The Androgyny Effect

Everywhere one turns there are examples of a forced equality where all unique distinctions and achievements of individuals are discarded. The recent bailouts, both of citizens and companies, is one case of the lack of differentiation between those individuals who were responsible and those who were self-serving, as the latter were rewarded and artificially elevated to a similar status of the former.

Not content that in America today there are equal opportunities for all, groups that declare they are disadvantaged are demanding equal outcomes. This misplaced emphasis on a superficial comparison of results clouds the correlation of contribution to consequences. Rather than looking at successful outcomes and tracing through the efforts that produced this, self-interested groups choose to focus on a demographic difference to cry discrimination.

Forced equality to make everyone equal in all ways is mutating us into an androgynous country where no one is distinguishable. This androgyny is the result of feminism, which sought to remove distinctions between males and females to create a gender-neutral culture, and then other groups emulated this pattern to move us toward an artificial egalitarian society.

The first feminists advocated for equal voting rights, and when this was achieved they sought equal education and economic prospects. But once women entered the workforce in large numbers their emphasis shifted from equal access to an outcome-based standard of salaries as a measurement of equality. The feminists equated differing dollar amounts with discrimination. The presence of men already in the workforce, and the subsequent seniority and skill they had achieved over time, was dismissed in favor of a salary-based comparison to validate effort rather than result. This started to destroy merit-based systems and compensation based upon individual achievement.

Personal accomplishment then began to be discouraged in the very place where the perception of males and females being androgynous began: our public schools. Feminists shrieked that the lower participation of girls in math and science was a sign of discrimination rather than a sign of disinterest. They encouraged the teachers unions to change the curriculum to boost the number of girls taking hard sciences, ignoring how these feminizing changes began to disenfranchise young men.

The motivation or natural interest that produced a higher participation of males in math and science became the impetus for the feminists to start altering fundamental systems such as education to ensure, even to the disregard of its impact upon males, an increase in the number of females in each academic area. This became the model for increasing the number of girls who compete in school sporting events. Rather than creating more opportunities for females who desired to be on an athletic team, feminists decreased the number of boys playing sports so the number of athletes would be equal for both sexes.

A quota system, while destructive in schools and places of work, has potentially catastrophic consequences for our national security when it is applied to our armed services. Even the last bastion of masculinity, our military, was not immune to the feminist assault upon unique identities.

The feminists have practically achieved their goal of a gender-neutral military. In 1992 a Presidential Commission on women in the military discovered that only 1 out of 100 female soldiers were capable of achieving the same physical fitness standards as 60 out of 100 male soldiers could. But because test scores were “gender-normed,” with the grade of “A” for a woman being the equivalent to a “D” for a man, females were prevented from failing. The same Commission heard evidence from top military officials that between 40 and 50 percent of enlisted women were not physically capable of performing their specific occupations. But servicewomen were promoted and advanced alongside the men regardless of their physical ability to do their job.

Feminists have gone beyond manipulating physical fitness scores to ignoring the misdeeds of women soldiers that should warrant some disciplinary action. Beginning in the Persian Gulf War, servicewomen who got pregnant in the war zone and were sent home were still awarded a badge for combat service, and allowed to have equal recognition with their brothers and sisters-in-arms who remained in combat during the duration of their deployment. This diminished the perseverance of soldiers who remained at war, and endangered the mission due to manpower shortages.

Once the mandatory equality of men and women were instilled in our armed services, the next step became an androgyny for all soldiers. Beginning in 2001 black berets, traditionally worn only by Army Rangers, one of the army’s most elite all-male units tasked with doing impossible missions with near-impossible odds, were issued to all soldiers as an attempt to make everyone feel equally important. The years of gallant effort it took to wear a black beret was something to aspire to, and distributing them to everyone in the Army reduced the value of the Ranger unit who deserve to be distinguished.

Gender-norming is not as apparent in professions where physical capabilities don’t underlie measures of performance and contribute to readiness. But in the military, and those in the public safety such as fire and police officers, the measure of physical capabilities of women which are being manipulated to ensure androgyny demonstrate how far radical feminists are willing to go to prove there exists no distinctions between men and women.

For the past fifty years, feminists never remained satisfied with equality but continue to demand special rights and a glorification of everything feminine with a suppression of men and masculinity. The classical feminism of the suffragettes is not recognizable in its modern form of forced androgyny through gender-norming.

Where emotion makes logic leaps, the product is rarely rational. The aggressive feminization of our schools, workplaces, and military has fractured our society into diverse entities all competing for special rights rather than the betterment of our country. The distinctions which make us valued as unique individuals are disappearing, and the result is a society that is less productive, less cohesive, and less capable of advancing.

 

2.333335
Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

Comments

One of the most excellent posts...

... that I have ever seen.

I want to go off on a tangent in order to add momentum to the final impact.

I had been thinking about the nature of the comtemporary Left (and Right, but that's beside the point).  They are clearly not progressives, ie the intellectual heirs of William James, nor are they liberals, ie followers of John Rawls.  What, then, are they exactly?

