Male Chauvinism as Feminism in Full Bloom


When you make a significant blunder early on, the fact that you have done so can often be hidden from yourself. Your measurement was half an inch off at the bottom, and it wasn’t until you saw the four inches of discrepancy at the top that you realized that something was amiss.

Or change the metaphor. Why not change the metaphor? An early embryo of an orangutan and a future Miss America can look almost identical to the naked eye, a fact that misled early evolutionists with their “ontogeny recapitulates philogeny” jive. But no. Put a cell from either under a microscope, and with a trained observer, you discover that you have been guilty of what later scientists would call “a howler.”

Taking these as examples of the pattern, allow me to proceed to the thesis. Feminism is now, and always has been, a con. It has been a con on behalf of irresponsible males, by irresponsible males, and for irresponsible males. And if someone protests that there were many feminine voices representing that rising generation of women—Friedan, Steinem, Greer, the lot—it mattereth not anyhoo. There is always a dame who can be snookered into driving the getaway car. The bank robbers themselves, however, were playing their own game, and have been all along.

Men Are Apparently Better at Everything

A reductio ad absurdum is when you climb into someone else’s premises, as though they were a car, and then drive them into a tree.

Look where we have come. Admiral a.k.a. Rachel Levin was one of USA Today’s women of the year. And Bruce Jenner had only been Caitlyn for a hot minute before he was named woman of the year by Glamour magazine. “Ladies, ladies. Let me show you how this is done. What have you all been doing all this time?”

And who ever told you that you people knew how to swim fast? We think that you should all step aside and let Will Thomas show you just how fast a Lia can go.


Now someone is going to object to where they think I am going with this, and say that there have been quite a number of feminist voices that have objected stridently to this whole trans thing. These TERF protesters (trans-exclusionary radical feminists) want to keep males out of the women’s movement—much like how those old-timey bigots wanted to keep girls out of the Boy Scouts back in the day. Good luck, sez I. However comma, it needs to be acknowledged on all hands that they are in the same position as the driver of the getaway car was when the bank robbers left her at that gas station.

The feminist objections to the trans revolution have been completely and blithely ignored. The protests that have issued from that quarter have weighed in at precisely zero pounds. That is, as you should know, well below even the feather weight division. The sexual revolution, and we have to put that word “sexual” in scare quotes now, has just rolled over the top of everybody.

Their TERF protests have registered with about the same amount of moral authority as might be accorded a stern editorial in the student newspaper of Bob Jones University. The most “powerful” voice that might be included in this group would be that of J.K. Rowling, who has enough money to not care what anybody thinks of her, and so can say whatever she wants without getting her life ruined by cancel culture. But that just means she is immune to their counterattacks. She lives in a pretty good castle, which is the extent of her power. Does she have enough clout to challenge and change what the world is insisting on and enforcing? Not a bit of it. She can’t even slow them down.

The world has gone barking mad, and in that condition the people who run this barking mad world simply get to decide that the transgender revolution is the final victory of feminism. And so it is—if men and their lusts get to make all the rules, and remake all the definitions, then feminism is whatever the men in power say it is. As it even is this day.

But All This Was Obvious From the Start

A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle, right? But that was exactly wrong. It was wrong from the beginning. It was plainly wrong from the beginning. It was absurd in the sixties and it is absurd now. Back when non-biologists knew what a woman was, regular people also knew what the role relationships between the sexes also were supposed to be, give or take.

Because you are living in blinkered times, I shall spell it out. The man would bring home the bacon and the woman would fry it in a pan.

But the sexual revolution “set women free” to be as loose as the men were thought to be, but what this wound up doing is making the men as loose as the men had been thought to be. The pill made this so-called triumph possible, or so it was said, and this was supposed to be liberation for the women—on the supposition that women wanted the same thing that the men did, which they didn’t, and there you have feminism in a nutshell. Do what the men want. Want what the men want. Men are always the standard. Obey.

Abortion was an essential part of this agenda. And abortion is, of course, a violent act. The immediate victim of this violence is the unborn child, as the pro-life movement has maintained from the beginning. But it is also a violent and unnatural assault on the nature of the woman. Abortion is the murder of the unborn child, but the womb is the scene of that murder. That womb was designed by God to be the most hospitable place on the planet, and yet in contrast Roe turned millions of American women into ambulatory crime scenes.

And if that were not enough, it was also a violent assault on the covenant that bound men to faithfulness. The decision to have an abortion was a decision to be made—answer your catechism, children—between a woman and her . . . what? Between a woman and her doctor. Not a woman and her husband. A man could have committed himself to a particular woman for life, in lawful and holy matrimony, and yet post-Roe he had absolutely no legal say in whether or not a child he had begotten would live or die. He had no say in the matter. So this meant that Roe was also the abortion of marriage—although it took a few decades for Obergefell to put the clown nose on it.

Roe was also the abortion of marriage—although it took a few decades for Obergefell to put the clown nose on it.

The women’s liberation movement was therefore a con. Your shrewd great grandmother could have told you where it was all going to go, if anybody had been disposed to listen to her, which they weren’t. This is the same great grandmother who would have told you, without drawing on any wisdom from the #MeToo movement, that silly girls who went up to Harvey Weinstein’s apartment should not then feign surprise at what happened next.

The women were going to get themselves “liberated,” with the end result that the men were going to be able to watch porn in any hotel they ever checked into.

This was not a case of the women’s movement losing its way. It is a case of the women involved in it not having a clue which way it was going—from the beginning.

So Sure, Make Fun of It

Traditional role relationships between the sexes are the easiest thing in the world to mock and caricature. Imagine some illustrator in the fifties drawing a picture of a happy suburban housewife baking an apple pie, or some other delicious hate crime, and then imagine her husband outside setting his briefcase down on the sidewalk as his three kids run out to greet him.

You, on the other hand, are too cool for that. You are too street smart for that. Your tattooed wrist, with an inscrutable Chinese symbol, is above it all. You are an urbane hipster sophisticate, and such sophisticates do not deign to fit into anything so tawdry as a mocked stereotype. You are too miserable for that. You are too busy sneering to agree to be happy.

The American woman was robbed, and the reason the robbers got away with it is because one of the woman’s vulnerabilities is her propensity to being deceived. Am I saying that women are more gullible than men? Yes, yes, that is what I am saying.

“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”

2 Corinthians 11:3 (KJV)

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

1 Timothy 2:14 (KJV)

Men tend to sin with their eyes open—their besetting problem is rebellion. Women tend to sin because they believed some story, usually spun by some guy. When men fall away from the path of righteousness, there might be any number of reasons—money, cars, business, real estate deals, women, cocaine, hunting and fishing, and so on. When a woman falls away, a reasonable question always to ask is—what’s his name?

Who is the deceiver? The deceiver here is feminism, the HR-friendly mask of male chauvinism. Just embrace it, and you can treat women pretty much any way you want. All in pursuit of equality. Don’t worry. The boys in power have okayed it.

The post Male Chauvinism as Feminism in Full Bloom appeared first on Blog & Mablog.






Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: