Let’s have a conversation about gender.
“There are two. Conversation over,” is exactly what a person healthy of mind and body will tell you. Or rather, should. Someone of advanced larrikinism might treat you to a lesson in the declension of certain nouns (not uncommon today) in Old English.
Frankness and irreverence are two qualities we expect in Australians, but they have been banished from the public monologue on gender.
Karl Stefanovic — full-time cuck who sometimes moonlights as a man — was in the headlines yet again for yet another gaffe. It’s only ever a gaffe if you agree it is one, and he did that when he apologised for calling transvestites “trannies.” Transgender people consider the term particularly derogatory and the fact it was not used with reference to them may have amplified their outrage. Would-be muggers in skirts self-evidently is not a laughing matter. On the other hand, Sonia Kruger thinking it inappropriate for school children to go in the draw to win money on account of their sexuality or gender is frankly risible.
Kruger’s recent thought crimes place her outside the scope of what is deemed acceptable to the contemporary Leftist coalition. Feminists, Islamists, professional ethnics, professional gays, the perpetually offended, and the perpetually offended on others’ behalves come together in a big tent conspiring to marginalise straight White males.
Ideological consistency is a luxury those engaged in naked power politics can afford to dispense with. Accordingly, where one party breaches another’s core non-negotiable tenets there is resounding silence.
Consider the case of domestic violence whose victims assume the figure of Christ in the feminists’ transvaluation of Western civilisation.
On Q&A Van Badham spun a joke made by Eddie McGuire as having a causal link with spousal murder! The audience questioner, Tarang Chawla, was inspired by his sister’s brutal murder at the hands of her jealous spouse to gloss over any problematic aspects of Indian culture. It’s “male entitlement,” period, you see. His narrative will continue to have legs so long as we cannot get accurate data due to endemic underreporting in ethnic communities. Periodically this code of silence is broken; activist Joumanah El Matrah offers the counter-point stating the key is “what has happened to women before they’ve got here,” which is to say their ethnocultural identity.
Without pausing for reflection, Badham and others ignore these inconvenient hate facts and continue to peddle their misleading and ethnomasochistic narrative. No one said there wouldn’t be collateral damage in this battle of the sexes. Sorry wom*n of colour, there’s a colour bar to joining the Systerhood.
Is there any wonder that the word “rape” has lost all meaning? This is well-trodden ground and I have little to add, except to say that feminists are creating the conditions for MGTOW to become mainstream. Which is a very dangerous game to be playing when the below replacement birthrate throughout the European world is taken into account. No rational male will liaise with the opposite sex if he thinks months later he will be facing a magistrate on charges of rape after the woman has come to regret her choice.
Paradoxically this neo-Puritan future has been brought to us by unchaining the female libido from patriarchal constraints. Allowing such freedom has revealed the female tendency to a mysticism revolving around their carnality. It truly is a primordial fixture; the fat positive feminists are invoking the Upper Paleolithic fertility cult mimicking the shape of Venus figurines and others become more atavistic still with “free bleeding.”
Cultic rituals involving body hair, barbarous facial and body piercings, tattoos, and periods do nothing to dispel the idea of them being hysterical frightbats. They will combine snarky commentary with GIFs until they exhaust hashtag ideas in telling us otherwise, and from their perspective they have a point. Yes, perspective. If there is one golden thread connecting the examples above, it is that they are examples of people viewing the world subjectively. This only becomes objectionable when we expect it to match up nicely with (patriarchal) observable reality.
Lacking consistency might be incidentally Machiavellian but primarily arising out of female lived experience. Which would go a long way in explaining the narrative collision that has yet to be teased out of the politics of female sanitary product taxation, or, I bleed therefore gibs me dat.
Feminists made it a national issue under the Abbott government that condoms and lubricant are GST exempt but tampons and other sanitary products are not. The only reason for condoms to be classified as an essential product like bread and tea (the elite finally learnt their lesson after the American Revolution) would be for eugenic reasons but those for whom the policy is intended wouldn’t use condoms anyway making it a moot point. Why are tampons essential? If they are essential to being a woman then those “women” who have no need for them are not women by definition. Biological sex has been snuck in through the backdoor replacing socially constructed gender. In keeping with his sensitivity to these gender issues Bill Shorten chose not to make innate biological differences part of Labor’s 2016 election platform.
It is an exercise in will power resisting the urge to make a listicle on the top five feminist narrative collisions. If we were to, “matriarchy leading to world peace” would be the myth to beat especially if female behaviour in the workplace is illustrative. Countering this the Sisterhood writing at HuffPo and the Grauniad resort to special pleading from cherry-picked data to construct a veil over reality made from equal parts The Patriarchy and a spooky metaphysics where thoughts reach into the world. Alas this is not a listicle and if it were it would not be constructive in correcting the imbalance on the topic.
After all, men are responsible for this situation. The preposterousness of late stage feminism is the product of men acquiescing to female demands. Ones that they had long theorised as possible before being nudged to put them into practice. As Harvey C. Mansfield convincingly argues in Manliness the gender-neutral society unfolding today had its foundations laid indirectly by the liberal tradition. If individuals and their liberty are the locus women are included for they are no less individuals than men.
It was only a matter of time that inoffensive notions of formal equality would be swept aside for substantive ones hell-bent on achieving equal outcomes. Affirmative action is put in place to promote women in areas where they have little interest in pursuing like politics. The abstract objectivity of male thought patterns taken to autistic extremes projects itself onto women expecting them to have the same inclinations, desires, values, and outlook.
The modernist project of overcoming necessity through the mastery of nature has gone digital but these earlier concerns remain. Tech gurus planning the latest disruption to the dating app market spend just as much time scratching their heads wondering why only one in four IT graduates are women. The government agrees this is a problem and too reaches conspiratorial conclusions about cultural obstacles limiting female choice. Women choosing not to enter STEM is not really their choice and they have no choice in autists white knighting for them to start a career in STEM.
Traditionalists know that a faster CPU will not save us and that forcing parity between the sexes is impossible and if it weren’t it would not be desirable. Yet, so long as male autism and female mysticism continue to mutate with modernity gender relations will remain distorted.
There needs to be a return to the view that men and women complement one another with their differences which becomes fully realised within the institution of marriage. There will always be exceptions but without this rule in place the future of our race and nation are imperilled.