Erasing Women

Well, it’s really kind of sad – that erasing biological XX-chromosome no-kidding 100 percent female women seems the ultimate endpoint of early 21st century popular prog-thought, as mad and illogical as that might seem as an ambition, or rather an idée fixe. The ancient jape of a fox hunt described as ‘the unspeakable in hot pursuit of the inedible’ comes to mind, only this is the deranged in pursuit of the unachievable. As little as I think of the long-time and loud professional Feminists-with-a-capital-F (or LT&LPF(F) as I call them), and their tendency to view all men as potential rapist and abusers, I would have expected them to be assiduous in protesting for the actual physical safety of biological women in women-only spaces like restrooms, locker rooms, battered woman shelters, hospital wards and prisons. Alas, they would seem to have fixated on the availability of reproductive health or as the rest of us call it, abortion, as the great fight for the LT&LPF(F); the hill upon which they wish to see fetal humans die. I mean; what the hell, LT&LPF(F) – you look away from the physical safety of real, no-kidding vulnerable women … and focus on the rights, ways and means of killing fetal humans. Good job, sisters. (Not.)

I previously would have assumed that the LT&LPF(F) would have looked askance at biological male athletes declaring themselves to identify as female … and walking away with first or second place in track, swim and wrestling meets. That pretense strikes me a particularly egregious; honestly, while I am not a biologist as my mother and father were, my memory of childhood roughhousing with my brother and his friends is quite vivid. The last time when I could hold my own in a physical contest with any of them was at the age of twelve or thirteen, just before puberty hit all of us. That certain born-male athletes have hit on the scheme of claiming to be a woman in order to score wins is a scam. It’s low, dishonest and a cheat. I’m amazed that such can look at themselves in a mirror, without shame and embarrassment at going so low for a win and a medal.

Sexual dimorphism, as Daddy lectured us on nature walks, is a real thing: as it applies to humans, males of our own human species tend to be taller, heavier, and better muscled, and clustered at the extremes of the Bell curve as far as intelligence goes. Females tend to be smaller, lighter, with a higher percentage of body fat, cluster at the middle of the intelligence Bell curve, and be a little better at fine muscle skills. That, and we can have babies; growing them within our own bodies for nine months and nurturing them for many months afterwards, whereas males can really only get them started, which takes a matter of energetic minutes at the most basic level.
We all of us, male and female alike, have our own skills and strengths – and honestly, I have always appreciated those strengths, as well as liking men, generally. (Men are cool, they focus on the immediate, they fix things, build things, and fight for what they value, all qualities which I have always found terribly attractive.) So why now are progressives wedded to the notion of deleting biological women? Is it just the latest and most attractive trend among progressives? Or do they really-o-truly-o hate and envy the female, as some of the early radical professional feminists (who hated men, unreservedly) used to claim.
Discuss as you wish.

44 thoughts on “Erasing Women”

  1. To be clear, Death 6, your contention is that they are reading that ‘women’ are lower on the progressive stack than ‘trans,’ and that fighting for women vs. trans incursion risks being tossed out of the stack entirely, in much the same way that ‘Asians’ have become a flavor of ‘White’ in the racial stack?

    Which is not an unreasonable position to take; see the TERF (Tran-Exclusive Radical Feminist) wars in Britain, most famously J.K. Rowling being (figuratively) pilloried for her support of the notion that biology matters. There’s absolutely no question where trans is with respect to feminism in the progressive stack.

    Couple that with disagreement labeling you as ‘evil,’ and it becomes untenable to cooperate in the areas you agree while disagreeing on other things. And abortion is one of those things where large portions of the other side agree that it’s a good v. evil dichotomy.

    So, in far more words, I more or less agree with Death 6: they can’t confront the trans community without being expelled as heretics and they don’t believe they can effectively advocate for abortion without the backing of the progressive stack.

  2. It is just another wrinkle in the ongoing debasement of the concept of motherhood. The LT&LPF(F)s don’t want women to become mothers. When the ideal “women” becomes someone without a uterus, the failure to deliver children is guaranteed.

    The LT&LPF(F)s have done a good job of convincing many women that stamping papers in a government cubicle all day is the basis of a meaningful life, whereas birthing and raising the next generation would be a waste of their life. Yet without good mothers, there will be no next generation and no future society. As Mark Steyn has observed — The future belongs to those who turn up.

