Monday, 30 May 2016

God's worst Nightmare...

The following is the unedited version of an exposé currently featured in the 19th revised edition of Malleus Maleficus'  [title withheld] *** (see below): If you wish to report intrusiveness, racism or inaccuracies, please email MalleusMaleficus@aol.com  To make a formal complaint under IPSO rules please contact IPSO directly at ipso.co.uk .  

   ..and don’t get me started on a social policy which treats the female as a failed being, and adopts the need to fill gender quotas as a matter of fawning insincerity. For me,
social theories have to redeem anomalies, not create them. Water finds its own level, and feminist fundamentalists who insist that humans are equipped to act and think in ways other than determined by nature, have taken out an injunction against it. My position is plain, the more of a woman you are the more of a man I'll be. Moreover, it seems dangerously misguided to allow toadying unipolar theorists unfettered authority to ease their conscience at the expense of you and I. Take Sheryl Sandberg’s organisation, LeanIn.org, and its backslapping report on workplace gender bias. It found that women are less likely to be promoted and hold less than 30% of senior corporate roles.[1] Imaginary bias can be seeded among facts, but clearly the market knows best. The rejection rate for female engineers’ coding at Facebook is 35% higher than for their male counterparts. The tech giant Google revealed in its annual diversity report that that its workforce was 69% male, and that women had only 20% of technical roles.
Which comes as no surprise. The predominance of ‘gender biased’ drives is central to Darwin’s theory of the fittest, and he raised it to the status of a evolutionary principle. Why pretend otherwise?
            Nor do I believe that increasing the number of “women and disabled people”(an inspiring, definitive comparison?) on various ‘governing bodies’ to, say,  25%, amounts to anything but blatant condescension. We are pitching the notion that equity trumps biology while disregarding the dangers. To me it looks as patronising and anachronistic as Freud’s castration complex. Its  prime characteristic, needless to say, is a sense of deprivation, but it goes some way nevertheless towards  redeeming itself with a final, chilling premonition: What if we are mistaken in condemning gender disparities as sexist, bigot, patriarchal and anachronistic? What if the ‘equality’ of the sexes is, in fact, some grim Darwinian vision of what all females will eventually become? Hyperandrogenics! A formidable genetic mutation with a man’s frame, female genital organs and a testosterone level similar to that of the male. 
         
God's worst nightmare!

          Admittedly, there is a vibrant Darwinian virtue in the ascent of the strong and the elimination of the weak, but it also means you can’t have it both ways. The environment – not wishful thinking – controls genetic development. What’s more, nature loves complementarity but not equality. The female loves equality but not liberty! She measures herself against the male. The male is her metronome, the selective beat of her confinement. Whereas the defining characteristic of the male is not that he asserts, but that he doesn’t  bother to assert himself, a female  emerges  still captive to the male she aims to equal; a feminist ever anxious, braced against his seeming superiority; challenging quests or pursuits with the suspicion of someone about to be bested or derided.[2]  Which is, in fact, just one aspect of the feminist outrage – of the combative militancy, the spin, the act, and the determination that females should strive to escape their biological “limitations” and make themselves more than females.
             We all contain polarities, needless to say, but in the whole course of social history, no dog has ever run after its own tail with the determined persistence of the feminist, whose self-esteem only exists when acknowledged by others. Figures show a surge in the number of young individuals - mainly girls - seeking help to change gender. A simulation of maleness that is testimony to some rather sanguine notions about who the female really is. As indeed, it is the male who governs the feminist the female has become. Nor can there be a single standard for both sexes as long as women are mothers! Which is precisely what Oswald Spengler meant when that most eloquent prophet of the decline of the West wrote:  “And not until women cease to have race enough to have or to want children, not until they cease to be history, does it become possible for them to make or to copy the history of men.”
      Men set their own standard. Women are inspirational in politics and indispensable
in life chiefly for their femininity. And how delicate, indeed, the female seems, so unaware of  her terrifying powers. For that in turn is based on the central tenet of quantum-dynamical lore:  the female is cosmic, sum-over-histories - the male, a Newtonian planet, adrift in interstellar space. For my stellar point here is indeed, that this ‘sum-over-histories’ or so-called ‘path-integral’ approach is just another way of understanding that there are areas of human perception which rely on unconscious, or feminine, intuition and not just ‘masculine’ analyses of facts. As a matter of fact, there are two genders of roughly equal strength, neither sufficiently sovereign to do without  the other; but – and  no one is likely to dispute this fact -  the more equal the female becomes, the less powerful she will be. Indeed, it is one aspect of the increasing irrelevance of that which is essentially 'feminine', that the poetry of innate gender differences between male and female is no longer celebrated, that it's reassignments are not mere gender diversification and equality law, but warnings that call out from the past, echoes of societies that once seemed unassailable but today portent nothing less than their own impending demise.


Carolyn Porco - Our Guest Feature of the Week!



[1] Outrage as tech guru tells women to hide their gender. Danny Fortson, The Sunday Times – Business. 02.10.2016
[2] As the superbly “militant” planetary scientist @carolynporco tweeted on Dec. 23rd: ‏” I am militant feminst in that if u r male&assume u r superior bc of it, I will rip ur lungs out.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------

1 comment:

Damian S. said...

Eureka - Some truths we hold to be self-evident....