Sexism: “The woman must do the dishes”
Feminism: “Anyone can do the dishes”
Gender ideology: “Whoever does the dishes is the woman”
This summarizes the last 50 years of sex politics.
2 comments:
CFT
said...
I never saw the day folks would have such a hard time figuring out what was literally right in their pants every morning. It's like watching folks struggling with an on/off light switch and insisting it's complicated rocket science.
Woman: An adult human female. That is really all the definition needs, as it defines the parameters needed to distinguish it from the corollary... Man: An adult human male. And here are two other words which everyone seems to also have forgotten: Masculine, and Feminine. You can be a man with some feminine traits, and you can be a woman with some masculine traits...and still just have men and women without fifty shades of stupid.
I can't wait for the next leftist college professor to be confused by the words 'adult', and 'human'. I bet they get a five year research grant to find out.
And to think I can define what a genius applying for the supreme court can not. To say I have contempt for the legal profession at this point is a serious understatement.
I guess we're all doomed. Our country has become so mentally constipated that it literally can't figure out what a man or woman is without a biologist writing several paragraphs...but folks can get excited about sexless plastic dolls getting upset about the patriarchy...which they can't even possibly define if they still can't even distinguish between a man and a woman. How do these imbeciles even tie their shoes?
As an aside, I have given the past discrepancies between the sexes in the past much though.
The idea that certain jobs are connected to sex is not wrong historically in any known culture. What modern feminism completely lacks is ANY context for how the world was until very recently, with a strong tendency to promote present day attitudes over past realities.
1. Women can have babies. Men can not, not even if they call themselves women and prance around in women's clothes and threaten to commit suicide if they don't get their wish. This really hasn't changed. 2. The average lifespan in the western world was 35 until quite recently. This is almost unchanged in much of the world to this day. 3. Child mortality was high, considering medical and nutritional standards. Out of three children, born it would be common for one to two of them never to reach adulthood. 4. Mother mortality was relatively high as well, the most common reason for men remarrying wasn't divorce, it was the mother dying in childbirth or complications afterward. 5. Education in the past wasn't terribly different than now at the more highly skilled levels, if you wished to be a doctor or lawyer for example, you would not be practicing much until your early twenties. 6. Raising kids takes time, this hasn't changed much, at least about 15 to 18 years. Subtract this from 35. This gives you 17 to 20. This means if you wanted to see your kids grown and ready to make their way and survive, you needed to have your family well underway between 17 and 20...regardless if you were a man or woman. Starting a family any later would leave your child without a parent before they were mature.
Within this context, when exactly would a woman have a 'career' if she had children? If a woman didn't have children, what percentage of women could chose not to before people being born fell behind fell behind deaths? Do the math. This would cause those particular civilizations to die out. Also note that a woman pursuing a career outside of the home would be seen in direct competition with men (as they are now). These men most likely would have been trying to provide for their families...So you would have dynamic where a woman who eschewed family would be in competition with a man trying to provide for one. I'm going to speculate a bit here and say that probably would not have gone over well with the men trying to take care of their families, OR the women trying to take care of their children.
After all these pretty harsh but unavoidable biological considerations, I find fourth wave feminism's take on history utterly absurd and without merit. 'I just wanna be HAPPY! and have a CAREER I like and no children!' would have killed off the entire human species long ago if it had ever been a thing. This is why it wasn't a thing. The reason you don't find large number of women being free spirits in the past is not because of mean evil double plus un-good patriarchies, but because of death. If women had tried to live back then as they do now, they would have caused their entire societies to go extinct.
2 comments:
I never saw the day folks would have such a hard time figuring out what was literally right in their pants every morning. It's like watching folks struggling with an on/off light switch and insisting it's complicated rocket science.
Woman: An adult human female. That is really all the definition needs, as it defines the parameters needed to distinguish it from the corollary...
Man: An adult human male.
And here are two other words which everyone seems to also have forgotten: Masculine, and Feminine.
You can be a man with some feminine traits, and you can be a woman with some masculine traits...and still just have men and women without fifty shades of stupid.
I can't wait for the next leftist college professor to be confused by the words 'adult', and 'human'. I bet they get a five year research grant to find out.
And to think I can define what a genius applying for the supreme court can not. To say I have contempt for the legal profession at this point is a serious understatement.
I guess we're all doomed. Our country has become so mentally constipated that it literally can't figure out what a man or woman is without a biologist writing several paragraphs...but folks can get excited about sexless plastic dolls getting upset about the patriarchy...which they can't even possibly define if they still can't even distinguish between a man and a woman. How do these imbeciles even tie their shoes?
As an aside, I have given the past discrepancies between the sexes in the past much though.
The idea that certain jobs are connected to sex is not wrong historically in any known culture.
What modern feminism completely lacks is ANY context for how the world was until very recently, with a strong tendency to promote present day attitudes over past realities.
1. Women can have babies. Men can not, not even if they call themselves women and prance around in women's clothes and threaten to commit suicide if they don't get their wish. This really hasn't changed.
2. The average lifespan in the western world was 35 until quite recently. This is almost unchanged in much of the world to this day.
3. Child mortality was high, considering medical and nutritional standards. Out of three children, born it would be common for one to two of them never to reach adulthood.
4. Mother mortality was relatively high as well, the most common reason for men remarrying wasn't divorce, it was the mother dying in childbirth or complications afterward.
5. Education in the past wasn't terribly different than now at the more highly skilled levels, if you wished to be a doctor or lawyer for example, you would not be practicing much until your early twenties.
6. Raising kids takes time, this hasn't changed much, at least about 15 to 18 years. Subtract this from 35. This gives you 17 to 20. This means if you wanted to see your kids grown and ready to make their way and survive, you needed to have your family well underway between 17 and 20...regardless if you were a man or woman. Starting a family any later would leave your child without a parent before they were mature.
Within this context, when exactly would a woman have a 'career' if she had children?
If a woman didn't have children, what percentage of women could chose not to before people being born fell behind fell behind deaths? Do the math. This would cause those particular civilizations to die out. Also note that a woman pursuing a career outside of the home would be seen in direct competition with men (as they are now). These men most likely would have been trying to provide for their families...So you would have dynamic where a woman who eschewed family would be in competition with a man trying to provide for one. I'm going to speculate a bit here and say that probably would not have gone over well with the men trying to take care of their families, OR the women trying to take care of their children.
After all these pretty harsh but unavoidable biological considerations, I find fourth wave feminism's take on history utterly absurd and without merit. 'I just wanna be HAPPY! and have a CAREER I like and no children!' would have killed off the entire human species long ago if it had ever been a thing. This is why it wasn't a thing. The reason you don't find large number of women being free spirits in the past is not because of mean evil double plus un-good patriarchies, but because of death. If women had tried to live back then as they do now, they would have caused their entire societies to go extinct.
Post a Comment