A few months ago, I was given a recommendation to watch the documentary, Adult Human Female. I’ve included the video below:

In my cynical optimism, I acted on the recommendation half-expecting the documentary to be about the celebration of all things female and feminine as well as the struggles of being a woman in modern times.

Instead, as fully expected, the documentary was a bunch of talking heads discussing the ‘trans issue’. That is, men who have decided, or are compelled, to identify, and live as, the opposite gender. I say gender not sex because sex is fixed at the genetic level. Gender is sex-based behaviour and, I believe, can be fluid since there have been effeminate men and masculine women for God knows how long.

The more I watched this documentary, which is around 90 mins in length so quite short, the more I realised why they were exclusively discussing the problems with trans-women.

They were feminists. Mostly academics at that, hailing from the social sciences. And because of that, they can’t talk about all that is female and feminine. It goes against ‘equality’, you see.

This has bothered me for some years but watching this documentary just condensed the issue in that concise runtime. For decades, the feminist movement has, in essence, been pushing women to become more and more like men. Women should work like men, be paid like men, have sex like men, own cars and property like men, run businesses like men, etc, etc.

This documentary distilled, quite unwittingly I’m sure, how masculine women have become. Or, at least, how masculine they have been conditioned to be. The complete absence of any discussion about femininity in this documentary should serve as evidence of that.

And it highlighted another issue that’s been floating around in recent years – the ‘trans movement’ is the response to the feminist one in that, if women are to be encouraged to enter traditionally male spaces, then why can’t men enter traditionally female ones?

It’s likely escaped many that, over the last several decades, the push has been uni-directional. Women are to operate in the male domains and yet, has there been a call for men to operate in the female domains? Where women are being encouraged to foster careers in business, finance, engineering, etc, where is the same call for men to become nurses, primary school teachers or run childcare services?

There isn’t one.

Why is that?

Without looking into it, the first thing that springs to mind is tax.

When the first wave of feminism was in its infancy, I believe governments in the West saw an opportunity. Here we have a group of disgruntled women who believed that they should be given the same rights as men. Why they think they should have them is unimportant to governments. Maybe they’ve been forced to live alone because men didn’t find them attractive; maybe they were too disagreeable; they may have been infertile and hated their functional sisters and their happy families. Doesn’t matter. The point is, the first right they wanted was the one to vote and to then take part in matters of public discourse. Did they seek to usurp men thinking themselves morally superior? Who knows.

But that there provided an excellent opportunity for exploitation.

First – a 19th Century definition of voting from the National Archives:

“In order to vote, a person had to own property or pay certain taxes to qualify, which excluded most working class people. There were also constituencies with several voters that elected two MPs to Parliament, such as Old Sarum in Salisbury.”

Now, that defintion doesn’t explicitly state that women weren’t allowed to vote. If rich enough to own property and pay these ‘certain’ taxes, it wouldn’t matter what sex you were. Governments aren’t sexist when money is concerned.

But in order for women to be given the vote, they’d have to pay tax. From 1869 in the UK, women started entering the workforce ergo they could pay tax thus providing the conditions to vote. In 1928, British women over 21 could vote under Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928.

To put this into context, let’s look at the following extract from this government table:

These are the figures for the female population in the UK in Mid-1928. The top row is the age range and the bottom is the population within that age range. Look at everything from 20-24 onwards. I won’t ask you to total it up because it’s 13,925,400. That figure would represent the potential maximum number of voters the UK government would have gained by having allowed women into the workplace since 1869. It also represents the additional taxpayers the UK government had gained since 1869.

It is here that I’d argue the decline of the feminine began in this country. The traditional contract was that the man’s work was to exchange his time, labour, knowledge and skills for money which would be used to allow the woman to carry out her work of being mother to her children and caretaker of the household. Here, she would nurture, nourish and encourage her children in areas relevant to their circumstances. Depending on the socio-economic status of the parents, the children would either, once old enough, be put to work at a mill or a farm or sent away to be formally educated.

But bringing women into workplace en masse saw the beginning of the end of the previously luxurious position of being able to give up working to focus on motherhood and raising a family. Something that working to middle class women were not previously afforded. Until Feminism.

It is not to say that there are no benefits from this venture. For the first time, the majority of women were not reliant on a husband to provide stable income. For the first time, the majority of women could pursue careers that allowed them to fulfill the upper eschalons of Maslow’s Hierarchy. Today, we have more female CEO’s, directors, entrepreneurs and managers than at any other point in recorded history.

Whilst that has helped boost the economies of the countries where such workplace shifts have taken place, it has made one thing abundantly clear.

Women have become men.

It has long been, and still remains, the domain of the masculine to have an external purpose that makes death worthwhile. Because men do not have the ability to create life, they cannot mature emotionally or mentally from within. Men must go out and face the dangers and struggles set by the world and either overcome them or die. That still rings true today. Men make up the bulk of criminals, addicts and homeless; the very ones who stood against the world and crumbled before it.

And yet, women are not men in this regard. They are more likely to get social housing, benefits, and access to food, water and medicine if they have hit rock bottom. On the streets of my home city of Glasgow, I look at the queues for the food banks and, I’d say, at least 70% are men.

So, at the very bottom of Western society, women are not men for the most part. At the upper end, it has become the case.

Work

I am a consultant and my clients are major organisations operating in various sectors. What I have noticed over the last 10 years or so is that there is little difference between how female managers act compared to male ones. They can be just as aggressive, assertive and arrogant, sometimes more so because they are, seemingly, having to over-compensate since they are still under the impression that they are a fairly rare entity in the business world and have to fight that bit harder to stay where they are.

My observations and experience have been quite the opposite.

From the age of 19, I have worked in Finance and I have had 9 female line managers and 4 male line managers. At my last client, (a major insurance broker) the bulk of the floor was made up of women. The Global Head was a woman; her deputy was a woman and all the team managers and assistant managers were women. Hell, most of the teams were all women. And that was one floor in their Glasgow office. If I spoke to anyone in London, bar my boss who was male, I’d be speaking to a woman. I worked in Special Projects and only myself and a Senior Finance Manager were men. The rest were women.

My current client (a major supermarket) sees me engaging with more women than men as well, however, the trend continues. It’s the managers that are female. The people that do the day-to-day running of things. The problem-solvers are men. The people that fix things to make sure they can keep running are men, myself included.

