I was looking on the Internet for some debate topics for English class, I came across this one site which presented the topic about, whether women are equal with men in the workplace, or are still discriminated against? These kinds of questions are not atypical. In fact they’re extremely common and permeate our culture so much that we barely even think about them. They’re just a natural extension of our leftist/Marxist education system.
I was thinking about the topic presented for the debate (whether women are equal in the workplace were still are discriminated against) and I realized that they did not include in the realm of possibilities that maybe-just maybe!- women are actually favored in the workplace, while men are discriminated against. I can see now so clearly that by defining the terms of the debate to go in a certain direction, that they are reinforcing a certain way that we look at things, namely the politically correct way, that men and whites are nasty oppressors, and that women and darker skinned colored people are innocent victims. How can we realize there whites and men might today be the true victims, if that possibility is never even brought into the realm of possibility within our public discourse.
The debate further went on to mention ways in which women were doing well, and ways in which they continue to be “discriminated” against. On the positive side there was the usual list of female leaders, scientists, etc. but, on the list of ways that women are still “oppressed” they had things like the fact that females are still underrepresented in professional sports, and the existence of the TV program Baywatch.
As to the fact that women are underrepresented in female sports, the underlying assumption must be that women are just as inherently good at sports, and interested in sports, as men — and therefore any difference between them must be due to some kind of “sexist” conspiracy. This really seems like some kind of radical leftism straight out of the 60s or 70s, when well-educated and “correct” people earnestly believed that the differences between the sexes were 100% environmental. I remember back in the 70s being told that the readership of Playgirl was small because women were not used to the idea of seeing naked pictures of man, but that in a few years Playgirl would sell as many copies as Playboy as a new generation of “liberated” women came online and started to act just like men. In reality now 30 years later, Playgirl has nowhere near the readership of the male erotic magazines, and is mostly read by homosexuals. The fact is that at a biological level females just do not have the interest in seeing nude males, anywhere near as much as males have an interest in seeing nude females. The reality is that there are many and deep innate gender differences, and those are not going to go away anytime soon. The fact that women are underrepresented in professional sports, is simply a reflection of this innate difference. No matter how “progressive” or “enlightened” a society tries to be, the fact is that, if people are given a choice, men will continue to dominate in aggressive team sports, and women will dominate in day care centers.
The second observation about how Baywatch is an example of women being kept down, is simply ridiculous. I fail to see why an admiration for the female form is somehow some kind of denigration of females. I would think that it would rather be the opposite. In any case, it is hardwired into our genes for men to seek out and be highly attracted to women are physically very attractive and sexy, and is also a deep innate desire for these same women who are sexy and attractive to enjoy showing off their bodies, and thus using the power of their beauty to gain money, power and influence. Feminists like to portray beautiful and sexy women as stupid victims. But everyone really knows deep down that they are the ones that hold the best cards, and have the most power. This is why all women show envy towards other women who are more attractive than they are. Envy is often expressed in the form of putdowns and criticism, but make no mistake underlying it all is a deep sense of envy-based resentment.
I’ve often marveled at the vehemence with which feminists attack women who look good, and the men who enjoy looking at them. This mentality, unfortunately, has penetrated deeply into our society. However, when you look at the average girl, they seem to understand innately that being attractive naturally tends to turn men on, and in general they like it. So, in all this hysteria about trying to stamp out sexual images, we are really going against something that not only goes against male nature, but also female nature.
I have long suspected that the puritanical attack by feminists on the erotic female form, is really based upon a deep sense of unconscious jealousy. I suspect that a lot of the feminists were the slightly awkward bookish types-often Jewish-who quite possibly didn’t do that well socially, and weren’t very successful in attracting popular and attractive guys. They looked on with a growing resentment at the popular girls among them, and the guys who lusted after them. These feminists may not have done well socially in high school, but they were sufficiently brainy that they were able to become academics later in life. Now they use all of their intelligence to engage in a war on sexy pretty females, and the males who lust after them. The thinking seems to be: if I can’t have them, nobody can have them. In a sense the deep puritanism which runs throughout feminism is really a desire to disarm the pretty girls from the ability to employ their attractiveness weapon, and from the guys ever being able to enjoy female beauty. Unfortunately, these feminists are sufficiently smart that they can come up with some superficially convincing rationales for why hot babes should be made illegal. They have been able to play upon a certain innate puritanism in American culture, have been able to get a certain amount of sympathy among females who are frustrated with their looks, and have been able to exploit the guilt of men on this issue. They engaged in intimidation, guilt mongering, massive exaggeration, straw man arguments, hardball politics, emotionalism, etc. to drive home their arguments. Unfortunately too many people are either too intimidated, or emotionally dominated to be able to effectively see through their arguments to the truth. However there are many people who realize that what they are saying is almost entirely a load of BS. The problem is that due to the intimidation of political correctness, these people tend to keep their voices to themselves.