Gentle Readers with long memories might recall the romance between the late Dudley Moore, star of Bedazzled, 10, Arthur, and other comedy gems, and the gloriously beautiful – and much taller – Susan Anton. Many remarked upon this inversion of the regular “rule” that “he should be taller than she is.” Mind you, that’s not a legislated law, nor will your local Grundy Squad separate you from your sweetie just for being a bit shorter than she is. (A good thing for me; I’m both a bit shorter than average and notoriously fond of tall women and always have been.) But it does depart from the usual pattern.
Patterns are why there are exceptions. (Yes, yes, I know the grammar of that previous sentence is a bit odd, but you did get the gist, didn’t you? Anyway, it’s not quite 5:00 AM EST, so bear with me.) Old saws notwithstanding, exceptions don’t prove anything except that a pattern to the contrary exists, and that we know it.
Then along comes this “gender equality” BS. (Let’s pass in silence over the misuse of the word gender where sex is correct. Nouns and connectors have genders; people have sexes. And with that I shall try to resist the Lure of the Dreaded Parenthesis a bit better.) The sexes are not equal in any respect. They never have been and probably never will be. The patterns have been open and persistent throughout recorded human history. As a statistical matter:
- Men are taller;
- Men are stronger;
- Men are more aggressive;
- Men are faster and quicker;
- Men are far more competitive;
- Men have a greater predilection for abstract thought;
- Women have better balance;
- Women are more demonstrative;
- Women are more consensus-oriented;
- Women have superior fine-motor skills;
- Women tend to be more talented at organization;
- Women tend to be quicker to notice discrepancies in detail.
Perhaps your particular household or romantic entanglement doesn’t conform to one or more of those patterns. That proves nothing. The patterns are what they are. But the “gender equality” morons – GEMs? –are furious about it. They’ve practically demanded laws to mandate that we not notice any of those things.
The transgender phenomenon has got the GEMs’ tits in a flutter. (Whoops! Naughty me. I meant that it’s got their panties in a wad. Oh, is that verboten too? But I thought anyone could wear panties these days, without fear of social opprobrium? Well, never mind.) Suddenly we have, ah, humans with a Y chromosome in every cell competing in athletic contests as women – and beating the double-X contestants hollow. The screams – from every side of the supposed controversy – can be heard on Mars. (Yes, I checked.)
It takes everything I’ve got to restrain my laughter. The slanders, demands, and accusations fly so thickly that keeping track requires a team the size of the IRS…which, come to think of it, would be far less injurious to the body politic if it were repurposed to that end. I regularly read of incidents such as this one:
A law student at Abertay University in Scotland faces discipline for the allegedly “offensive” and “discriminatory” statements that women are born with vaginas and are physically weaker than men.
Lisa Keogh, a mother of two, was reported to university officials following the latter remark, the Daily Mail reports.
HERESY! Burn her at the stake for daring to notice two irrefutable facts! Facts are not permitted when they undermine the Official Line!
Unfortunately, Mrs. Keogh did not stand her ground perfectly:
“I didn’t deny saying these things and told the university exactly why I did so,” Keogh said. “I didn’t intend to be offensive but I did take part in a debate and outlined my sincerely held views. I was abused and called names by the other students, who told me I was a ‘typical white, cis girl’. You have got to be able to freely exchange differing opinions otherwise it’s not a debate.
“I wasn’t being mean, transphobic or offensive. I was stating a basic biological fact. I previously worked as a mechanic and when I was in the workshop there were some heavy things that I just couldn’t lift but male colleagues could.”
Now, now, Mrs. Keogh! The viragoes and harpies demanding your head on a pike don’t care whether you “intend[ed] to be offensive.” Offense is in the mind of the beholder, and these beholders take offense when it suits them. Anyway, you demanded that they face facts that cross-cut their gospel. Facts are out of bounds when the Left rules them out of bounds – and they’ll change those bounds when, as, and if it should please them. Ignore the screaming from genetically female athletes who are being euchred out of the medals and scholarships they otherwise would have won; they’re just spoilsports. Anyway, here’s a six foot tall woman and a five foot tall man. Now sit down and shut up.