So, what does this tell me? Well, maybe women aren’t quite so much men after all in the workplace. However, I’m doing to disagree with what I just said because I know that a lot of those women don’t want to be there. They don’t want to have to lead and make big decisions. They’re doing it but I can see it drains them.

With my current client, I am helping a number of women. A project manager, a business analyst and several end users of various specialisms. They all defer to me when it comes to making decisions. With the end users, I expect that. They’re not supposed to know anything about what I’m helping with. The analyst and the project manager, on the other hand, do have a say in what gets done and how. And yet, I am being deferred to.

Now, to be fair, it is just as likely that it is because I have been brought in as an experienced professional that my advice is being sought after, however, it’s not my place to make the decisions since I don’t work for the company and don’t know it as fully as they do. And yet, I have been deferred to to make significant decisions. Indeed, the only other person who is deferred to is the Financial Planning and Analysis Lead. Another man.

Similarly, with my insurance broker client, the Global Head would confide almost weekly about how there was too much to do and that she was drowning in work (a phrase my ex used a lot, funnily enough). She wasted two half-days with meetings consisting of about 10 people (half flew up from London) where she proceeded to try and effectively do the job she’d borrowed me for. What was produced was a mess but that’s to be expected since she’s an accountant and not experienced in the breadth of business areas I am. And yet, she still felt the need to prove something. It didn’t work and I still had to go away and fix it which was the job she’d borrowed me for in the first place. The impression given was that she had to at least appear to be trying to do something to make the integration of a recently acquired company’s processes easier. I could tell she just needed someone to come along and fix it for her. I did because that’s why she borrowed me from the project I was supposed to be on which was having a delayed start.

During my career, I have heard a number of women in fairly senior positions express how they’d prefer to be at home or be a ‘kept woman’. Of course, such admissions will never make it to the papers since that would create a huge feminist backlash. ‘If women want to go back home then feminism hasn’t been done properly!’, I hear them cry.

And don’t take my word for it. This Time article looks at a survey showing that 56% of American women with children under 18 would prefer to stay at home whilst 39% with children over 18 had the same preference.

What does that say? It tells me that there are a lot women that do not want to be in the workplace. And why would they? Whether you’re a high or low earner, the situation is very similar. They are working for people that simply do not have the same level of care for them that a family would. Does a company find it amazing whenever Jean bakes her chocolate chip cookies? No. They are devoured but not treasured. A family would make an occasion over something so simple because it’s showing gratitude for an an act of love and care. That same act is not treated the same way in the workplace. Believe me, I’ve eaten many a homebaked cake, biscuit, pie, etc at work and it has not endeared those people to me in the same way as my gran’s shortbread or my mum’s mince pies. There tends to be an underlying agenda with baked goods in the office. To quote the excellent Valve game, Portal – “The cake is a lie.”

But I digress. In order for women to make it in the corporate world, they must adopt a masculine persona. This does not come easily to many and I have seen the strain it puts on them as they are drained of femininity. In fact, one senior manager at a previous client seemed to adopt a coping strategy with her clothes. On days where she was having big meetings, she would sport a black pencil skirt suit and heels. When she was not having meetings, she wore long, flowing skirts, pumps, frilly tops and lots of necklaces.

Now, we could argue that women would have a better time of it in the workplace if it were more feminine. Why must business, engineering, technology, etc be so masculine. The feminists would have us believe we’re all the same. That there are no differences between men and women.

This says different.

The article linked above discussed the gender-equality paradaox. That is, when a country becomes more gender-equal, the chance of sex-typical jobs being chosen increase. In large part, this comes down to the biology of each sex. Women are more people-oriented whilst men are more thing-oriented.

However, most people-oriented professions don’t pay well despite being of high social value. A nurse in the UK gets paid an average salary of £34,000 which, whilst above national average, is not on par with a doctor at an average salary of £76,000. There is certainly more risk and responsibility in being a doctor and it helps with the ladies.

That drive to be accomplished so that he may be deemed worthy of passing on his genes is a huge factor in why men aspire to be a high-ranking professional. Simply put…it’s sexy. Women are drawn to man who is competent, accomplished and can keep control of himself under pressure. Being a risk-taker shows a man’s willingness to assert dominance over any domain. Again, a highly attractive trait.

No man wanted to be a rockstar, surgeon, fighter pilot, actor or athlete purely on the virtue of the occupation alone. Getting laid by, preferably, numerous women is the subconscious objective.

So, why is there this push to get women operating in the same spaces and at the same level as men?

Without evidence, my bet is on companies wanting to increase their profitability and less to do with women actually wanting those jobs. They are told it’s great for them and they can be ‘strong and independent’ if they are in control of their career?

How many believe that?

I point now to this Harvard Business Review article from 2002 which discusses the myth of women being able to ‘have it all’. Over 20 years ago, this article was published yet its relevance remains today as nothing has moved on for women wanting children whilst also holding down a career.

The article states that, in the United States, 33% of executive women aged 41-55 are childless. That rises to 42% at corporate level. And yet, despite yearning for a child, they do not have one.

‘In the words of one senior manager, the typical high-achieving woman childless at midlife has not made a choice but a “creeping nonchoice.”’

Having read the article, I concluded that this adopting of a masculine persona masks a woman’s feminine nature and, therefore, her primary evolutionary purpose to the point that the gentle ticking of the biological clock becomes more a gong or air-raid siren the closer to menopause she is. And yet, for many, it’s too late.

Masculinising women in the workplace may indeed be good for business. After all, if you can double your high and low-skilled workforces, you increase your profits. On top of that, by utilising women’s more agreeable nature, a businesss is more likely to get what it wants in the way it wants it. In short, I see this century-old push to get women out of the home and into the workplace as nothing but a huge profitability exploit for both business and government. And who’s in charge of both?

Equal Is Not The Same

I’m now entering the meat of what I want to say. The video above is of a male team (Wrexham A.F.C) comprised of former and retired professional football (soccer) players against members of the current US women’s team. The match was 40 minutes of two halves of 20 minutes. I must note that, at the time, the USA were the women’s world champions and ranked number one in the world.

The result? 12-0 to Wrexham.

I have played football since I was boy on the school playground, in parks, on 5-a-side pitches and full size pitches. I can tell you that the men weren’t really trying. In fact, it looked like the men didn’t want to score.

