Abolish Girls’ Sports?! Woke Wackiness Exposes Fake Feminism, Avatar of Apocalypse

Video link

The “abolish girls’ sports” story came in too late for this week’s FFWN with Mike Springmann—watch it above and check out the links to the stories we covered. But I’m sure Cat McGuire, who’s something of a feminist herself, and who wipes the floor with most male competition as a freedom activist and commentator, will have plenty to say about it next week! -KB

Abolish Girls’ Sports?! Woke Wackiness Exposes Fake Feminism, Avatar of Apocalypse

After years of stealth abolition of womens’ and girls’ sports by allowing fake females to participate, the woke brigade has pushed things way past their logical conclusion. A recent article in The Atlantic headlined “Separating Sports by Sex Doesn’t Make Sense” argues that female-only sports should be abolished. The author, Maggie Mertens, cites sociology professor Michela Musto, who claims that gender inequalities in athletic performance are the product of social conditioning, not biological difference.

The spectacle of an allegedly expert academician promulgating such lunacy might make a good Marx Brothers remake. Paint a greasepaint mustache on “her,” and Professor Michela Musto—or is it Michael Musto?—could get more laughs than Professor Quincy Adams Wagstaff, the Groucho character in Horsefeathers. Indeed, the whole gender-bending drag show the neo-Puritans are foisting on us with perfect straightfaced Margaret Dumont seriousness often reads like surreal comedy. The only problem is that you aren’t allowed to laugh. Indeed, if you forget how serious it is and start tittering and guffawing and howling and rolling on the floor, the drag queens step down from the stage and slap your face, and the management unceremoniously ejects you from the social media theater.

Sometimes a specious argument is best exposed by pushing it all the way to its absurd conclusion. That is the case with the pseudo-feminist argument that there are no biological differences between the sexes, and that abolishing the recognition of biologically-based sexual difference will help “oppressed” women gain “equality” with men.

We all know—and by “we” I mean everyone on earth except Michela Musto and Maggie Mertens, and even they must know at some deeply repressed level—that if we stop separating sports by sex, the higher levels of almost every sport will be utterly dominated by men. Once in a blue moon, a freakishly athletic girl might get good enough to be a starter on a high school or college team. But whether the sport is football or basketball or baseball or soccer or track or swimming or wrestling, the serious high-level competition will be a mostly all-male endeavor. “Liberating” women by giving them “equality” with men in sports competitions is really just a way to unleash men to beat the hell out of women, kick their adorably curvy little posteriors up and down the playing field, relegate them to the sidelines, and basically demonstrate the undeniable reality of unbridled male athletic superiority.

What is true of athletics is also true, albeit to a lesser extent, of most other forms of competition, including the economic, intellectual, and military varieties. Ferocious competitiveness has a biological basis. The easiest way to talk about it in scientistic reductionist terms is to cite average differences in testosterone. Men, on the average, have about twenty times the testosterone level of women. Not 20% more, not 200% more, but two thousand percent more. Testosterone levels correlate not only with muscle mass, but also with aggressive, competitive behavior aimed at seeking dominance in a social hierarchy. For various biological reasons, including the obvious one of being driven by relatively high testosterone levels, men will, on average, out-compete women on almost all hierarchical playing fields, not just athletic ones.

But what about intellectual activities? Doesn’t aggressive competitiveness often correlate with stupidity? Don’t we all know that women are, in certain ways, much smarter than men?

It’s true that women are often smart enough to not to get excited about stupid testosterone-fueled male-competitions (at least not unless they hanker after the winner). And it’s pretty obvious that women are generally better than men at the kind of intuitive, holistic, emotionally-enabled thinking that we all use every day to negotiate the complexities of social interaction.

But at the higher levels of intellectual competition, men have always dominated and will continue to dominate, for two reasons. First, as we have seen, they are biologically-driven to want to dominate. So they will make the sacrifices necessary to rise to the top of competitive intellectual fields, including sacrificing having “a life,” more often than women will. These brainy men may be socially inept, and far from well-rounded; their competitive drive and the selfishness it inculcates may make them and the people around them miserable, and they may be blind to the foolishness of the path they have chosen. Genius and idiocy can cohabit the same skull; and when it does, which is fairly often, the skull is likely to be male.

The second reason men inevitably dominate intellectual fields is that the Bell curve of male intelligence is shorter and wider than the female one. IQ is an imperfect measure, but it illustrates the point: more women are clustered around the mean (+/- 100) while more men are off at the edges, being either extremely bright or extremely dull. That means that in any group of extremely bright people, the majority will be men. And the brighter the group, the bigger the male majority.

Feminists in general, and the extremist woke brigade in particular, pretend it isn’t so. Their ideals are egalitarian, which is fine. But when they shackle reality to the Procrustean bed of their ideals, they torture it out of all recognition.