    Sad! For most of recorded history, society survived only because women spent most of their lives pregnant and raising children because of the very high death rates among the young. Medical advances final reached the level where a woman needs to raise only 2.1 children to maintain society (instead of the dozen+ that was historically required), creating new vistas for a woman’s fulfilling life — and yet the LT&LPF(F)s have persuaded so many women not even to try for 2.1. It is the end of an era — and of a civilization.

  3. If the Republicans were serious about the current situation, they would be running a campaign whereby the next Republican House would return to normal fiscal year budgeting and do away with”continuing resolutions”. A good start would be for the 2023 House to adopt the budget of 2006 and eliminate everything since then.

  4. The underlying issue here is the absolutist notion that all individuals are the same, and therefore interchangable. No one has any innate qualities or abilities, and so no exceptional allowances need to be granted.
    It’s a fine belief system for totalitarians.

  5. I’m to lazy to look up how many years the Republicans were in the majority since 2006, but what makes you think they would even consider that? They’re just as anxious to spend your money as the Democrats.

  6. I remain baffled that anyone would consider Thomas to be a woman, rather than the loser make athlete that can only win against those considerably less powerful than himself.
    When I was a child, there was a cartoon, Tooter the Turtle. In every episode, Tooter had decided that he wanted to be something heroic, a fireman, fighter pilot, train engineer, accountant, etc. He would go and beg Mr.Wizard, a lizard with a thick German accent, to turn him into what he wanted to be.

    Mr. Wizard would give in, and transform Tooter into what he wanted to be, and Tooter would promptly foul up. His burning plane would be spinning to the ground, with Tooter screaming, ” Help me, Mr. Wizard, I don’t want to be a pilot anymore “!

    Mr. Wizard would bring him back, and tell him, ” Tooter, Tooter, how many times must I tell you, be vat you ist, und not vat you ist not, volks vat do dis, ist der happiest lot “.
    I think the world would be a much happier place, if people would just pay more attention to what German lizards said

  7. They’re actually not all that keen on those who fix things, build things, and fight for what they value.

  8. Why have the women’s “rights” organizations been silent as pseudo-females (aka men) compete in women’s sports events?
    IMHO, it’s because these organizations are dominated by leftist lesbians who never had any desire to promote the cause of hetero-women; their ONLY goal was to promote the lesbian, and by extension, the gay movement.
    That’s it.
    So they really do not care if men compete as women, because these “men,” are either gay men and /or just as likely, wish to become lesbian “women.”

  9. Women are whining about being erased? Get in line — white males have been undergoing erasure for a lot longer. They are officially western society’s untermenschen

  10. IMHO, it’s because these organizations are dominated by leftist lesbians who never had any desire to promote the cause of hetero-women; their ONLY goal was to promote the lesbian, and by extension, the gay movement.
    That’s it.

    I agree. The whole feminist movement began with mostly lesbians leading. It was kind of amusing when the president of NOW in California was fired because she said OJ was guilty. That shows you where the prog virtue profile ranks women, even lesbian women.

  11. I am just cynically amused because all those loud and proud professional F-capital feminists are suddenly not around, when real women and girls are being harmed.
    Just like I am bitterly and cynically amused at the sudden silence of the no-blood-for-oil candle-lit-vigil-for-peace crowd, when there’s a real prospect of the Biden maladministration bungling us into WWIII. You’d think that the Russians would be paying triple to get anti-war protests launched, when it’s a matter of involving the US against Russia…

  12. }}} So why now are progressives wedded to the notion of deleting biological women?

    Oh, but they are out to delete biological men, too — it’s just a different process. By demonizing men, they make them not look to reproduce, as this means entering a mine field of dangers, which any man with sense avoids. So only the shitheels play, and thence not only are they the only ones who win at all (which reinforces their existence by reproduction, if nothing else), but they also reinforce and justify their ill perception of all men.

    As I have been saying for over two decades now: PostModern Liberalism is a Social Cancer. Literally, not Figuratively.

  13. }}} I am just cynically amused because all those loud and proud professional F-capital feminists are suddenly not around, when real women and girls are being harmed.

    Why? They weren’t around in the 1990s, when Clinton, their champion of “workplace rights” was found to be a workplace abuser. They had nothing whatsoever negative to say about his behavior towards the other White House Interns — not one of whom got cushy jobs at the Pentagon, lucrative book contracts, and other rewards for being sexually harassed….