And yet, before the match, the women’s captain aggressively stated that the men would be ‘going down’. Where, exactly? Hell, maybe since they fought against their nature for the sake of money.

But wait. We’ve got it all wrong. According to this article, the result was out of context. The US co-captain, Heather O’ Reilly, said, at half-time, that “We’re super proud, so happy to be here at this event,” and that “Hopefully we’ve proven to anybody, just go for it, just live.” followed by “What’s the worst thing that could happen? We could lose 16-0 to Wrexham? We don’t care. We’re living, we’re being bold, we’re being brave.”

So, it doesn’t matter. The loss means nothing because they are being ‘bold’, ‘brave’ and ‘living’. And if it was just a kick around, sure. A friendly Guys vs Girls match would just be a bit of fun. But when you’re a the number one professional women’s national team going up against male former professional players and competing for $1million then treating the match like it had no meaning is stupidly arrogant. Where’s the integrity and humility? Where’s the accountability for the loss and acknowledgment that you were beaten by a better team? If it were another women’s team, I’m sure there’d be generous amounts of honour but since this was a bunch of ‘old’ men, what does it matter? They don’t deserve any respect, right? Let’s just be disgraceful losers and rebrand our behaviour to justify it.

This attitude does not only occur in sport. It has been rife in mainstream Hollywood films and TV shows for the last 5-8 years. The latest Charlie’s Angels reboot, the all-female Ghostbusters, Netflix’s The Witcher, Amazon’s Rings of Power and anything by Disney from Avengers Endgame onwards.

They all have female leads that abandon femininity, embrace the worst aspects of masculinity and then proceed to go on a destructive path. If they were men, they’d be called selfish jerks at best. But, since they’re female, they are ‘strong, independent women’.

But if this is the type of conditioning that young women are being exposed to then the coming generations will be in trouble. Having a generation of women raised to become narcisisstic, crass, vulgar, emotionally numb and deepy insecure does not make them strong or independent. It makes them weak and scared but they lack the emotional intelligence to recognise and acknowledge it and so will just carry on like it’s everyone else’s fault.

And, on the other side, we have boys raised by single mothers who become what previous generations cried out for from a man – Being in touch with his Feminine Side so he’s comfortable being emotionally vulnerable. But when you have a emotionally mature, kind, caring and, dare I say, soft man come up against a woman whose best male role models were abusers, rapists, harassers and manipulators, then it won’t end well for either. The man will be emotionally and mentally bruised, if not scarred whilst the woman flees and eventually regrets her actions but thinks she’s unworthy of forgiveness and redemption and therefore just goes deeper into the pit of despair. I’ve seen it all too often.

In days gone by, such an interaction would have been the other way round. It would be the woman trying to soften the hardened man, scared she may be rejected but is strong enough to risk it out of deep care. And the man would have been hardened by either war or work where he’s seen his fair share of things going fatally wrong that he shuts himself off and becomes a drone. Now, we have emotionally stable men trying to let emotionally unstable women know the world can be safe and comfortable. That they can relax. But many of those women have been too scarred and just think it a trick on the man’s part to gain control of her. It’s Beauty and the Beast gender-swapped and perverted.

And that, dear reader, is a failing on many of the societal structures that played an integral part in keeping the relationship between men and women strong and healthy. Whether it be religion, schools, communities or families, they’ve all been broken down to the point where that sacred relationship is now fracturing.

For women, the focus is less on marriage and family but career and fun. The trouble is that fun is the domain of children and career the domain of men. Many women have jobs. Few have a career as that requires motivation to keep moving up the ladder whether in one organisation or across many. In my experience, the highest I’ve seen women go has been to senior management level and even then, it’s not many compared to men. I’ve never met a female director. When we talk of the glass ceiling, I don’t believe it’s an invisible barrier placed by men to ‘keep women down’. I think it’s the point at which most women decide to stop progressing in the workplace. And the reason for that, I’d argue, is twofold – One, they realise the workplace does not make them as fulfilled as they were led to believe and, Two – they want to start a family.

But a lot of the women I’ve encountered who have stagnated career-wise haven’t switched over and started families. They’ve concentrated on fun. Go see how many women you can find who are over thirty-five, single, not had a promotion since their late-twenties but insist on having fun. It’s a lot more than you think.

As I said earlier, fun is for children. It is where you can safely engage in an activity where there are no consequences or drawbacks. No real commitment is required either since it’s not serious. Fun doesn’t matter once it’s over.

And hence, I say any woman who regards herself as ‘fun’ should be treated with caution. For this is another aspect of the modern female I’ve observed where they engage in behaviour that is similar to men but without the context. Men may well be enthusiastic when it comes to taking part in activities whether it’s getting hammered with the boys, playing sport, watching games or films, playing computer games together or talking about their favourite things over a drink. What the modern woman fails to realise is that these interactions are all competitions because men are competitive and combative. As the more aggressive sex, we challenge each other when together. If that challenge is met competently and calmly, that man will earn the honour and respect of the others. On the outside, some of these activites may appear mindless (Take any Top Gear challenge, for example) but the purpose is to check that each member of the group is capable of taking on a real challenge when it comes and whatever form it may be in. Yes, the men may have real fun doing it but it only becomes fun when each group member pulls their weight.

And these tests continue until death. How many women would actively engage in being tested by their peers in such a manner? Not many, I’d wager.

And so, having groups of women acting as if they’re ‘having fun’ just like a group of men is akin to a group of battle reenactment actors going up against an actual army. One group might like to think they’re soldiers whilst the other actually are soldiers.

Having spent their teens and twenties at university and, presumably, holding down a job, many women get to their thirties and forties and find themselves in a stalemate – Give up the career or give up on being a mother and grandmother. Which would the biggest regret on their deathbed, I wonder? Working longer and harder to become a department head of a company that doesn’t care or mother to children that love and cherish her existence?

This article looks at the ever decreasing spiral that is Western birthrates. Whilst I agree with most of what it says, what it fails to address, or admit given the author is a woman, is that by abandoning the basic function of being a woman, the feminist movement will, ultimately, if nothing is done, see the human race wipe itself out. Encouraging women to act more like men will not result in any liberation except for the liberation of existence.

And this is another facet of being a man that women are getting wrong. A man’s career is his purpose. It is his way of protecting and caring for his wife and children. If the woman is also in the workplace, who’s looking after the children? By being in the workplace along with the men, they are being put into direct competition with those they are meant to love, honour and protect.

