Progressives’ War on Reality Proceeds Apace

Re: "Gender is a social construct." Isn't society a gender construct? bb

That is one way to look at it, although it doubles the number of people seeking jobs and thus reduces wages. I believe that was the intention of feminism – again, radical equality means that men can be paid equally as low as women and it’s much harder for men to find jobs.

I think economics is a bit more complicated than that. By having more people in the workplace, you create more wealth because there are more people earning money. So wages don't have to go down (this is also why economists see immigration as generally a good thing). Bob O'H

There is an easy solution. There are three types of muscles: male, female, and heart. To fix this problem fairly one only needs to ignore gender which progressives think is a good thing, and separate based on muscle type. So transgender people will compete with people with their own muscle type regardless of what gender they think they are. They can not deny their muscle type and nothing will ever change that. Races will not be male or female, but muscle type A or B. Progressives should love that. So why don't people find this straight forward solution? The answer can be found in the Bible. According to an very unique verse in scripture St Paul tells us that for those who have rejected God, God will declare them unworthy tenants and wipe them off the face of the earth. To eradicate these worthless beings he withdraws his spirit and deludes their minds. 2 Thessalonians 2:11. I'll write it out in full so you won't have to look it up: "For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to believe what is false, so that all who have not believed in the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness will be condemned." So it looks like free will is not absolute after all. God will alter our perceptions so that our free will is impaired. This concept actually predates Christianity. Perhaps a few of you would be familiar with the Star Trek episode "Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad." This title is taken from a Longfelllow poem which references ancient Greek. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whom_the_gods_would_destroy So back to the point. All secular societies are going extinct. They have birthrates below replacement and are happily oblivious to that. At the same time they can not distinguish male from female. America may be the most powerful nation that has ever existed, but nations do not last forever. Thanks to scripture the writing is on the wall. We ignore the warning signs at our own peril. Peter

Seversky You offered a lot here and I'll just start with a little in reply. But I appreciate your thoughts.

The end of slavery was begun with the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 and completed with the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865.

Slavery should have ended much sooner, but I see your point. After the war, things moved quickly to establish rights (although prejudice and racism and hatred remain in our society).

Women were not granted the right to vote until the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920 Do you not see a problem with that?

At one time I would have given a socially-correct response, and I'm too cowardly to say such a thing in public (I'm getting a bit more courage in my old age), but thanks to the anonymity here I'll say it ... I don't think women should have the right to vote. Islamic society seems very successful without granting this right, so I don’t see it as necessary for a culture to progress and flourish.

We have a society in which for centuries women have been exploited, abused and oppressed by the men who controlled it.

Men were exploited, abused and oppressed also. From a Darwinian perspective, why should there be fairness? From my perspective, women are different from men and should not be taught that they are the same - and also society should not grant the same privileges and rights to both. I believe that oppression and crimes against women can be eliminated without a blurring of distinction between genders. Feminism, as I see it, was Marxist in orientation. It was an attempt (a successful one) to overthrow social norms. It was revolutionary and has ended now where people cannot distinguish between men and women and find no need to. On what basis are all people equal? In the Christian perspective yes, equal in the eyes of God who created all. But Marxism is reductionist and materialist so all people are equal in a nihilistic sense. Then it becomes a power struggle. I see this as entirely destructive, as it was intended (not by the practitioners of feminism but by the social engineers who created it).

And it is still happening. The difference is that finally people, both women and men, are beginning to speak out against it and hold to account those who do not treat others with the respect and consideration they deserve.

I guess so. If you're talking about Hollywood, I guess it just became intolerable. But the speaking out against liberated sex desires is totally anti-feminist. What is wrong with sex? It's a 'puritanical' reaction, isn't it? Treating women as “special” or “deserving some romantic considerations” is from the Christian/chivalric past. Now that suddenly everybody is worried about men pressuring women for sex, why don’t we turn to the doctrines of Darwinism where it is merely a biological orientation (created by evolution) where men want to have sex with women. So, men use power to do it. That all works perfectly well in the concept of a competitive struggle for advantage. Hollywood got away with this for decades, and actually was a propaganda machine for sexual liberation. Hugh Hefner is a social hero, isn’t he? There’s all sorts of hypocrisy when suddenly Hollywood women are demanding moralistic behavior from the men they worked for and supported all this time. But in any case, I see this as a loss for Feminism. There is a common sense reaction and moral outrage that women were used by powerful men (some of the women were powerful). Although we didn’t hear from women who wanted to use their sexuality for their own advantage.

Women are competing in the workplace because they are finally being allowed to. That must be to the common good because otherwise you are wasting the talents of around half your workforce.