Cock your ear to the breezes, Gentle Reader. Perhaps you can hear a voice in the distance…a voice dripping with contempt: “Got what you’ve been asking for all these years, ladies?”
The inexorable fact of human inequality — both individual and statistical – is what makes society practical and bearable. Can you imagine a world in which no two individuals differ in any detectable way? All of us physically, mentally, and emotionally absolutely conformant to a single pattern? The vision makes me shudder…but then, I’m an unreconstructed septuagenarian reprobate who maintains that facts have no agenda, and that no one’s opinions to the contrary can render them null and void.
I’m preaching to the choir, aren’t I? You all know this, or you wouldn’t be reading Liberty’s Torch. This dive makes the opinions-and-anecdotes-over-facts crowd shout insults and slanders. Such behavior proves nothing except their loyalty to their delusions.
That’s all the snark I have on tap for the moment. Anyway, it’s time for me to get back to my half-finished novel about genetic engineering, futanari, transwomen, miracles, wine, and the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Have a nice day.
(No parentheses were harmed in the making of this essay.)
In my reading I found on 4RWWs blog a link to your Reading the Tells and Survival and was amazed. There are few things on the net nowadays that make me genuinely smile and read with rapt attention. This article was one of them. Seldom do I agree totally with anything but, this hit all the buttons.
I look forward to future articles and will comment as appropriate. Keep up the good work – it is not unnoticed.
Well, maybe not harmed, but they were beaten to a fare thee well… 8>)
(chuckle) Gotta keep ’em in line, Double. Otherwise they might come unmated!
Dear Mr Poretto,
unfortunately I must have missed the contact information. Therefore this post will be Off-Topic.
I like your stories about strong, decisive Presidents, but I always asked myself how would they fare against an equally strong adversary.
Remember your story The Pact? What if the russian President had a gun hidden on himself and gunned down your President? Knife?
Or, if he had attacked him in hand-to-hand combat, and thugs are good at no rules streetfighting.
And now I found this:
#NextWar: A Fictional Cautionary Tale – The Angry Staff Officer
How would your strong, decisive President of Impurities, The Smoking Quoran, The Pact President Stephen Sumner or from the story Cruel to be kind Prime Minister John Whiteman react to this?
Sumner would simply say “This is the Onteora Canon. Go back to your own fictional universe!”
Whiteman would H-Bomb Abkhazia and email back, “What was that you said? I couldn’t quite make it out.”
Please remember that a “strong” politician” is only as strong as his nation’s military and economic might.
(“What would Mao Tse-tung be without a billion Chinese to back him up? Just another cranky old man.” — Norman Spinrad)
National potentates don’t usually go toe-to-toe with one another, though the notion has considerable appeal.
Perhaps we could get Michael Buffer to do the announcing.
Got any more absurd questions?
I prefer to use footnotes when faced with the need for parenthetical asides, but, alas, people today¹ don’t seem to realize what they are.
¹ …and publishing formatting scripts….
My sympathy for female athletes being beaten, sometimes literally, by men in dresses is exactly zero.
For my entire life I’ve heard variations on “anything you can do, I can do better”. Put your muscles where your mouth is, ladies.
Very, very few women called out the problem of male-only draft registration, disparities in criminal conviction and sentencing, hiring quotas, and women-only college scholarships. Under the principle of “silence is violence”, used with great venom against men who do not speak the shibboleth about “sexual assault”, women who have not spoken up about these injustices have committed violence against all men and deserve anything that happens to them.
Young athletes, who cannot be expected to have a coherent system of moral and social beliefs, are not excused from this guilt. If all men today are culpable for laws which made wives the property of their husbands (which certainly was not the case in the United States, but let’s not let facts get in the way of dogma) or for women not being allowed to enter university (which ended before I was born, and I’m in my 50s), then all women are culpable for the words and actions of the worst of them.
Huh. The visual editor supports numbered and unnumbered lists but these are lost in the conversion to a post. Not a big deal, now that I know about it.
“What would Mao Tse-tung be without a billion Chinese to back him up?” – Bernie Sanders