Men are part of the Artifical Order, therefore, through the creation of artefacts, we provide value to the species. From spears and fire to roads, paper, buildings, computers, cars, etc, a man’s labour culminates in the creation of something that, ultimately, doesn’t occur naturally.

Women belong to the Natural Order meaning they belong to the creative force which is Nature since their primary purpose is to bring about the next generation of humanity. What Feminism is doing is eroding femininity in favour of masculinity which will, if it continues down its chosen path, see the human race extinct through women actively choosing to not perform the single most important job in all of humanity.

To give birth!

With declining fertility rates in 97% of countries, the population will age rapidly in the 2040’s and it will be partly down to women being encouraged to forego having children. In reality, we need to learn to reembrace, support, celebrate and love the Mother rather than continue to shun Her. To not do so will ensure annihilation.

Sport

By conditioning women into this masculine persona, the erosion of male and female relations has been occuring. Take the football example from earlier. By so blindly believing they can beat men at physical activity, it highlights to serve that some women are so far removed from their femininity that they may well believe themselves to be men. And if that is the case, then maybe feminism has achieved an element of equality albeit misguided.

And misguided it is. In 2013, Serena Williams (then women’s tennis no.1) went on record to say that she’d never play Andy Murray (then men’s tennis no.2) as he would ‘destroy’ her. She acknowledged the differences between the men and women’s game and accepted that men are nastier and more brutal.

However, as a teenager, Serena and her sister, Venus, did play against German male tennis player, Kaarsten Braasch, in 1998. Both teenagers, they played Braasch (then ranked outside the Top 200) for one set each and lost to the German.

Serena has famously, or not so, played against Roger Federer. In 2019, the pair played against each other in a mixed doubles match for the Hopman Cup tournament. Switzerland beat the USA in straight sets.

Setting aside single instances, it’s concerning that these physical contests between men and women seem to be on the increase as though driven by this same deranged mentality that there are no differences between the sexes. In WWE, there are mixed-sex matches, however, the women get to hit the men whilst the men must restrain themselves against the women. Here’s an example.

In this match, not only is the male opponent smaller than the female but he actively assists in helping Rhea Ripley perform her manoeuvres. On top of that, he doesn’t attack or defend himself and spends the whole match being used by Rhea.

In the above match highlights, forward to 3.45, Rhea Ripley does not show the same strength when performing a similar move against her female competitor, Liv Morgan. Yet, in the match I showed against Akira, go to 2.36, she lifts him with ease. Note, Akira pushes against her so he’s actually supporting her to complete the move.

I know WWE is hardly a standard bearer for gender relations but the fact that this is going on in such a popular entertainment format begs the question – What happens when young girls see this and start picking fights with boys thinking they can just throw them around?

Glad you asked because it’s already happening:

There’s a plethora of these Man vs Woman videos about but this won had decent variety for it’s reasonably short length. The point here is to illustrate that, even in the military, most of the time, the man is beating the woman. The only times a woman beats a man is if she’s professional and he’s not or she has a significant weight advantage over the man i.e. she’s twice his size or greater.

And what you’ll notice when you go an watch such videos is that, going by the footage, the men involved are good men. How do I know? They’re not humiliating the women straight away. They’re being gentle and letting the women they’re going up against be cocky. But there comes a point in each encounter when the woman thinks she has the man and that’s when he steps in and puts her down. He’s a gentleman until she stops being a lady.

In 2007, Wimbledon was the last of the major tournaments in tennis to offer equal prize money for men and women. Both winners get £2.35m whilst the runner-up gets £1.175m. Great for equality but then, equality doesn’t always mean fair.

Where the women play best of three sets, the men play best of five so, already, the men are effectively underpaid as they are doing more work and have been since the ‘Open Era’ of tennis started in 1968.

The men

This is a dangerous and stupid road we’re heading down. In my home city of Glasgow, it’s the women that are becoming more and more aggressive to the men. Shouting, screaming and hitting. I see it on the streets. The men, for the most part, just take it because they can. They take it because they have to. The consequences for retaliation are more severe since, as mentioned previously, the laws are made to predominantly keep men in line because men know how violent men can be.

But how far does it go with female aggression that it becomes reasonable for a man to retaliate without recourse? Why does it even have to go far at all? Are women seeing themselves so much as men that they believe they can start being verbally and physically aggressive? Going from what I see more regualrly and footage I’ve found, it seems so.

And why is that?

Simple.

Men have an instinct to protect women. I’ll rephrase that. I like to think that most men have a protective instinct since there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary to say that all men have this.

For those that do, how much of that is being eroded?

Over the last five years, I’ve found myself less likely to step in when a woman looks to be in a vulnerable state. The amount of harassment cases in the press (how much of it is spin is uncertain) makes it less worthy of a man’s time now to stand up and help a woman out when it’s clear she’s in need of help, even in danger. The endless messaging of how women now are ‘strong and independent’ and ‘don’t need a man’ have been blasting over the PA of the Internet loud enough that many men have heard it loud and clear and packed up and shipped off where they can be on their own and at peace.

The current MGTOW (Men Go Their Own Way) and Red Pill movements have been a direct response to the aggressive feminist messaging of recent times. If women don’t need a man, fine. The supply of men will be voluntarily reduced by those that don’t need the hassle of such a woman. It’s not that they don’t a want relationship. Many do, but if all they’re going to get is hounded and harassed for not living up to the standards the woman has set then, in their eyes, it’s simply not worth it.

And the trouble with such messaging is that it’s predominantly the good men that hear the messages and take action to avoid women as much as possible. And if more of those good men take heed then women end up with a pool of the kind of men they don’t want for a relationship but can be a lot of fun for a night with potentially lifelong ramifications.

Equality’s alright if he looks like a woman, I suppose.

One woman. One man. One ring. Okay, most men will have disowned this excuse for having the gall to enter a ring with a real woman and pretend he’s not a he. Which, by willingly having a fight with a woman, he ain’t. He can stay trans but that’s providing the women take him which, based on this, I don’t think they will.

The male (going by the alias, Alana Mclaughlin) was untrained and unskilled in Mixed Martial Arts and went up against Celine Provost, a skilled female amateur.

For most of the match, the male, I’ll call him Alan, was clumsily reluctant about engaging his female opponent.

Between minutes 12 and 14 is where Alan let go and left Celine crouching above a pool of her own blood whilst the commentator declared the match ‘a victory for the trans community’.