    Hell, IIRC, it was the then-president of NOW who said she’d get on her knees for him as long as he made sure they had the ability to freely abort early fetuses at will.

  14. No, they weren’t indeed, OBH, when the potato-nosed grifter was making hay with the interns … yeah, when the POTUS was being excused behavior which would have sunk the career of any military officer with an underling … that’s when it all became screamingly obvious to me what the Professional Feministas were really all about. They had been for decades indignant about male bosses extorting sexual favors from underlings, even if the underlings were volunteers.
    What a sh*t show. I’m old enough to remember when there was an anti-abortion feminist faction.

  15. Thanks Sgt. Mom.

    And describing Thomas’s (and similar victories) as cheating (cheating nature, perhaps as well as the sport itself) – passing yourself off as something you are not is a big con. Lia Thomas is not, in important and applicable ways, a woman. If as all those conservative economists like to discuss, happiness comes from earned success, it would seem that this “triumph” sets the athlete up for a good deal of unhappiness (often projected on the external but really internal).

    The subjugation or even denial of nature in terms of humans has not resulted in good outcomes in science, government, or culture. Yes, I’ve always wondered why the people who were theoretically representing women were so often people who considered women men light, somehow denied equity by our culture. And so some hated men, some just wanted to be in what they saw as men’s unfettered state. We have our strengths, our special powers, in varying levels just as men have theirs in varying levels – and fortunately as humans we share some special powers (or is it just that the powers are shared and the expression of them differs to greater or lesser degrees?). To see women as powerful is to appreciate difference. It does not diminish a man to respect a woman nor vice-versa.

    I think some saw early twentieth century thinking putting us on that road. The scientific age valued the theoretical, the industrial world the mechanical. The virgin holding her infant was not, Adams complained, as valued as the dynamo of energy.

    But women like energy, too, and our culture has given all of us a lot from the mechanical. However, balance has been lost (and I think the Greenies may be the ones farthest from being the human, the real – they simplify history rather than accepting its complexity.)

    Our culture does not value childbirth and does value abortion seems a significant indicator of a contempt not just for the bourgeois, the domestic, the traditional – indeed nature as well as religion – but also a movement toward the mechanical, the cynical, the ugly. (And what could be uglier than the apparent desire to groom the young – seeing pawns in adults’ sexual or other narcissistic dramas). This may be Gramscian. Nihilistic. (And then there’s the grooming of children.

  16. The coming presidency of France by Marine Le Pen might be a significant step. Margaret Thatcher was long enough ago to be unknown to those born in recent decades. Angela Merkel has had a loss of reputation recently, and her weakness has been exposed. Maybe Le Pen can restore some respect for women.

  17. We hear a lot of blather from the Left about “harm” these days. They tell us people are “harmed” if they are exposed to opinions they disagree with, when the opposite is the case. When it comes to real harm, I can’t imagine anything worse than poisoning and mutilating a child in order to “transgender” it, thereby destroying its ability to have children of its own one day.

  18. }}} When it comes to real harm, I can’t imagine anything worse than poisoning and mutilating a child in order to “transgender” it, thereby destroying its ability to have children of its own one day.

    The more white people they do this to, the fewer white people there will be.

    Yeah, not seeing much of the black community listening to this shit, so….

    Just another aspect of that self-hatred inherent in the PostModern Liberal Cancer.

  19. An awful lot of this crap got started “back when” all those enlightened types at the end of the 19th Century thought they were brighter than everyone else, and knew how to “fix things”. Which they proceeded to do, screwing over generations yet unborn.

    If you go back and look, the nuttiness began with the whole “Put motherhood on a pedestal…” mentality that eventually got us unlimited suffrage. It also got us an electorate that has tended to make choices not on cold, hard fact, but emotion. If you look at many of the elections since then, what you’ll find is an inordinate amount of “Well, I like the way he/she/it looks…” and very little examination of either character or previous performance record. Skewed election results really started coming in about the time television got off the ground, and here we are.

    Anecdotally, I have to report that nearly all of the women that I’ve ever discussed politics with are focused on things I find utterly insane–One relative wouldn’t vote for Palin because she didn’t like the “way she dressed…”. Another voted for Clinton twice, despite knowing all the shady crap he was involved in, because “…he looks nice…”. A third wouldn’t vote for Trump because they didn’t like his hair, and found his voice annoying.

    You form your electorate out of a mass of people where half of them make decisions based on these things, and… Well, what the hell do you expect? Good choices?

