it.
But, here’s another news flash, women: Yes, you need our protection, and we’ve unstintingly provided it, but we’ve always needed your protection too. Not physically, but in the way that only women can provide for men: emotionally. It’s that protection that you’ve always provided that allowed us to be complete. To your everlasting discredit and shame, many of you allowed feminism to convince you to withdraw much of that protection, that support and vital sustenance. Should it be any surprise to you that while nodding their heads at all the women-are-strong this and women-are-wise that, and hear-us-roar the other thing, many men are really thinking, “Uhhh, yeah…not so much…“? Nod, nod, nod.
Why do we do this? Simple: a man can lose his job, his reputation, his entire livelihood, for demonstrating anything less than complete devotion to the idea that women are super-creatures, and definitely, absolutely, obviously superior to men.
But feminism is really nothing more than just propaganda and politics. It can be defeated bv real men and real women pushing back and saying little more than, “That’s absurd.”
Men and women have always needed each other and always will. It’s long, long past time we all took a deep breath, told feminism to go back under the rock from which it crawled, leave us alone and let us get on with being people. And feminists: despite being women, I suspect you can grow up and take the proverbial chill pill. 🙂
All the way back to the top. What’s happened since the little kerfuffle about Modi and Hunt? Modi is still the Prime Minister of India, and indications are that his career will not be ovary damaged (heh heh). Tim Hunt, however, was cashiered from all meaningful positions he held. In the Notes section, I’ve reproduced a portion of the Wikipedia entry for Hunt(1).
Oh, and about Hunt’s assertion? It’s not too far off from the truth in many workplaces. Yes, I have many, many personal, first- and second-hand observations supporting that assertion. Note that Hunt specified that he was talking about what happens in the lab. I’m guessing he just might know a little bit about that.
(1) Wikipedia on Tim Hunt: Hunt was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in 1991 and a foreign associate of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in 1999. In 2001, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine with Leland Hartwell and Sir Paul Nurse for their discoveries regarding cell cycle regulation by cyclin and cyclin-dependent kinases. In 2006, he was awarded the Royal Medal for “discovering a key aspect of cell cycle control, the protein cyclin which is a component of cyclin dependent kinases, demonstrating his ability to grasp the significance of the result outside his immediate sphere of interest”. He was also knighted in the 2006 Birthday Honours, and has said that he rarely uses the title ‘Sir’ and that it should not affect his scientific standing. His nomination for the Royal Society reads:
Distinguished for his studies of the control of protein synthesis in animal cells and for the discovery of cyclin, a protein which regulates the eukaryotic cell cycle. Together with Jackson and their students, he defined steps in formation of the initiation complex in protein synthesis, showing that the 40S ribosomal subunit binds initiator tRNA before it binds mRNA, and that this step was the target of inhibitors such as double-stranded RNA or haem deficiency. They showed that inhibition of protein synthesis is mediated by reversible phosphorylation of initiation factoreIF-2 by two distinct protein kinases and they elucidated the unexpected roles of thioredoxin and thioredoxin reductase in protein synthesis. With Ruderman and Rosenthal, he demonstrated selective translational control of mRNA in early clam embryos. This led to Hunt’s discovery of cyclin as a protein which is selectively destroyed in mitosis. He subsequently cloned and sequenced cyclin cDNA from sea urchins and frogs and showed by elegant mRNA ablation experiments that cyclin translation is necessary for mitosis in frog embryos. He has also shown that cyclin is a subunit of the mitosis-promoting factor which regulates entry into mitosis. His discovery and characterization of cyclin are major contributions to our knowledge of cell cycle regulation in eukaryotic cells.
Hunt is married to Mary Collins, who was also educated at the University of Cambridge. As of 2015, Collins is a professor of immunology at University College London. They have two daughters.
Doesn’t sound like a man who has any contempt for women. But that does sound like a dude who still has a lot to contribute to society. I mean, when was the last time you demonstrated selective translational control of mRNA in early clam embryos, or that you showed that inhibition of protein synthesis is mediated by reversible phosphorylation of initiation factoreIF-2 by two distinct protein kinases, or that you elucidated the unexpected roles of thioredoxin and thioredoxin reductase in protein synthesis? For Tim Hunt, that was: not all that long ago.