Really? Watching a man beat up a woman for sport is now a victory? And why is it?

To be dealt with in the next part.

The troubling thing here is that Celine did go along with the match. I have no information on why she did so I can only assume she thought it would raise her profile. If you look at her expression when the referee declares the winner, she looks utterly baffled by what’s happened to her. It seems clear she’s never been hit the way Alan hit her. And neither she should have.

I’ve purposely avoided mentioning the ‘T’ word again as I’ll go through it more in the next part. But, I wanted to use that instance to show that men (albeit heavily diluted ones) are being pitted against women for sport.

Where to from there? It’s already happening in cycling, swimming, running, netball, basketball, volleyball, etc. Men, under the disguise of Trans identification, are taking over women’s sport.

To Be So Equal, It’s Unequal

One arena where there has been a huge push for more women is Formula One. Already, a highly exclusive sport where, in a given season, there are 20-24 spots available. There, gender isn’t a direct barrier. Money, talent, skill, discipline and determination are as much the barrier as physicality. Women have tried and, in its 73-year history, only five women made it to the grid. In 1980, Desiré Wilson won the Brands Hatch round of the British Aurora F1 Championship, a UK-specific offshoot of F1 proper.

Aside from that sole victory, the most successful proper female F1 driver has been Lella Lombardi who made 12 starts from 17 entries and managed to score points.

The last woman to enter F1 was in 1992 where Giovanna Amati drove for Brabham. She made three entries but no starts.

What’s interesting about Giovanna is that she never won any of the lower formulas. Ordinarily, you have to win the feeder series’ before getting a shot at F1. Giovanna was somehow signed with no titles to her name.

In the 21st Century, there have been concerted efforts to get more women on the grid of F1. Scotland’s Suzie Wolff came close and even got to test a Williams F1 car and eventually signed as a test and development driver in 2012. Another high profile figure was Carmine Jordá who signed a deal with Lotus in 2015 to have a run in the car.

Of all the efforts to get a woman on the grid, none have made it. The situation got so tense that demands were made to grant a woman a place. Bernie Ecclestone, then owner of the sport, wouldn’t allow it and instead another solution was to be found. The result was the W Series. A womens-only formula.

That is to say that segregating the women from the men to then allow a woman to compete against the men in the most elite motorsport was the only solution that could be found?

Why not just have them do what every man has done? Go out and compete against the men fair and square. Is that not equality? As I mentioned, in that sport, if you have the money, talent, skill, discipline and determination then you take your shot and make the most of it. Thousands upon thousands of men and boys have tried and failed to get into one of those hallowed seats, so why should women be any different?

“I think any platform that gives females an equal opportunity, that is great. Or even just a leg up, because we haven’t ever had it. Women deserve a leg up, and the W Series provides that and I have no issue with that. The best drivers will come out of it and hopefully it will then make [F1] team bosses see them a bit more.”

That was Claire Williams back in 2021. She’s the team principal of Williams Racing, a team founded by her late father, Frank. I couldn’t find any elaboration on why she thinks women specifically deserve a leg up in F1 when it doesn’t actively exclude women as proven by the very fact she is the team principal of a Formula One team. But then, she did inherit the position from her father after he’d built it up to being one of the most successful teams in the history of the sport, so…

With Jamie Chadwick winning all three W Series championships and with sponsors struggling with the feasibility of the championship, the series went into administration in the middle of June 2023.

And yet, Alice Powell, an original entrant from the inaugural 2019 season, insists “W Series DID NOT fail”.

Why?

She said, to the BBC, “At the end of the day, W Series got me out racing again, whether you agreed with the championship or not.”

Well, as long as she got some racing from the hundreds of millions spent that, ultimately, went down the drain. She had some fun, didn’t she? That’s all that matters. How can it have failed if they all got some racing out of it?

Because it failed in its objective of getting a woman a seat in F1. No matter how many prominent male and female figures backed this series, it did not achieve what it set out to do.

In addition, not only did the sponsors deem it unviable, so did the fans. Averaging 710,000 viewers, it compared poorly against F1 and its average of 70.3million viewers with cumulative figures of 1.54billion. Formula 3, W Series’ equivalent, has enjoyed a peak of 188million. Couldn’t find stats on average viewership though.

So, why continue to push for something that neither sponsors are willing to back and viewers aren’t willing to watch? F3 and F2 are lower tier race series but they are still watched by millions around the world. Granted, they are older than the W Series but, in reality, viewers aren’t as bothered by that as sponsors.

It all comes down to racing. If it’s good enough, people will watch regardless of whether it’s men or women in the cars.

I’ll go back to tennis. Huge numbers of viewers for both men and women’s iterations. Clearly, audiences love seeing the best women go against each other just as much as they love watching the best men try and win against each other. But not motorsport. Not football. Not rugby. Not boxing. Yes, to MMA and WWE but no to basketball.

What’s the common denominator?

I’ll tell you. The sports where, at elite level, women are trying to compete with men, they fail because women cannot compete at that same level. The WNBA is the peak of female basketball but that peak is not the same peak as the NBA. With W Series, Jamie Chadwick may have wiped the floor with her competition but that does not mean she can compete in F1.

Going back to Serena Williams, she has stated that she sees men and women’s tennis as two separate sports based on differences between men and women. That’s fair, reasonable and healthy and should be the same across all sports. There’s no shame in being the best woman in the world at a sport. Why this incessant need to push into men’s territory? It will only, and has, come back to bite them.

Relations

The creep into men’s sport and workplaces has one thing in common – Status.

The shift has been in that direction of high-status positions which come with equally high pay but also, if you’re not careful, high pressure and consequences for failure.

The trouble is that, in pushing women in this direction, we see a further erosion of their feminine nature and this has had serious consequences on their relations with men.

In order to operate at such levels, you need to be competitive, combative, cooperate, aggressive, assertive, driven, clever, strategic and devious as well be able to deliver results on time under immense pressure. In top level positions, you fail once, you’re gone.

This is, and continues to be, the way men operate. We operate like this because we need to show our potential female mate that we are the best mate for her. In doing so, she might grant us the opportunity to pass our genes on thus fulfilling our biological evolutionary purpose. We also do it to show our male peers who’s top dog.

But women don’t have that same purpose. So, what happens when women act like men but then still seek a male partner to have a relationship with and, potentially, start a family with?