    I’m not going to make a claim that the males of my acquaintance are any better, in some regards, but there is this: I’ve been able to persuade many of those of their folly through factual discussion and presentation of facts. None of the women I know have ever once done that–They know what they know, and they make decisions based on “feels”. I’ve got one female relative I know of, who was an absolute rationalist when it came to voting–She’d pull out the records, study the candidates, and then make her choices. She’s the only one I know of who did anything like that, out of around thirty-odd women who I’ve ever discussed politics with, or been around enough to safely say how they thought, politically.

    This is pretty much how we got where we are–Voting based on “feelings” and emotion. None of the things that have happened in regards to race, gender, or any of that were accomplished based on rational thought, or well-worked plans. It’s all been an appeal to emotions and some childish ideal of “fairness”, not careful calculation and consideration of pragmatic plans. Hell, for most of the modern American electorate, pragmatism and calculation are considered outright sins. I remember telling people that those COVID checks were going to cause inflation, and I was told to shut up, people needed that money to get by… Now look at them: All that money spent has pumped up inflation numbers that are going to wind up taking back tenfold what they got in free money, and who do they blame for it all…? Bad luck; Putin; anyone but their own childish “gimme dat” mentality.

    It’s all the same with the whole gender crap: The “gimme dats” want what they want, and no amount of rational thought can dissuade them from taking it, even when it results in their own destruction. The activists made all sorts of headway gathering up “male privilege”, but they left “male responsibility” laying on the ground, where they also abandoned “female responsibility” while maintaining “female prerogative”. Results lie before us; ain’t nobody happy, not mama, not papa, and certainly not the kids they’re all essentially abandoning to the tender mercies of the state and the activist class.

    Changing conditions certainly obsoleted much of the old rationale for how we organized society; the problem is, with what we’re doing, is that nobody ever sat down to say clearly what was going on, why it was, and how to ensure it went forward fairly. We’re also really jumping the gun on a lot of things that haven’t and may never eventuate–Sex roles that are due to physical sexual dimorphism being a key one. Women may be able to compete with males in arenas where mechanization allows their generally smaller and weaker bodies to compete fairly, but there are fields where that just ain’t so, as of yet–The NFL and the infantry being two that I can think of off the top of my head.

    You can’t point these things out, though, because… Feelings. Which is an indicator of a fundamentally unserious society, one bound for self-induced destruction when the reality bills come due.

  20. If there was ever a golden age where American elections were decided by the electorate coolly weighing the issues and disinterestedly voting exclusive for the good of the country without allowing personal considerations to intrude, I missed it. Washington’s major campaign expense when he ran for the office in Virginia was whisky and ale to help the electors make up their minds. When he ran for President, his surrogates did the same. Is it worse to vote for someone because you like the way he parts his hair than because you like his whisky?

    Oddly, considering my flawless judgement, in every election I’ve ever voted in, there have been people that nevertheless voted differently, some, after I had shared my wisdom with them without even being asked. Go figure.

  21. So… You cannot observe a change, since universal suffrage and the television came in? Huh.

    I find it interesting that there are so many odd… Coincidences? Shall we call them that…? Which all seem to coincide with these changes to the system–Senators being selected by popular vote, the income tax, all of that. Which, along with that other wonderful idea, the Prohibition, would not have happened absent universal suffrage.

    You also look at the whole nutbar emotionalism that has taken over politics. I cannot remember the sort of vehemence we’ve got now being at all prevalent, back in the days of my youth. We had one couple in our extended family where the husband was a Democrat and his wife was a Republican, and they jokingly treated it as though they were adherents of some college football team–There wasn’t the sort of insane polarization up until recently, where if you dare voice an opinion, people will shout you down and try to beat you for daring to question the popular wisdom. That happened only rarely, back in the old days, and was generally disapproved of. Hell, Lindbergh got relatively polite treatment for his isolationist statements and support of the Germans, when you go back and look at it. Project that into today’s world, and try to imagine him speaking out on behalf of Nazis…

    Things changed, during that turn-of-the-century period. And, not for the better. Was it because of universal suffrage? The various other changes made, that enabled the progressive agenda to become general policy, unquestioned and unquestionable?

