A New Year for Gender?
The old year lies slain upon the twin altars of Division and Politics. As we stand forth upon the threshold between what has come before and what lies ahead, it is a fitting time for us all to look upon ourselves and our communities to take stock. Any cognizant social critic must acknowledge from wherever they may be standing on American soil that an era of censorship on subjects related to gender is at hand.
The spill-over from the 2016 election has swept through the interconnected Queer cultural communities with catastrophic results. Far Left elements were completely caught up in the DNC’s “Apocalypse Now” narrative that begged us not to “normalize Trump and Fascism”, forecasting the rise of a new Hitler. They called up all the little radical tin soldiers and sent them marching off to an imaginary click-bait war in their efforts to play Wag the Dog. The Queer community overwhelmingly marched along, facing down their sad counterparts — likewise convinced by the other side’s baton-wielders that the Commies would be coming over the hill any moment, now…
And all this, so that the DNC could try to sweep away the real story of the election while we all had our backs turned: that the “Democratic” National Committee most certainly isn’t. Our dear Madame Clinton purchased away our right to free and fair elections by simply buying out the party’s outstanding debt. Apparently, Obama’s refusal to participate in fundraising efforts or legacy building coupled with his failure to deliver anything on campaign finance reform (or anything else, for that matter) just didn’t work out for the Party.
Or, for all we know, Obama and Ms. Clinton simply had an understanding to begin with.
There are no heroes in the long, sordid tale of American Politics, whether in slacks or skirt-suit. What is puzzling is why we are allowing people like this — people who have demonstrated an utter lack of integrity, responsibility, or moral fibre — to dictate to us what we ought to do in our own lives or believe in our own minds. Given the sort of organization the DNC has shown itself to be at core, we should hold deeply suspect any program for us that it recommends.
The sad reality of the situation caused even Feminist power-house Caitlin Johnstone to lament,
“The noose gets ever tighter, the censorship gets more and more severe, the spectrum of acceptable debate gets smaller and smaller, the rule of the oligarchs grows ever more totalitarian, and neither the flag-wrapped cross carriers nor the rainbow flag-wrapped pussyhat wearers do anything about it. This was intended.”
Meanwhile, the “Coalitions of Everyone’s Evil Exes” continue the ludicrous Battle Royale of the sex wars: nature vs. nurture. This ancestral front has taken up semantic address under the absurd heading “Evolutionary Psychology”; when even a cursory reading of the base content is nothing more than a blend of rudimentary history, archaeology and anthropology. Feminism has simply sidestepped its obligation to contend with the real material in these fields by declaring all of social science the product of the hated Patriarchy.
Unfortunately for them, the truth does not care whether you believe in it or not.
Two days ago, the Scientific American debased itself by publishing the most obvious “Straw Man” paper quite possibly ever written on the subject of gender. It was so plain in its lack of integrity that the piece serves more to recommend “Evolutionary Psychology” than to in any way refute it; despite the comic lack of necessity of this “new” field. The author’s only real counter-argument to the clean facts cited by his opponents hinges on a semantic gaming of the words “origin” and “war”:
“Studies suggest that our pre-civilization ancestors, who were nomadic hunter-gatherers, were relatively peaceful and egalitarian. War seems to have emerged not millions of years ago but about 12,000 years ago when our ancestors started abandoning their nomadic ways and settling down.”
Never mind that this timeline is itself highly disputable based upon archaeological findings of markers of civilization that date older. The docile hunter-gatherer myth is an archaicism left over from the patronizing “noble savage” era of anthropology. The truth is, we don’t know about the particular details of day-to-day life in pre-history, because it is pre-history. In any case, human society can in no wise be compared before and after the establishment of agriculture, for it did not yet exist; and any meta-analysis of gender would thus be absurd. The thought of the question would never have formed in anyone’s mind at the time.
We do have historical records of contact between literate and preliterate societies; as well as anthropologists’ observations of un-contacted and minimally contacted peoples. Both demonstrate a wide range of cultural adaptations dependent upon the resources and technologies available at the time and in the place, exactly as an evolutionary model of group social advancement predicts. These include defensive and offensive martial strategies for hunting, raiding, subjugation of labor and territorial war.
To some extent, it depends upon what we mean when we say “culture”. As reported in the Christian Science Monitor, we’ve been in the killing business for quite some time:
A new analysis of artifacts from a cave in South Africa reveals that the residents were carving bone tools, using pigments, making beads and even using poison 44,000 years ago. These sorts of artifacts had previously been linked to the San culture, which was thought to have emerged around 20,000 years ago.
Horgan’s betrayal of all academic credulity does not end there. His wild-eyed diatribe against the “sexual selection” theory is every bit as much religious as that of Creationists in the face of the principles of Darwin’s Evolution. The problem is that they are based in the same demonstrable fact: the male in any pool that attains the greatest degree of material success is the Dominant male; and therefore will be more likely to attract the most desirable mates. This is true whether we are discussing peacock’s tails, the biggest hunting hauls; or a stable career with healthcare and benefits.
The “lesser” man will have to make due with whomever is available through social proximity, and be grateful to have anyone at all. You’ll forgive me if I say methinks the gentleman doth protest too much. His lack of imagination belies an ingrained ethnocentrism that insists on projecting the Pop-Feminist modern mind onto the motivations and behaviors of our ancient ancestors. As any historian will tell you, the man just lost the game.
Finally, Horgan reveals the cause of his and other such Pop-Feminist protestations to be politically motivated in the final conclusion of the paper. That is, we can’t have people telling the truth about these things or it might imply that women bear some culpability. Last I checked on it, we made up roughly half of the population. Obviously the choices we have made in which men we have allied ourselves with over the many long centuries have mattered a great deal.
Maybe the reality is that regardless of time or place, women would prefer to be under the protection of good Dominant men; rather than at the mercy of evil ones. We too shall be restricted in our selections by social proximity. Who among us would not prefer a father or husband prepared to rend asunder any he that would lay a hand on his beloved or his kinfolk? Then there are some women who would rather reign in Hell than serve in Heaven, and will trade their affections to whomever in their field most serves their own agendas — our dear Ms. Clinton as a case in point.
Horgan’s piece is just another example of well-intentioned but wrong-headed Pop-Feminism. Women do not need men like Horgan denying the overwhelming academic consensus in favor of making excuses for them. A Feminism that ignores the power and paucity of women in hierarchical structures in order to maintain the myth of Feminine Fragility is no Feminism at all. A Feminism that is in denial of reality is a failing Feminism.
Let’s hope that this upcoming year in gender is better than the last.