In essence, the man ends up dating someone who, whilst physically and biologically female, is emotionally, mentally and spiritually male. Thus, we have a man with XY and a man with XX chromosomes.

The two rarely go together and, I’d argue, it’s the underlying reason for a lot of failed relationships and divorces. They may not know it on a conscious level, but a career-driven woman is only going to try and outdo her career-driven man. Similarly, a career-driven woman will only love a man of little to no ambition or prospects for a time as he’ll feed one aspect of her femininity; That aspect being her maternal instinct. This is problematic but it’s unfortunately common. Instead of having a family, the man ends up being the surrogate child to the woman creating a perverse Oedipal relationship. He takes from her as he’s largely useless but is charming enough to make her blind and she gives because her insecurity keeps her from finding someone who would make her a real wife and mother. Perhaps, on some level, such a woman fears a secure and stable man because that would then cause her to confront her lost femininity. It would also mean she couldn’t control him.

Equally, two driven partners will only go to war against each other as both try to take the wheel of the relationship. In the end, neither win and the relationship runs off the road, crashes and burns. The man, trying to assert his masculinity, is going up against a woman who denies her femininity and tries to assert her masculinity also.

A way I like to think about it is this – You and a partner have started a business. One partner looks after finance and operations and the other looks after sales and marketing. In the beginning, the business is doing well with both partners doing their assigned roles. They’ll discuss matters relating to those roles but don’t interfere in the running of them. But, one day, the sales and marketing partner starts trying to tell the finance and operations partner how to manage the books and structure the company. Initially resistant, the finance and operations partner either gives in or starts hiding things from the sales and marketing partner. With trust broken, the company starts a downhill struggle to which it will never recover. And all because one partner thought they could tell the other how to be better at something they don’t know anything about.

This is the crux of the issue. Women, under feminism, are effectively trying to tell men how to be men whilst trying to be men themselves. But Hell mend any man that tells a woman to be a woman.

For relationships, it’s going to be failure after failure. With loneliness on the rise, feminism has its part to play in this social epidemic that no one is talking about. What’s needed is a return to traditional feminine roles.

But the governments of the world have us pegged there too. Here in the UK, it’s still possible to raise a family on one wage in moderate comfort. That wage is £40,000 and would put the earner into the 75th percentile or bottom of the top 25% of earners, before tax. See how the whole tax and workforce thing from a century ago has come back to haunt us? Now, only one in four people have a chance of the traditional family, economically-speaking. This tradition has only been eroded in the last thirty years or so. And with the manipulation of prices, the wedge between men and women will be driven even deeper until such times that only one in four people can actually support themselves let alone a family.

But is there a more sinister and dangerous objective that drives feminist women to high-status roles?

Let’s play Devil’s Advocate for a moment. One of the tenets of modern feminism is: All women are oppressed.

It’s a blanket statement and it’s one I’ve seen fairly ordinary women believe. The alleged Glass Ceiling is just men keeping women from achieving higher positions and surpassing them. Meanwhile, we’ve had Queens, female Prime Ministers, CEO’s, entrepreneurs, singers, actors, scientists and inventors. Granted, in some arenas, women are not as abundant as men but surely that’s merely down to the differences between men and women?

This leads to another tenet: We’re all equal.

If you’re oppressed, you’re not equal. You’re less. If you subscribe to feminist rhetoric, you are saying that, if we scale it right down, your best friend is also the person who’s been bullying you all your life. One of those is true and the other is denial. You can’t have both.

What can be true is to concede that some women are oppressed. Especially in the Middle East. You do not hear women from the Middle East complain about oppression precisely because they are oppressed and scared for their own lives as well as those of their female friends, mothers, aunts and daughters. A more open, democratic society allows honest discourse and here we have feminists abusing the system, which men built, to demonise the very sex that has granted them the means to speak their mind.

I come back to the video at the top of the post. At 43m 10s, we hear a woman tell of her time in the fire brigade where she ended up leaving because the men ‘made her feel uncomfortable’. She does not go on to explain why or give examples to back up her statement. It is to be accepted. However, by not offering any reason, she’s left herself open to interpretation. Feminists will believe her outright without question whilst others, like myself, would like to know more.

My guess is that, yes indeed, she was made to feel uncomfortable but not because she’s a woman as she alludes to. I’d wager it’s because she wasn’t able to pull her weight and the men had to step in and compensate before something serious happened. In the world of Men, if you’re a liability, you’re gone. Yes, Men will help each other but you must have proven yourself competent first. From my understanding of women, there seems to be more leniency due to a tendency to be more compassionate, caring and understanding. With this woman, I reckon she wasn’t up to whatever task/s were set for her but the men were told to help her since HR, in all likelihood, wanted her there to prove diversity works.

I’m sorry, but I do not see that woman swinging an axe in a burning building and breaking down a door in one go to then go and pick up a 100kg man who’s collapsed from smoke inhalation. All while not panicking.

Which brings me to the third tenet: Believe All Women.

Amber Heard, anyone?

How about Lucy Letby?

Former UK Post Office CEO, Paula Vennells?

Former Natwest CEO, Alison Rose?

Elizabeth Bathory?

Mary I of England?

Amanda Knox?

Hancock Prospecting CEO, Gina Rinehart?

I guess their actions were the fault of Men.

It’s eight examples of women across varying timelines and occupying various echalons of society, but they all know/knew what they were doing. No man had to tell them a thing.

Back in June, I was in Switzerland to see one of my favourite bands, Rammstein, play in Bern. The week of the concert, the media published news of frontman Till Lindeman being alleged to have drugged a female fan to get her to have sex with him. The fan accused him on Twitter of touching her then ‘getting angry’ when she refused to have sex. This all took place at a private, invite-only pre-show event called ‘Row Zero’ where fans get the chance to spend time with the band prior to a show.

On the day of the show in Bern, I turned up to the Wankdorf Stadium to see a crowd of feminist protesters holding placards, shouting and throwing things at the fans. Bare in mind, no investigation had been opened. Only allegations had been put forward. But the protesters not only deemed Till Lindemann guilty, but the crowd too. It seemed that fans, as far as the protesters were concerned, turning up to an event, booked months in advance, and who would have had no idea that allegations would have been presented, are just as at fault as the man who may/may not have done anything.