  22. about the earlier issue

    According to Judge Jay Bybee of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, those in favor of popular elections for senators believed two primary problems were caused by the original provisions: legislative corruption and electoral deadlocks.[12] There was a sense that senatorial elections were “bought and sold”, changing hands for favors and sums of money rather than because of the competence of the candidate. Between 1857 and 1900, the Senate investigated three elections over corruption. In 1900, for example, William A. Clark had his election voided after the Senate concluded that he had bought votes in the Montana legislature. But analysts Bybee and Todd Zywicki believe this concern was largely unfounded; there was a “dearth of hard information” on the subject.[13] In more than a century of legislative elections of U.S. senators, only ten cases were contested for allegations of impropriety.[14]

  23. Kirk,
    I seem to remember some rather heated discussions breaking out around 1860. Some emotionalism too. Hard to blame TV or CNN.

    I’m not going to buy the idea that passion and emotion in politics as a recent development.

    As far as only 10 contested senatorial elections during the era of legislature selection and considering the general general corruption of states like New York. I suspect many Senators were made uncomfortable by the idea of open scrutiny.

  24. Agree with Kirk that female suffrage was probably part of the cause of the leftward shift in our politics. Another part of the cause must be the US educational system.

  25. I don’t think the issue was so much the female vote as it was the shift from an electorate where you had some qualifications vs. one where everyone got the vote.

    The thing that just struck me, thinking back on it? That one example in my personal circle of female voters who studied the issues and persons she was voting for, not going by “feels”? She was a self-made businesswoman. The vast majority of the other women whose voting habits I know were and are all either dependent on others, or government employees themselves.

    So… The sex is probably irrelevant, and the real issue is that the add-ons to the electorate after the early Progressive era were mostly people who didn’t have to work for a living, and who were enabled thusly to vote for other people’s money. When you’re not the primary breadwinner, it’s pretty easy to casually vote for the guy who’s gonna promise largesse off the public fisc.

    Today’s “gimme dats” grew out of that mentality. We probably should have set suffrage on the question of “Are you earning the money and paying the taxes that are going to pay for these things…? No? No vote for you…”.

    I think I’d be comfortable with the idea of disenfranchising government employees, as well. It should be an either-or proposition: You get to vote, or you get to have a union. Not both. Probably not either, if I had my way. The founders did not think in terms of the mass of government employees we now have sucking the blood out of the taxpaying class.

  26. The founders certainly assumed people voted on emotional grounds – that was the reason they wanted three competing branches of government, why they wanted the senate to be elected for longer terms, why they wanted territory to spread out understanding and avoid mob rule. All those were considered ways to lead the populace to calm down, think farther ahead, etc. The whole idea of the Federalist mother was that women were supposed to be educated and taught to reason – who else was going to teach the future voters to analyze, to think, to see what worked.. Those arguments were strongly rational – none of this, let’s have a congress that looks like us but rather one that thinks before they act.

    Three figures who describe their growth in terms of rationality but perhaps even more the testing of what works, of the experiential are Frederick Douglass (who describes a real “coming to consciousness” in the old sense of coming to awareness and rational argument), Sowell (who said it wasn’t until he was out of college and saw that leftist policies didn’t work economically), and Krauthammer (who wrote speeches for Mondale and was a leftist, seeing that Reagan’s policies actually worked, he moved to the right – not without a sentimental pull: he said he couldn’t vote against Mondale because he owed some allegiance to him and thought he was a nice guy – besides Reagan was clearly going to win without his vote). Anyway, I think these guys are pretty exceptional.

    I’ll admit that we women tend a bit more toward the emotional and women who consider themselves intellectual are more likely to talk about the cut of a candidate’s hair, etc. than are men. I think women soften disciplines – teaching, theology, lots of things – and make them weaker and less abstract, rigorous, etc. After all, we really don’t have as many in the upper tail (nor the lower one).

    But it always seemed to me that we needed to listen to our gut and then figure out if the why for that gut feel was actually rational, appropriate, experientially proven. And some times our guts had something to offer – not as rationality, perhaps, but as intuition.

    Yes, I’ve begun to think being a self-made business person is the best training for thinking about politics, though a little history, philosophy, etc. doesn’t hurt.

  27. Another observation: Amy Barrett and K. D. McFarland are both modern thinkers; it is interesting that both see their roles as women and wives as important (Barrett’s comments about her husband and partner were moving and noted the kind of relationship that a quite rational woman can have with her husband and children as well as the law; McFarland noted that her greatest pride was being matriarch of the McFarland clan and the decade or two she took out to be mother was a wonderful time – but she came back with a fresher and deeper and less trite understanding of what China was doing than those who had never left the world of “rationality” for that of domesticity.)