Ironically, it is women, even more than men, who are being tortured. Speciously claiming that women are the equals of men, and forcing them to compete in the male world, is a brilliant strategy if your aims are to (1) make women unhappy, and (2) give men a huge edge in the proverbial battle of the sexes.

Whether we cite evolutionary biology, scripture, or just plain common sense and everyday observation, we can’t help but notice that people with XY chromosomes and high testosterone levels tend to be sexually reckless, as if they were seeking to impregnate as many females as they can get away with; whereas those with XX chromosomes and lower testosterone levels and adorably curvy chests and nether regions are more sexually conservative, preferring not to be impregnated and abandoned. But feminist ideology denies this obvious difference; it insists that women should be just as sexually reckless as men, and provides them with contraceptives and abortion to facilitate such sterile sexual male impersonation.

The result is a society in which women and their healthy natural impulses are censured and repressed and denied, while men are give free rein to rape and pillage in service to the bestial desires of their lower natures. Traditional strictures against sex outside of marriage, whose purpose was to protect women and children by harnessing the immense energy of testosterone-fueled male sexuality to the all-important work of establishing a family and taking care of the women and children, have been jettisoned. The biggest beneficiary is the male scumbag who no longer faces serious obstacles to his bed-hopping lifestyle; while the biggest loser is the natural woman, who is sentenced to a loveless life of subservience in menial jobs offering far less autonomy and satisfaction than she would have enjoyed as a housewife with a faithful man to love and protect her alongside a rich web of relatives and in-laws and informal social networks with which to run the world from behind the scenes. (Yes, the secret rulers of traditional societies with honest, natural sexual norms are the women.)

A real feminist (meaning a person who genuinely supports women) might even accuse the fake feminists of cultural genocide. For just as they want to abolish women’s sports, they also want to abolish the whole female sphere of life, wherein women are free to be themselves and exercise their natural talents and power.

That female sphere of life has been largely eliminated in the United States. To see it in action, we need to visit a nation that hasn’t quite been completely destroyed by fake-feminist modernity.

In Moroccan traditional culture, which is disappearing much more slowly than its Euro-American equivalent, there are radically separate spheres for men and women. Men dominate the mosques, cafés, and male bathhouses, and to a lesser extent the markets; while women prevail in households (especially the “haram” or forbidden-to-strangers portions from which the misleading word “harem” is derived), as well as the female bathhouses and saints shrines. Though men and women socialize freely among extended families and close friends, the vast majority of interaction occurs among members of the same sex. There are clearly separate mens’ and womens’ spheres of life, and each sex even speaks a slightly different linguistic register or sub-dialect. Wiping out the Moroccan women’s world and women’s language, which is what heavily-funded Western NGOs are trying to do by force-legislating Western-style “equality” and shoving it down people’s throats, will eliminate one of the richest and most beautiful cultures on the planet. (Those genocidal NGOs are getting plenty of help from Western-based media propagandists who inflict their degeneracy on the entire world through the electronic communications that they so ruthlessly and irresponsibly dominate.)

I believe it was Clifford Geertz, an anthropologist who has studied Moroccan traditional culture among others, who said that humans have basically two choices: We can be oppressed by the state, or by our cousins. Fake feminists prefer the state. They want to abolish the supposedly oppressive patriarchy that prevails when families are the main units of governance, and force women into unbridled economic competition with men under the watchful eye of the government.

But is it really better to be ruled by strangers than by relatives? Humans are hard-wired to be kinder to family than to strangers. Children know this. They would rather be at home with mom, dad, siblings, grandparents, and cousins than to be thrown to the proverbial wolves in daycare or school. Underpaid staff in our prisons-for-kids, even if they were better paid, could never be paid enough to make them love their charges the way mothers, and to a lesser extent other family members, do. Likewise, the treatment an average woman receives from such strangers as her bosses, co-workers, customers, and competitors—and the cops and the legal system if it comes to that—will probably be inferior, and certainly much colder and devoid of social vibrancy and meaning, than the “oppression” she experiences from her family in the absence of an overwhelmingly powerful statist corporate Leviathan. (The same is true, of course, for men, who also suffer oppression and loss of meaning under rule by strangers.)

So if the fake feminists are committing cultural genocide against their own gender, they are simply one wing of a much larger Leviathan dedicated to eliminating genuine humanity and replacing it with an impoverished simulacrum. The apostles of “creative destruction,” whether neocons or neoliberals, are the enemies of our species. Their endgame is the reduction of humanity to the status of enslaved flesh-robots, overseen by a transhuman master race of tech-augmented sociopaths. At the end of the day, it isn’t just women’s sports, or the natural women’s world, that they yearn to annihilate. They want to destroy everything natural, everything human, everything spiritually rich or meaningful. This nihilistic impulse, this death wish, which Guenon rightly saw as the driving force behind modernity as it descends into Kali Yuga, will never even inflict so much as a scratch on its ultimate target, God. But it may very well succeed in destroying what remains of human civilization.