To make it worse, the police did nothing to move the protesters away from the crowd. They stood and watched as abuse, as well as bottles and cans, were hurled at people, some of whom were young children, who just wanted to see a good show. It was evident the police had chosen a side when they’re job is to maintain social order not encourage and allow social disorder.

The concert itself seemed tainted well before it started and due to the allegations. The crowd were not enthusiastic and the band, whilst they played competently, were not as Teutonically passionate as I’d seen them in previous times. Till himself was uncharacteristically vocal and seemed to get upset with a stage hand who came on to take the pot lid away during the song ‘Mein Teil’, shouting ‘NEIN!’ into the microphone and stomping on the lid to stop the stage hand from taking it away. It was odd behaviour for a man whose entire stage presence is one of stoicism and professionalism.

As it turned out, the female fan backpedalled and said nothing happened which begs the question, why accuse someone of something so serious as attempted rape induced by drugs if nothing happened? Why did Berlin police open a case against Till Lindemann shortly after the Bern concert only to drop it two and a half months later due to a ‘lack of evidence’? One allegation affected, most certainly, one show and no doubt many others as well as the fans, the band, the crew and Till himself.

Rammstein played their remaining 19 shows and concluded their tour on 5th August while the investigation continued before concluding itself on August 29th. Till and the band played to over half a million people to keep their promise to fans whilst the other members of the band stuck with Till to show solidarity and keep their friendship alive. A man’s entire livelihood was threatened, his image to be tarnished and fans , if Bern was anything to go by, may not have gotten Rammstein at their consummate best. All because one woman said Till touched her and got angry. But, then, maybe he didn’t.

This is the severity that many high-profile men have had to deal with, guilty or not. Till Lindeman, and those that follow and support him, all suffered repercussions of one form or another yet were expected to handle them whilst the woman who made the allegations has had no action taken against her despite admitting nothing happened.

Again, this woman offered no explanation to back up her claim. She expected her statement to be taken as fact. And, again, I have to wonder why she would make such a serious claim only to withdraw it completely later.

My guess would be that she went to the Row Zero party with the expectation of trying to get Till to herself. By that, I mean, she wanted to have sex alone with him. I saw some of the women at Bern enter Row Zero and how they were dressed. They were not there intent on discussing music or philosophy.

I reckon that Till may well have wanted to have sex with his future accuser but not alone. Maybe with other women or maybe a mix. She refused, seeing the image she’d dreamed of shatter and got upset and so chose to lash out on Twitter rather than either take the rejection and accept it or accept his terms of engagement. That’s how I think it went down but we’ll never know for sure.

All that being a long-winded way of saying that, no. Not all women should be believed no more than all men should be believed. Not blindly, by any means, that’s for sure.

And so, how does this all fit in with relations? Well, it seems we’re entering a new form of tyranny. One where women get to be both perpetrator and victim at once. In the case of Amber Heard, Johnny Depp did not make her pay the $18million the court said she owed him so she got off exceptionally lightly and will be able to continue to have a life albeit probably not one in Hollywood.

The case against Lucy Letby is already one of softness. Despite murdering babies and denying mothers and fathers their own children, experts have been talking about how she’ll spend her first few years in solitary confinement since other inmates do not take kindly to crimes against children. She will likely be protected initially before being released into the general prison populace and even then, she may get special protection afterwards.

And the Rammstein fan? After an initial backlash on Twitter, it seems her life has returned to normal. The same cannot be said for Till Lindemann and Rammstein. They are touring in 2024 but we’ll see if anymore allegations come to light.

The crux of this is that relations between men and women are becoming more fractured. Men are increasingly not approaching women, either in a sexual or romantic context, precisely because they see cases like those aforementioned and think if it can affect the high status men, it would ruin an ordinary man and so, they do not bother.

And, meanwhile, I see increasingly that more women are perpetuating the notion that ‘all men’ are rapists, cheaters, abusers, etc. It’s hardly surprising since that’s about all the men left available after all the good, single men have decided to not bother with the hassle of having their entire livelihood ruined because one woman took something the wrong way. Better to avoid than suffer the potential consequences.

And if this continues, we’ll find ourselves at a point where men and women do not engage at all.

It’s this aggression and insistence that ‘all men’ are X,Y,Z that is helping to divide the sexes further. And men simply have no way to tackle it since the accusers have all the outwardly intent of a man but as soon as they’re caught and questioned, retreat into female vulnerability. It’s guerrilla warfare of the mind and soul and it will, if allowed to continue, tear us apart.

And where has it come from? Generations of gradually fracturing family units, which brings me to –

The Failure of Men

The masculinisation of women, I think, has as much to do with women as it does men. Specifically, the failure of fathers and husbands. All the abusive, neglectful, hateful, spiteful, bitter, violent men that did not do their duty and love and care for their wives, mothers, daughters, etc. It’s these men who have had a huge impact on the erosion of femininity and the increase in the masculine among women.

I have known women raised by their father who ended up struggling to reconcile their feminine nature with the masculine persona that’s been projected on to them; Or women abused by an uncle who turned to martial arts so they could toughen up and make sure they don’t get taken advantage of again.

There was a woman who’s been through a traumatic childbirth but ended up being treated as nothing more than a child by her father instead of being allowed to rest, heal and grow.

Such actions build resentment in women and I can certainly understand their reluctance to trust a man when their impression of masculinity has been one of control, neglect and abuse.

However, that imprint stays with a lot of young women and they end up attracted to the very same type of man that they hate. They have been programmed and conditioned to be turned on, aroused, get butteflies, the ‘feel’s, however you want to call it, by these destructive male role models only to then want that in a sexual/romantic partner.

Which brings me to –

The Macho Woman

I’m not talking about Ellen Ripley or Sarah Connor here. Those women adopted a masculine persona to survive the Hell they’d been put in. But they were naturally feminine women.

I’m talking about this.

The kind of woman who goes out, parties hard, drinks harder, likes to get fucked then goes and picks a fight with another woman so hard the police have to get involved.

Sound familiar with a certain type of man?

The kind that thinks he’s strong, tough and has a way with the ladies, but, in reality, is deeply insecure and only preys on less secure women to make himself feel better.

For the last twenty years or so, we’ve had the female version, the ‘ladette’, here in the UK and she’s in a similar vein. Likes to think she’s strong, tough and can drink as hard as the boys and likes her sex to be fast and rough.