  28. Some other important causes of Angry politics:

    –the excesses of the ‘self-esteem’ movement, which has resulted in a lot of people whose egos are so fragile that they cannot brook any disagreement.

    –‘elite overproduction’, ie, a lot of people who have been led to think that their college degree means that they will automatically become a well-off, influential, and high-status person.

  29. –the excesses of the ‘self-esteem’ movement, which has resulted in a lot of people whose egos are so fragile that they cannot brook any disagreement.

    –‘elite overproduction’, ie, a lot of people who have been led to think that their college degree means that they will automatically become a well-off, influential, and high-status person.

    I think these two things are inextricably intertwined, along with the way we’ve enshrined the holy “test” as our main measure of social virtue. There’s not a hell of a lot of actual performance evaluation in anything our vaunted “elites” do, other than on tests and the overly-academized instruction they get. There’s limited to no “practicum” involved in the way we go about selecting and progressing these people through the ranks. Add in the fact that there’s also no longer any sort of accountability, and here we are.

    Bluntly put, we’re doing a lot of this absolutely wrong. If you’re a politician or administrator managing something, and it isn’t working? You ought to be fired, and blackballed from working in the field again. I’m not talking zero-defects management, either, where the least little screw-up gets you done over. I’m talking about the huge errors, where the idiots in charge just keep getting promoted higher and higher. The assclowns that killed the Colorado River, back in 2014? They not only didn’t get fired, they got promoted, and given performance bonuses that year.

    That sort of thing is what’s killing this civilization of ours, and if we don’t start doing things differently, the Fall of Rome is going to look like a church picnic by comparison.

  30. Yeah, they have gotten away with stuff that would have you or me fired. Since I work in the nuke power industry, I would be blackballed forever and might even have gone to prison. I know guys who had that happen for them for their epic screw-ups and attempts to either cover it up or blame it on someone else.

  31. David F: “–‘elite overproduction’, ie, a lot of people who have been led to think that their college degree means that they will automatically become a well-off, influential, and high-status person.”

    It is Politically Incorrect to notice, but a lot of that “elite overproduction” refers to women. The great expansion of college-level education since WWII has been based in significant part on including many more females — to the point now that the majority of college students are females.

    Of course it is great that smart women can choose to get educated and contribute to economic production. But an unfortunately high percentage of them end up as overhead bureaucrats, stamping papers in government cubicles — sand in the gears. And at the same time, women as a class are abandoning their existentially important role as mothers birthing & raising the next generation. Birthrates are below replacement level, especially among the overproduced elite.

    This is a tricky subject, but it all gets back to the denigration by a certain kind of feminist of the essential female role of motherhood. Sadly, it is not sustainable.

  32. A huge part of the problem is that the “smart” people denigrate and ignore the vital role women play in the social support structure, the old-school family-based one where every woman’s goal was her very own tiny piece of the future, her children and her husband. The raw fact is that the Progressive/Communist/Socialist types saw all those little cellular structures as threats to their plans, and did everything they could to tear what they represent apart–The very fabric of society. I don’t think women in the aggregate are happier, now that they’ve replaced individual husbands and kids with the government agencies. After all, your caseworker won’t be there to warm your bed at night, and the sense of accomplishment you get from a well-run household supported by a decent man, along with well-raised children won’t be there when it’s you, a couple of kids whose sperm donors you aren’t too sure of the identity of, and a welfare check.

    That’s actually the transaction made, between the old mode and the new. Replace all those little clots of family connection with a relationship with the state in the stead of your own little piece of the future. Is it any wonder that women don’t want to have kids at all, when their partner is effectively an anonymous agency? Is it better to have the state and taxpayer as a sugar-daddy, or the traditional male breadwinner?

    I suspect that a lot of the angst felt by women stems from the realization that they’ve been conned. Those expensive educations that they’re still paying for aren’t producing the goods, in terms of financial or personal rewards, which makes them angry as hell. Anecdotally, I know one woman in her mid-thirties who feels robbed, because she did “all the right things…”, and finds herself unable to make her student loan payments, which stems from the poor choices she made about what sort of education to spend her loans on. And, of course, she blames everyone but herself for the debt trap she’s in, where she can’t get off the treadmill of low-paying jobs her degree qualifies her for. The fact that a Walmart truck driver makes three or four times as much money as she does just makes her incandescent with rage…

    You get down to it, and the raw fact is, a lot of what we’re doing as a society simply does not actually work. We need a reset, but not the sort of one that the idiots in Davos are trying to set up.

