O Glorious Gender

I was a little apprehensive about writing this piece, because what authority do I have? I hold no degree in “Gender & Sexuality studies” like the writer of this drivel. Then I decided that if people can write politically acceptable articles based on nearly nothing, then I could do the same, only a bit less acceptable – ‘cause why the hell not.

That’s it.

I’m saying it.

I think traditional gender roles are beautiful.

It took a few years of consideration but the movie Deerhunter did it for me.

There is a meaning and a priceless value to intense emotions, so intense that they scar you physically as well as mentally. I personally have cherished every bursting surge of life that a rush of uncontrollable emotion brings – this is why people often take drugs if they are feeling understimulated by their day to day routine. This is why people have casual sex, or go paragliding, or get into street fights. These are all short term, life affirming moments accorded us by our fellow humans.

But there is truth in saying that ultimate transcendence, in the form bestowed upon us by Nature herself, lies in birth and death. In between those two events of a person’s life there are countless opportunities that allow us to experience these core feelings to varying degrees, such as the ones mentioned above.

I think it is fair to say that two concrete manifestations of these events are war and childbirth.

Almost everything else in the world is accessory to these acts. The broadsword of history has been forged around wars and the steady, consistent creation of successive generations. Such facts can not be denied.

Another *true fact* is that females are the only sex able to give birth.

Therefore, following along the theme of the undeniable dualism (a word nowadays unappealingly and slanderously replaced with “binary”) of Nature, and since they are incapable of child bearing, one can deduce that men are the ones who go to war. Somehow, it’s worked out this way since the dawn of time.

(To be fair, one could argue that women can, technically, also go to war. One may look at the figures where women applying to the professional army are concerned. One may then imagine a world where wars were fought mainly by women – giving birth in the trenches while men labour away at home –, avert one’s eyes awkwardly, and change the subject. It seems absurd.)

There is such a simple pattern to this – outside of any socio-political slant – this perfectly balanced dynamic of the physically strong, self-sacrificial male and the life-giving female. The Yin and the Yang; we were plainly designed to accommodate our biological ends. Whether we decide to or not is the beauty of true progress which has brought us to a point where each individual can choose their own destiny.

But why are today’s progressives pushing ever harder to uttlery devalue and destroy every facet of traditionalism that has got us this far?

Baby boomers were the latest to experience the resonating effects of war. The soldiers’ experiences on the ground are simply unimaginable, while loved ones back home wait in agony for their return. We see it often as subject matter for books and movies, for there is almost nothing as life changing as wartime. (Which gender is it that most enjoys a good war movie? Is that preference also just a result of social manipulation?) Aside, of course, from giving birth to another human being.

Now that deadly dangers have been eradicated from our world, where almost 0% of the middle-class Western population will ever witness or experience any truly life threatening situation (aside from illness), where planned, painless caesarian births are becoming the norm, society is witnessing an internal meltdown. Without even the possibility of mind-numbing, life-giving, death-defying pain to give us direction, we are drowning in the shallowness of our times. Somehow any negative experience is now seen as unacceptable and unjust.

Men become more effeminate, lose their biological sense of purpose. Seduction becomes prescriptive rather than a slow, mysterious game of great suffering and even greater reward.

From the female perspective, with the modern consensus being that bearing children is a burden and ought to be preventable at all costs (even to the extent of terminating a pregnancy) – unless convenient, at the perfect time in one’s life and above all once one has established a career, because there is little more shameful than… raising a healthy child? – some confusion has been sown in women’s minds as well, which may be a contributing factor to the droop in female happiness throughout the decades.

Very few people nowadays have the depth and grit of the toothless old veteran of gangland ‘80s East London perched on a rickety stool at the bar and his spunky, age-battered wife. There is truly something to be said for the importance of transcendental life events and the polarising yet ultimately bonding effect it has on genders: men and women work together in their own God given (figure of speech, guys) ways to ensure the continuation of the species.

I think that most progressives won’t deny this simple fact; but they of course stand for the abolition of death and war, the eradication of conformity, and a welcome shift of human values away from violence and death. This is all very understandable and I do not wish to denigrate this view. I am only putting forth a different, less individualistic take on the matter. Perhaps a more selfishly romantic one. I stand for beauty and intensity, for striking contrasts, for clashes and resolutions – as opposed to this focus on protecting individual victims of alleged injustice (which ranges from online insults to physical harm) by methodically eradicating external sources of adversity, ultimately leading to a sterile, soulless environment composed of people who haven’t been taught to stand up for themselves.

It is known to anyone who read HG Wells’s Time Machine that even under the institution of a perfect society of beautiful, gentle asexual beings there will always lurk a powerful force of evil. That whole duality thing back to punch us in the virtuous mouth. There is also something terrifically boring and tragic about an agreeable, entirely androgynous, completely inoffensive world. As I’ve mentioned before, the death of adversity would truly be the death of (good) art.

No, there is a pattern of life imposed on us, and it’s not made up by some conspiratorial bunch of old-timey white men thinking of new ways to oppress women, like taking the colour blue and giving it to boys. There are roles accorded to each of the two sexes all throughout the animal kingdom, and they vary according to species and environment. Among mammals, there is a general tendency for males to conquer territories, fight with other leaders and protect their families. This is not a wacky social construct forged over hundreds of years of pure tyrannical male oppression. This is the way we started out. (Also, taking .00001% percent of the animal kingdom, like sex-shifting crustaceans, that aligns with your progressive views does not a valid argument make.)

A wild animal’s life is defined by its ability to survive and procreate. It is in our very Earthly soul, as a biological part of the animal kingdom, to have these core instincts programmed into us. Massive scale studies in the Scandinavian countries of Norway and Sweden, the most egalitarian of all Western states, have shown that when given absolute equal opportunity and freedom of choice, men and women tend to gravitate towards different fields. Predictable ones. When children are given a perfectly gender-neutral upbringing, they still tend to gravitate towards games befitting to their sex. Again, I wish I didn’t need to say this, but I’m speaking generally here, and I am aware of various exceptions to the rule.

Of course, bullying and violence are never OK. In our modern society, everyone has equal rights under the law. But ultimately it is people who should stand up for victims of abuse and sort out personal conflicts – don’t leave it to the state or the media or even HR.

I feel that the modern left’s desire to utterly rewire the structure of society resembles a religion: that we must overcome our human nature to attain the glorious ultimate goal, the holy grail, of unconditional equality. They go so far as to claim that a man can give birth, in the spirit of overthrowing the status quo and rewriting the book of life. They can’t make their minds up whether sex is “empowering” (whatever the hell that word means) or evil, and it can turn evil some 30 years after the act if someone’s feelings are hurt. We’re now seeing what a lack of social (religious?) structure does to us as a society: breeds more polarisation and conflict between sexes and races. The left wants everyone to change their political and moral convictions to line up with that of a vocal few.

Certainly there will always be a fringe element in society that defies conventional mores, but what exactly is wrong with the existence of a norm, which the average person is more than likely to adhere to anyway? Pushing to normalise every trendy lifestyle under the moon only breeds confusion and, perhaps most importantly, it slowly abolishes the existence of alternative ideas, radical thinkers, underground cultures. Today’s social justice movement seems simply to be pushing for the steady, ominous homogeneisation of humanity, and I for one find that depressing and artificial beyond words.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s