As far as career goes, the macho woman follows suit with her male counterpart. Likes to play up what she does for a living and make herself sound big and important when she’s earning a low to middle income and has no real aspirations or skills to go higher.

And she’ll pick fights for the sake of it just to make sure she’s right.

In truth, she’s broken.

Sex

Integral to relationships between men women is sex. We are now in an age of hookup culture where, just as sixties feminists wanted, women get to fuck like men.

Or do they?

The Pill has all but taken consequence and accountability for a woman’s reckless actions away from her. Historically, if a woman had sex during her fertile period, she’d fall pregnant and it was game over. If she was married, she had a husband to take care of her and her child. If she was married and the child was not her husband’s, she’d either be turned out or her husband would turn cuckold and raise a child that wasn’t his. Neither situation would be ideal as the former could lead to destitution whilst the latter could lead to social ruin.

A woman having a child out of wedlock was frowned upon as the child had no stable home environment.

Now, though it’s alright. A woman can sleep with who she wants, get pregnant and either, kill the embryo or, if she decided to keep it, get state mandated funding from the father. Or just child benefit from the state itself. There are subsidies for childcare if she can’t get her parents or his parents to look after the child while she works, if she works. If she doesn’t, her benefits will increase as a result of the child.

All this is to say that the consequences of unprotected sex are far less severe than they used to be for a woman in the Western world. For a man, they’re the same. Either raise a child you didn’t intend on having and sacrifice some of your time, energy and money or sacrifice a slice of your wages as mandated by the courts. If a man has no intention of being with the mother of his child, then he must be held to account and made to pay. But what of the woman? She was equally irresponsible.

But, no. How could she be? She’s just an innocent woman who was taken advantage of.

Sure. In some cases, that will happen. But there are plenty of instances where such an outcome could have been avoided and plenty where it was planned.

But how does it happen in the first place?

The example I like to use is the case of the insecure man meeting the insecure woman at a bar.

The insecure woman is out with her girlfriends looking for a night of drinking and dancing i.e. that ‘fun’ thing I mentioned earlier. But also, be in consciously or not, she is seeking validation and affirmation as an attractive woman.

Enter the insecure man. His objective is, yes, to be out with the boys for a few drinks and a laugh but it is always to be ‘on the pull’. He is actively seeking validation and affirmation as an attractive man.

But an insecure man differs from a secure man in a number of ways. Where a secure man will look at his surroundings and see if there is a suitable opportunity to naturally approach the woman he’s interested in, the insecure man will either bottle it or throw caution to the wind. If it’s the former, nothing happens and he’ll feel even more insecure. If it’s the latter, he’ll be far more abrupt and forceful.

He spies a group of (macho) women in the bar, steadily drinking themselves into oblivion. A secure man would never approach such women except to maybe get them a taxi. For the insecure man, such a group presents a prime opportunity.

Maybe he has an eye on woman in particular. Maybe, he’s not fussy. Either way, he’s going over with all the tricks of the trade in his head and in his swagger. Faux confidence is full to the brim,

The insecure woman is, as part of the group, out with her friends for good night out, just like her male counterparts. But the main goal for tonight is to have a good night out. No one wants to pull.

However, should an insecure man on the prowl say the right things and push the right buttons, an insecure woman could be swayed to allow herself to be pulled whether she wants it or not.

Why is that?

Well, women want validation of desirability. That desirability is driven by their youth, health and fertility. And in order to get access to that, a man must be able to negotiate his way to it. And in order for him to do that, he must display his masculine traits as well as his dedication to his chosen female.

Now, an insecure woman is easy prey for an insecure man because she’s unsure of her inherent feminine worth. An insecure man is playing at being a genuinely masculine man and so will be reliant on the insecure woman not being able to weed him out.

He whispers sweet nothings, buys her drinks, maybe some food then coerces her back to his place. The pair have sex. He feels great. She…less so. He’s achieved his goal. She feels used.

And she’s right to. Because she was.

The primary evolutuionary purpose of a woman is to give birth. For that, she requires the stability and security offered by a man. She needs that because she’s vulnerable during pregnancy and for many years after giving birth where her child will be dependent on her for care. She needs a man that stable and secure because she needs to be looked after in order for her to look after the child.

In short, she wants a relationship. Something an insecure man can’t offer.

And, as an important addition, the macho woman persona of today’s women conflicts with their femininity. Add on any insecurities and you have a woman that is cripplingly unable to handle the very thing she desires. This has given rise to…

The Femcel

This movement of women, whose male counterpart will be looked at in the next post, is comprised of those who deem themselves to be undesirable and unattractive enough to the men they want that they believe those men will not have sex with them let alone have a relationship with them. In this regard, they have deigned themselves to be involuntarily celibate to the men they want most to have relations with. Instead, they choose to have sex with men they’d rather have nothing to do with just to feel some inkling that they are desirable.

It was this Elle article that gave me some more insight although, I’d had plenty as a younger man debating with women my age on how one-night stands were just masturbation with another human being; cold, mechanical and generally there to serve the needs of an insecure man. Now those women will be in their thirties, I wonder if their views have changed on the matter. Maybe some of them are femcels now.

My point here is that being reduced to sleeping with men you don’t like is not much of a choice. As the article puts, it would be ‘akin to choosing between starving and eating poisoned food.’ The picture is clear. Women want to be desired and some are willing to stoop low to be that. But should they and why are they unwillingly entering into masochistic relations?

If the previous elements of this post are taken into account – Feminism; career over family; status over virtue; the Macho Woman; and an increasing lack of decent men raising decent boys and girls then it could stand to reason that this creates a melting pot of discordance within the female psyche that rejects so much that it becomes rejected but refuses to change to become accepted and so will hatefully accept the scraps of desire offered but will then blame that on being rejected.

What we end up with is women that reject feminine qualities of health, fertility, kindness, softness, nurturing and beauty because they want to be seen as equal to be men, but, to do that, must adopt that masculine persona so hard they think they are men when pursuing a career. However, when it comes to finding a partner to build a family, they come up short because no masculine man wants a masculine woman ergo they end up drawing the short straw in having to suffer less-than-ideal men for sexual encounters only which fuels their hatred of the men that rejected them whilst also fuelling their hatred of themselves for allowing themselves to be used by men they reject, except they can’t reject themselves because women aren’t wrong so it must be the Patriarchy.

I think I got it.

And all because women are less inclined to be women.

Part two is next.