Women's Equality and Racial Equality

The strongest opposition to a homemaker allowance comes from the Feminist crowd, who regard mothers and housewives with contempt, which I return with knobs on. As presented in the media~~Which is all we know about Feminists!~~they are pre-sexual females who detest sexually-formed women and men. So where sane people want the male-female thing to work, Feminists don't want it to work. Or rather, the corporate media don't want the male-female thing to work, because it would empower ordinary decent people. Gender-denial being a joke at best or, taken seriously, insanity.

Let's say, Feminism is 90% scam, and 10% honest feeble-mindedness. A retard could honestly confuse women's equality with racial equality. So let's clean up this spot of legitimate confusion.

If 10% of the population is Black, 10% of the media should be Black. If 1% of the population is Jewish, 1% of the media should be Jewish. Let's keep it simple! But 50% of the population is female: Should 50% of the media be female? Emphatically NOT!

The difference is that racial and religious groups are whole populations, while men and women are parts of a population. Fully developed, racial groups would be similar: similar successes and failures, athletes and artists, professionals and amateurs. Each group would have some distinguishing features~~black basketball players and Jewish violinists~~but similar wealth, status and power. If blacks are 10% of the population, they have 10% of the wealth. If Jews are 1%, they have 1%. If whites are 70% of the population, they have 70% of the wealth. That is the dream of RACIAL EQUALITY.

one black man = one white man
one black woman = one white woman
one black child = one white child

But it is lunacy to suggest a black man should have parity with a white child, or a black child with black men, or black women with white men.

When people realise their potential, they are similar, regardless of race or religion. But with gender, when women achieve realisation, possibly 80% are homemakers with part-time jobs, and 80% of men are breadwinners with frontline jobs. Full realisation includes relationships and family. Men want to protect and provide for their women: Men achieve full realisation as breadwinners. Women want to give their men and children good homes: Women achieve full realisation as homemakers. The Feminist idea of gender parity, the same number of men and women in every occupation, could only be achieved by eliminating homes and children, by frustrating the life-object of the vast majority of men and women.

If you think half our firefighters should be women, you are peculiar. And if not half, Why any? Why should any women be firefighters? Even if a woman is as good as a man for example, it still has to be considered whether a mixed team is as good as a men's team; supported perhaps by women's auxiliaries.

You only have a right to what is necessary for your healthy growth and realisation. Men need jobs so they can maintain their wives and families in proper style; but it isn't important to a woman's self-image that she maintain her husband.

I cannot forget the British Empire used sexually-unfinished women to antagonise the natives and deny their manhood. And the corporations similarly exploit the Feminists to reduce our young men to irrelevance: allowed the symbols of manhood~the hair, tattoos and beautified bodies~but denied the reality.


WOMEN IN THE OLYMPIC GAMES


The solution comes first preferably. Women and men should have the same number of events in the Olympic Games~~say 100 events each~~but not the same events. That's my preferred solution. So what's the problem?

Why do we have women in the Olympic Games? If white guys can't compete with black guys over 100 metres~~Tough! We don't have separate events for white guys. We don't have separate events for children or seniors. Paraplegics get their own Olympics. Why do we run separate events for women in the Olympic Games?

The answer is: Because the Olympic Games would be boring without them. Women athletes are pretty! After watching Carl Lewis for 10 seconds, it is a relief to see Aussie girls playing beach volleyball in those skimpy outfits. It is sexism! Pure, life-affirming sexism! And I would argue very properly, the Olympic Games are a celebration: The strength of the male~~And the grace of the female.

Now we can see the issue in perspective.

A: The Olympics could be gender-blind, as with race. Which would involve the wholesale elimination of women from the games. Scarcely 1 in 1000 qualifiers would be a woman.

B: Separate Olympics for women, as with the paraplegic games.

C: Copycat events for women and men. The present policy.

D: Substantially different events for men and women in a ratio of 60:40 say. The old policy. Synchronised swimming and half-marathons for women. A minor role for women.

E: Substantially different events for men and women, but the same number of events each: say 100. The politically correct solution, somewhat dishonest. My preferred solution.

F(combining D and E): A fixed number of events for men and women, but with fewer events for women: say 100 for men and 75 for women. A minor role for women again with substantially different events. The honest but politically incorrect solution.

Women cannot compete with men as equals, so women's athletics need a different rationale. Only from the spectator's viewpoint might women's athletics be as important as men's. Nobody actually enjoys watching a grunting Bulgarian weightlifter, but women gymnasts are pretty as hell. People don't feel threatened by women athletes the way they do by men. From the participant's viewpoint, athletics are more important for men than for women, as representing the male physical ideal. Male athletes are gloriously supersexed men; whereas female athletes tend to be desexed, certainly in the grunt events, perhaps less so in the graceful events. The female physical ideal is not an athlete but someone more like a pregnant Marilyn Monroe.

If men and women had a limited number of events, say 100 events each, they would then have to decide which are the more important. Which events cast men and women in the most flattering light? The marathon and weightlifting for men, but gymnastics and synchronised swimming for women. We would not likely have weightlifting for women, or synchronised swimming for men. There are too many Olympic events, and many are ridiculous. It is absurd to speculate whether boxing is as important for women as for men; so we avoid the question. Boxing would likely reach the top 100 list for men but not for women. And ultimately with any luck, the Olympics would be a celebration of the strength of the male, and the grace of the female. Which may indeed be equal.

It is a bit of a stretch to say that athletics are as important for women as for men. But if I can manage it, you can.