The answer came from an unexpected source.  Following the history of the various schools of psychology-- Freudian (or Rogerian), behavioralists, humanists, and medicalists-- I came upon the conclusion that the contemporary Left is made up mostly of humanists; ie they care nothing for making you well, but will help you to feel better about being so sick.

Now, the goal of these humanists for some time has been to replace the role of the father in the family with functions of government.  For every role the father might enhabit, some governmental agency must necessarily emulate and offer up a substitution.  This is so obvious that it should require very little amount of discourse.

And so, I thought, What then?  Once these humanists finally remove the father from the family and replace him with functions of government (which I believe is the true purpose behind their advocacy of same-sex marriage), then what?  Will these humanists then be satisfied?

The answer is-- Never.

After the role of the father has been replaced by functions of governmental entities, the role of the mother will then be their target.  Just like the title of Hillary Clinton's book reads-- It Takes a Village.  This is humanism in its most distinct form.  By replacing the family with the government, we will all be briothers and sisters, one big, happy family.

Nor would they ever be satisfied with that.  Each member of the family, ie every brother and sister, must necessarily be indistinguishable from the next.

That is not progressivism, nor is it liberalism.  The truth is something much, much worse.

We are up against humanists, a far greater evil than fascism or communism ever could be. 

 The opposite situation is

 The opposite situation is the politicians and/or wall street put in policies that destroy the middle class, for example, free trade, and they offer nothing to fill the void. I view, even though markets would dictate this sooner or later, that the middle class is being destroyed by ideological policies and then laissez-faire. The Midwest is turning into Appalachia and it is just a vicious circle and in fact, any turn a person makes is a wrong turn. 

We have seen the Gordon Gekkos on Wall Street, where "greed is good." The problem is that the regular guy who makes a living gets screwed every time. By the time some "trickle down" begins to come down on main street, then it is time for a recession and/or some free trade policy in which his job goes. And what do you tell a 50 or 60 year old, with kids and a house payment, that his job has to go because someone on Wall Street or in Washington is setting policy.

True, things change, but if you create policies and/or conditions in the world change-then you need to fill the void. And that is to create 1 to 3 million new jobs that has been lost to cheap labor.

The capitalist system with its brutal results (recessions or depressions), the 8 years of bad policy, free trade signed by Clinton and supported by republicans, and then laissez-faire or no management of the economy has made people searching for something from the government. The policy makers are out of touch. They sit on Wall Street and in Washington and think they know what is best, and usually it is with failed ideologies. so we see the failures of both parties. It is time for some management of the economy and that is you invest in your people, your country, and in the future. It is really that simple.   

You have a point...

... though that is not to say that you are, by any means, "right" in that.

The point re-stated is that the Right has failed to offer a viable alternative.  Spot on.

However, that is a false dilemma; ie that is not necessarily the case.

I have seen it, even on this website, the pedantic etymologists stating that the goal of "conservativism" is "to conserve;" modeling the Right into some sort of preservationist society.

This is far from accurate.

If a person is said to "drink conservatively," that is no indication that one wishes to maintain a hoard of liquor.

Likewise, if a commentator states that a quarterback made "a conservative call," that is no indication that the quarterback wished to lengthen the playing time of the game.

No, there is another sense of the word "conservative," meaning "to attain to sensible conduct."

This is not incompatible with Rawls' concept of "reasonable tolerance," which also implies that there is a form of tolerance which lies outside of the bounds of reason; ie unreasonable tolerance.

But note how discourse on "tolerance" would include both forms without distinction.

All in all, true enough.  The RIght has some work to do. 

I true ray of sunshine

on what has become a dismal website. Thought provoking and well done.

 

 

 

 

Virtue

Poster states, "The distinctions which make us valued as unique individuals are disappearing, and the result is a society that is less productive, less cohesive, and less capable of advancing."

My answer:  Ummm, no to all three.  Just because Kristia has some issues with modern feminism doesn't mean that reality suddenly ceased to be.  Really though, "Onway to the 1950's!" isn't going to win you elections.

Voting right = fulls citizenship.  With that comes duties and responsibiles like military service.  To think that we can grant women full voting rights but not expect them to serve in the military, or worse yet, bar them from doing so, is utter nonsense.  Women should have just as much a "right" (or in the case of a draft, an obligation) to get their brains blown out for their country as a man.

I'm a land surveyor - traditionally male-dominated field.  We have a couple of licensed female surveyors in the area.  One of them is bad, really, really, really, really bad.  But you know what?  Their are several men who are as bad or as worse.  Does saying their work is shoddy because they're a man make any sense?  No.  Saying her work is shoddy because she's a woman doesn't make any sense either.  She went through all the processes to become license as any man did, she's just lazy and incompetent like the other bad surveyors.

And OMG you're still bitching about TITLE IX?  WTF?  I'd say go back to Iowa Kristia, the 21rst century is going to be a scary place for you, but....well I think you get the implication.

GOP...dragging our heals on gay/black/women/Hispanic/etc. equality sense the 1960's.

This is supposed to be a critique of the progressive movement?

 

big FAIL

Try again.

reply

Do people who use the Internet more frequently and for longer periods of time experience lower symptoms of depression than less frequent users? menopauza