Making the future, rather than history

When it comes to making history, men often take the cake and that is a natural outcome of differences between men and women. While many feminists like to erase the lines between men and women, pretending that the two sexes are identical  in order to pander to their own fantasies about achieving an “equality” of outcomes, that simply is not the case. Each sex is tooled for different purposes, given different abilities, and operates according to different incentives, so expecting their results to be similar is simply a rejection of our nature as human beings. In this article, I’m not going to argue that men are better than women or vice versa, but rather argue for us to begin analyzing the contributions of women towards society in different ways than we analyze the contributions of men. In our capitalist society, where the individual is atomized and all successes and losses are attributed to him or her alone, it is hard to fairly evaluate just how much women contribute because their work is a lot more intangible and harder to assign values to in such a system. While feminists across the world argue for the equal value of women, they fail to understand that the value of women cannot be found in measuring them up against men.

This evaluation of women based on the same metrics that we use to evaluate men does not work, primarily because women were designed by nature to exist in supportive roles. While Isaac Newton was a man gifted with prodigious intellect, what would his contributions to history have been without the care, room, and board given to him by his mother and grandmother all throughout his life? At the end of the day, without the women in his life, Isaac Newton would have amounted to nothing because the impairments of being severely autistic would’ve crippled his ability to function otherwise. While a historian may point to the discoverer of calculus and say that it was a male, I beg to differ: the discovery of calculus was made by a family. When it comes to measuring an individual’s value in society, we neglect to consider that it is the Law of Accumulation that typically determines who does what, who becomes what, and so on. All these countless sacrifices and efforts, made by friends and family, directly contribute to how successful an individual becomes, and women, due to the support that they naturally offer for others, should not be undervalued.

While these contributions that women make to the lives of others are enormous, this process is in decline. In the West’s ongoing quest to model women after men, we’ve seen the creation of increasingly useless women who reject the nature of themselves in favor of adopting the ill-fitting behavior of men. Just like how transvestites adopt the stereotypical behavior and appearances of women, becoming an offensive parody of the opposite sex without knowing it, many women have adopted increasingly stereotyped and selfish male behaviors that make them simply uneconomical to form families with and generally unpleasant to be around. Similar to how Capitalist Realism states that many people cannot imagine society outside the confines of capitalism, I believe there is another term that can encapsulate the ideological deadend that feminists have arrived at: Masculine Realism. Just as many people can only define success on the terms that capitalism sets for it, like prospering financially, feminism can only define strength and independence based on how the upper echelon men they pay attention to behave.

The problem with modeling yourself after people outside your background and social bracket is that the adoption of their behavior is not necessarily going to turn you into them. The behavior and actions of men, at the end of the day, are just manifestations of how they interact with the world around them, and all a woman could ever hope to do is superficially replicate these behaviors without being able to understand the underlying logic and reasoning. Just because I can stand on one leg and bend down to eat shrimp does not make me a flamingo, and no matter how hard I studied to become a flamingo, it would be an impossible task because I am not a flamingo. This increasingly popular fixation in the west on becoming the “other” has left people less capable, more confused, and never fulfilled because these efforts will forever be in vain. The sexes are very different in terms of their drives, purposes, and tools that they have at their disposal, and while a feminist could say they’re equal or unequal, that misses the point entirely: they aren’t playing the same game to begin with. The scoreboards are different, the strategies are different, and the complex dynamics that each of the sexes has to deal with are very different.  Playing checkers using the rules of chess is a recipe for dysfunction and failure and vice versa. Just as a flamingo could never understand what it was like to be human beyond its fleeting observations of our behavior, men and women cannot understand what it is like to be the other sex beyond the fleeting observations of their behavior.

Only by men and women focusing on fulfilling their own roles again can society begin to repair itself and families can become economical social units once more. While it may be easy to imagine this as a voluntary process, I think it is worth asking how we became so deluded to begin with. Capitalism, in evaluating our success based on our performance as individuals rather than as family members, creates and endorses a lot of the problematic behaviors that we have seen emerge in recent times. By atomizing the individual and chalking up successes to the work of persons rather than families, we have created a culture in which undue credit is accorded to the few while the majority of laborers, in both the home and in the workplace, continue to go unthanked and unrewarded. Perhaps the true plight of the woman in the last century is taking on increasingly heavier workloads, while being thanked and paid less for it over time, and perhaps a lot of the gender dysphoria we see today in both sexes can be traced back to their disgruntlement with the increasingly unrealistic duties and obligations heaped onto them as lone individuals. Taking on the burdens of running an entire home all alone, it is not surprising that many men and women find themselves continually exhausted and discontent with their allotments in life. While every individual can stand on their own, it is the bedrock that the family unit forms for its members that is the source from which all genuine success derives from. While men may seemingly make history more often than women, the fact of the matter remains that women make the future in the support and care that they dole out. By only looking at these triumphs and achievements as the work of individuals in society, we are going to continually underappreciate the roles that women play in the background to help manifest these successes, and thus, encourage feminists to endorse the masculinization of women rather than see the value in femininity. If we truly want to reduce the friction between the sexes and raise the quality of life for workers, first we must do away with the social and economic conditions that put the sexes in direct conflict and redundant competition with one another. At the end of the day, without collaboration between the sexes, society ceases to be.