Feminism’s vision of future “man”
As we all know one of the core tennets of Feminism is the (scientifically unproven) claim that there are no inherent differences between the sexes. “Gender”, feminists claim, is nothing more than a social construct. In effect, the evil Patriarchy has been oppressing women and forcing them into distinct gender roles that they *themselves* never really wanted by their own volition. If only boys would start playing with barbie dolls enough and women roughed things up once in a while everything would be shiny.
I suspect that is one of the reasons why feminists have programmed women to become crass imitations of the baser kind of man. If for nothing else simply to prove their socially constructed gender assumption…was viable…that grrrl power would prevail and the ‘gender leap’ was possible.
Now, without delving too deep into the science of the matter a few rather apparent issues seem to me to indicate the complete and utter folly of this entire school of thought:
- If gender is a social construct and gender roles are consequently dependant on *individual* societal conditions why is it, then, that throughout history pretty much *all* human civilizations have had – roughly speaking – the same or at the very least similar gender roles? Why is it that altogether different and physically segregated cultures such as the Polynesians and the Irish developed in essence the same gender roles? If they were never in contact with each other and isolated from each other as well as from any other culture as well as facing completely different evironmental conditions…how come the same gender roles popped up?
- Why is it that men have invented about 99.999% of all human inventions? Why is it that basically every new and groundbreaking company has been started by men? Why is it that men sailed to America and braved all the seas of the world? Why have literally all great cultural works been done by men, all religions created by men? And, conversely, why have women failed so abysmally in all these fields?
1. only makes sense if we assume these roles are *not* in fact socially constructed but biologically hardwired. Any other theory fails to explain the essentially universal nature of gender roles.
2. Here feminists usually start screeching, foaming from the mouth and spouting some gibberish like “women were chained to walls, barefoot, pregnant all the time, denied education and thus could not invent anything. It’s not their faaaaaault, it’s the evil patriarchy, you stupid, smelly troglodyte.”
Aha. So only women were oppressed and had no time to invent things? And men were sitting around leisurely and were encouraged to just invent along? As easy as that? Well what about Copernicus then? I mean…how much encouragement did Copernicus get from the inqusition? They effectively tortured him becaused he dared say the world was not the center of the universe.
And what about Jesus? He sure as hell wasn’t exactly boosted by some affirmative action plan so he could start christianity, get nailed to the cross and die for our sins.
But it goes on: Arguably, a field where since time immemorial women have *always* been natural professionals is the field of menstruation. The woman’s curse, the monthly period was something women have had to deal with in all ages, for thousands of years ever since the first hairy Homo Sapiens started his rise from the animal kingdom. So women have literally had thousands of years to derive a means to mitigate this fundamental biological fact. Have they invented anything in this regard? Hell no. It was a man that actually invented the tampon*.
And what about child birth? Were women “oppressed” here as well? And what about midwives? Weren’t they a female profession that assisted women giving birth for thousands of years? Surely they gained a lot of experience, right? So it would stand to reason, then, that this *massive* experience would at some point translate into inventions, right? Wrong again, Hosé. They invented *nothing*, *nada*, *zilch*. It was not until the 16th century that a *man*, a French Huguenot and ironically a family patriarch, invented the forceps, a tool with which to spread the vagina during birth and thus ease the birthing process.
Next in line the 19th century: During this time upper middle class fathers paid great attention to their daughters education. They were supposed to be well educated, cultured and refined to make good wives for (other) upper class men. They were especially well trained from young age in music, learning to play the piano and all kinds of other instruments. So with all this training one would assume there would be at least some *female Mozart* romping around somewhere, eh? Well forget it man. You see, the patriarchy again. Evil oppression made them feel unhaaapy and that’s why they couldn’t get things done. Simples.
At the same time the blacks in the US had just recently gotten out of slavery. You wouldn’t assume they got all that much education during that time now, would you? Yet *black men* developed Blues, Jazz etc. etc. How does that compare? How does that add up?
Any way one looks at the matter…claiming there are no differences between the sexes is plain and utter hogwash. I can provide at least 3 theories as to why women don’t invent things and men do (derived from observations and experiences with women).
- Women don’t invent stuff / start companies / create outstanding art because they *don’t have to*. Simply said, because women have the upper hand in sexual dynamics, because men compete with other men for access to womens’ fanny, women themselves do not have to compete. They get to chose the most successful male for mating after *he has demonstrated his supreme abilities*. Womens’ default posture is thus *reactive apathy*. Simultaneously, the fundamentals of female hypergamy dictate that men, on the other hand, are under *immense pressure* to be successful because they know – subconsciously – that the top of the male pyramid gets the most muff. *That* on a fundamental level might be their motivation to invent, get rich or write novels / paint pictures etc.
- Men’s curiosity is far more general than women’s. Simply said, you can talk to men about a great range of topics and most men will be *naturally curious*, and engage in a lively debate. But try to talk to women about technical stuff, history, economics, philosophy and all that. For the most part, their eyes glaze over, they phase out and lose themselves in total boredom. They are simply not interested. That, in any case, is my (subjective) experience after talking to women on many occasions in many different settings. To my knowledge, women’s range of interest is rather limited: gossip, sexuality/romance, psychology, wellness/beauty & astrology / esoterics. That’s about it. Of course these topics (minus astrology/esoterics) are all perfect *if your core interest is to maximize your power (sexuality) and your ability to manipulate men*. Conclusion: women do not invent things because they are a) too limited in their intellectual interests and b) too busy trying to scheme/manipulate men.
- Men are *natural truth seekers* while women are *natural deceivers of both others and themselves*. Reality oftentimes sucks. Looking in the mirror, looking issues in the eye is painful business. It has been my experience that women oftentimes prefer the comfortable lie to brutal honesty. Some men do this too (manginas?). But most men, in my experience, will thank you for honesty, even painful honesty. Obviously this ability also aids when the aim is to get to the bottom of things i.e. gain new insights.