  33. That certain born-male athletes have hit on the scheme of claiming to be a woman in order to score wins is a scam. It’s low, dishonest and a cheat.

    It’s not a scam. No male athlete, however desperate, would undergo castration and the rest of it, just to win second-class prizes.

    It is, rather, individuals desperate to be recognized as female demanding complete acceptance as the chosen gender. Which demand is being endorsed by social leftists eager to épater les traditionnaux, and conceded by authorities infiltrated and intimidated by the Left.

    (I note that “Lia Thomas” is apparently intact at this time. If Thomas goes through with full “transition”, that would appear to confirm not-a-scam. If OTOH Thomas “detransitions” instead, that would raise the question of whether all Thomas’ “female” performances become void.)

  34. “It’s not a scam. No male athlete, however desperate, would undergo castration and the rest of it, just to win second-class prizes.”

    I think you underestimate the drive those second-rate male athletes have for the endorphin hits they get off of victory. For them, “champion athlete” is a bigger part of their self-image than “male”. Which, to my mind, makes them a very inferior sort of actual biologic male indeed.

    Absent some means of examining what these sad creatures are actually thinking, however? I can’t prove it one way or another, and neither can anyone else. Frankly, I think any sort of sportsmanlike athlete who was genuinely gender-confused would eschew competing against genuine females in their competitions, but that’s obviously not a part of these creature’s makeup.

    The other obvious “tell” with this? That would be the fact that you see precisely zero real champion-level males “transitioning” to female, and then competing against biologic women. They don’t need to, therefore they don’t. It’s all second-raters, ones who’d never get out of the middle-ranked center of the pack.

  35. It’s not a scam. No male athlete, however desperate, would undergo castration and the rest of it, just to win second-class prizes.

    I think it will be interesting to see what Thomas does after the spotlight goes away. I think he is having fun, walking around naked in the girl’s locker room with his Johnson on full display. We’ll see if he follows through.

  36. This – my daughter and I think that in a couple of years, he will just say that he was confused and all, and revert to a male identity and marry a woman … a real one. In the mean time, he is having kinky fun, forcing a room full of women changing clothes to tolerate his nude presence.

  37. We’ve gone backwards. Instead of enjoying the spectacle of drag queens, who are often quite entertaining and don’t hurt anyone, the media focus on third-rank male athletes who pretend to be female in order to win at the expense of actual talented female athletes.

  38. I’ll just leave this out there, as an observation: There are males out there who will literally do anything to get laid. And, the inventiveness they come up with in order to make that happen is mind-boggling.

    What’s really amazing is how there is almost always a woman out there who will respond to the most heinously bizarre male behaviors imaginable. Whatever niche there is, someone will occupy it and someone else will respond to it.

    Meanwhile, there are what I suspect are the majority of the rest of us who look on with utter bafflement as to how anyone could possibly be getting sexual pleasure from their goings-on. The percentages are probably arranged on a spectrum from “Would literally fsck a hole in the ground” to “Mmmm… Maybe the feathers?” to “Hey, missionary and cuddling’s good enough for me…”. God only knows what the numbers are, but I can only look on at some of my peers and go “WTF? WT actual F…?”.

    I’m convinced that some of these “transsexuals” have only hit on a “getting laid” strategy that works for them, and that there are some women out there who find it attractive. This weirdo swimmer is probably in that group, and I’d wager good money there’s at least one or two of the chicks he’s been exposing himself to who’re getting off on it, and who think themselves either lesbian or lesbian-adjacent.

    Final analysis? Since women are generally the sexual gatekeepers, I lay at least some of the responsibility for this crap at their collective doors. If the “generalized woman” would quit rewarding these assholes with access to feminine companionship and reproductive organs, then the percentage of assholes to humans would probably decrease. So long as mass-murdering psychos are still getting their groupies and so forth? I despair at the tastes of some women, and I have to wonder why the hell the “sisterhood” doesn’t censure the ones who’re writing to the sick freaks in prison. I mean, seriously–What the hell do you have to do, in order to outrage womanhood enough that none of them will write to you in prison or have you as a forbidden object of desire? There were, I understand, chicks who dug John Wayne Gacy and Timothy Dahmer, which I find really, really inexplicable.

  39. . . . I have to wonder why the hell the “sisterhood” doesn’t censure the ones who’re writing to the sick freaks in prison.

    The sisterhood is mainly interested in censuring Trump, Republicans, non-Muslim religious officials, and men they don’t find attractive.

  40. Ah, but that was a bit of a joke, Jonathan.

    There is, unfortunately, no union, guild, or federation of either women or men that we could address our grievances to, in regards to the behavior of their respective memberships. Maybe we’d be better off if there were such things? I dunno… I’m usually pretty appalled at the standards displayed by a lot of the people I’ve been around, the utter failure to behave as responsible human beings with actual agency for their actions and respect for others. Not that I’m any saint, myself, but I have mostly managed to avoid screwing over my fellow human being in the course of my life–Or, so I like to think.

    One of the things I think we’ve lost, since those “bad old days” of what we charmingly look back on as “repressed Victorianism” is that there used to be at least a bit of unwritten social code that actually got enforced. By way of example, there was my grandmother and great-aunt who were both schoolteachers trained around the end of the 1910s. Both of them reported serving long apprenticeships as teachers, expected to maintain strict social standards. If they’d dared violate any of those, it was a blackballing, and never again to work around children. All of that was strictly enforced, mostly internally–Other, more senior teachers would do the deed, and you’d never find work again as a teacher, even states away from the site of your original sin. You were held accountable for your conduct and behavior, and if you did something that “just wasn’t done…” you were pretty much toast.

    Today? LOL… You can be an art teacher in a high school, and cut one or two of the males out of each class for your own sexual grooming and cultivation, and nobody will say a word about it. It’s all good; all acceptable. In my grandmother’s day, things like that went on, but it was internally policed. These days, “everyone minds their own business…”, which I think is a large part of the problem: We all are too embarrassed to hold anyone to a standard, because we’ve been taught and conditioned to withhold judgment, ‘cos being all judgey is bad, ‘mmmkay? The rule of the day is tolerance, and it’s entirely intolerant to demand other people live up to standards of any sort.

    I think this was done deliberately, with malice aforethought. I can’t quite pin down when and where it started, or who was doing it, but you can see a definite trend starting back around the turn of the 20th Century, wherein it began to be taught and argued that everything was relative, and it was naughty to impose your own rules and standards on other people. Which left plenty of room for social deviants to work their way deep into society.

    It may be my Scots ancestry, but I feel a certain affinity for the old Calvinist sort of values, the demands of accountability and personal responsibility that we’ve so blithely abandoned. Nobody talks about duty, responsibility, or anything at all of that nature any more. You even bring something like that up in the schools or public discussion, and you’re either going to be censured, or laughed out of whatever space you bring it up in–And, this entire argument we’re having here starts from this mentality. A properly self-aware and self-responsible transsexual would recognize that they make others uncomfortable, and do their best not to do that. Instead, we have the spectacle we have, where these self-indulgent moral pygmies force their way into spaces heretofore meant for the smaller and weaker, so that they had the privacy to take care of their needs. If these sexually confused creatures were not self-involved creeps, they’d recognize the disturbing nature of their differences, and eschew forcing themselves into the private spaces of those that are weaker and smaller than they are. But, that’s not the zeitgeist of the times; you are currently licensed to commit any act, and beyond reproach for the public indulgence of your most deviant fantasies–What’s the line? “Let your freak flag fly…”? Yeah; modern public life, in a nutshell. Never mind the people who aren’t freaks, who aren’t deviant from the mainstream–Let’s make them as uncomfortable as possible, violate their most sacred privacies and beliefs, all in the name of that most sacred act, transgression.

    I don’t think the current milieu can last, and I believe that the pendulum is going to swing back, good and hard. Probably going back a lot further and harder than anyone living today will credit, should they still be around to witness it. I think the LGBTWTFBBQ crew is going to be lucky if it just gets forced back into the closet, rather than exterminated wholesale. The crap coming out of the whole transgender debacle is going to make the reaction against the idiocies of the Prohibition and the Narcotics Act look entirely tame; you don’t screw with people’s kids, if you’re smart. These idiots not only dare do that, they think they have a license to do so, a moral right and a damnable arrogance as they go about it. There will be a reaction, and that reaction is going to be ugly.

Comments are closed.