That is one way to look at it, although it doubles the number of people seeking jobs and thus reduces wages. I believe that was the intention of feminism - again, radical equality means that men can be paid equally as low as women and it's much harder for men to find jobs.

And anyone who thinks cleaning house, or cleaning up the messes created by small children – or grown men who behave like small children – is not dirty work has never done it.

Fair enough and I think that's a point I'd make. I do not find that caring for a home with children to be any less significant (in fact it is more so) than most of what people do for jobs. In the USA, financial success and self-fulfillment through paid employment is seen as best way to define one's life. I think this has had a very damaging effect on our society. Not all countries think this way. I've been doing research on other world cultures (actually talking with people) and the American idea of Feminist cultural revolution and social engineering is not welcome in many places - among men and women. Getting back to Islamic cultures, it is a misunderstanding to think that all Islamic women really want Western-styled Feminism. Very many are quite happy with the social structure they have. Why do we think everyone has to adopt the American way? How do we know our way is the best for the entire world? If American culture is based more and more (and I think it is) on materialist philosophy - a reduction to the biological and essentially non-religious, then it is really based on no foundation. American morals, based on nihilism, have no meaning. People in other cultures can see that (as I can). Silver Asiatic

Hi all, Not sure where to post this, or how to get a new topic started. I would like to get the comments of regulars here on this topic "Why should mitochondria define species?". It basically states that all current animals date back to no further than 100,000 - 200,000 years, including humans. What does this mean for current evolutionary theory? Here is an article on the study, that includes some interesting links, a worthwhile read: http://detectingdesign.com/wp/2018/06/11/most-species-the-same-age-with-no-in-between-species/ Here is the study itself: http://www.pontecorboli.com/digital/he_archive_articles/he122018/1_Stockle_Thaler.pdf Maybe a mod could start a new thread with this as the subject. I performed a search for the topic and found nothing, so apologies if it has already been discussed. Let me throw this in as well, an interesting article that points to a young earth "A Young-Earth Creation Human Mitochondrial DNA “Clock”: Whole Mitochondrial Genome Mutation Rate Confirms D-Loop Results" Link: https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mitochondrial-genome-mutation-rate/ Stu7

In 1976 Bruce Jenner won the Decathlon at the Olympic Games in Montreal. Now he has decided that he is a woman. Is this something he decided recently or is it something “he” knew/ felt/ believed from a very young age? If it’s the latter then isn’t his gold medal illegitimate? There is no Decathlon for women; only men are allowed to compete. This why the whole transgender rights movement is so dishonest and disingenuous-- and so morally bankrupt. john_a_designer

Silver Asiatic @ 5

We have a broken society where the collaboration, love and respect between men and women is now a warfare. A failure to respect women and uniquely feminine qualities (both men and women are to blame) gave rise to feminist claims that “there is no difference between men and women”. That lead to masculine women and effeminate men — both rebelling and fighting against the other, destroying themselves in the process.

The end of slavery was begun with the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 and completed with the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865. Women were not granted the right to vote until the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920 Do you not see a problem with that? We have a society in which for centuries women have been exploited, abused and oppressed by the men who controlled it. And it is still happening. The difference is that finally people, both women and men, are beginning to speak out against it and hold to account those who do not treat others with the respect and consideration they deserve.

The logical consequence is boys who feel like women, think they’re really female and merely need sex-change operations to become female

The sex of an individual is largely determined by physical attributes, except in those small number of cases where the sex of a newborn is indeterminate and an attribution has to be decided as best they can by medical staff. The role of gender in society is essentially a cultural or social convention. There is no biological reason why girls should prefer pink, wear dresses and stay indoor to play with dolls or boys prefer blue and go outdoors and engage in physical activities. There have always been males who preferred what society considers "feminine" pursuits and females who wanted to take part in more "masculine" activities. In the past this behavior was strongly discouraged and only the most determined few were able to get their way. Today I would hope that we are becoming more understanding and tolerant and I don't see that as weakness or a bad thing.

All of this is from people who have a loathing for women – and that’s not only men who are abusive. Feminist women have hatred for themselves and want to be men.

There are probably a small number of extreme feminists who think like that but they are no more the majority of people who support women's rights than the Westboro Baptist Church is representative of all Christians.

It’s logical for boys to see hardened, masculine women and just decide to be gay because the result is the same but a lot easier to deal with.

When I first began to notice that girls were physically attractive to me, it was not a conscious choice on my part. I did not sit down one day and, having considered all the options, decided I was going to be heterosexual. It just emerged as I developed and I suspect that is true for most people. I could not change my sexuality, I could not become gay just by an exertion of will and I doubt you could either. This is not a matter of choice.

The girls are just trying to protect themselves, or they think they’re going to win something – and mostly they’re just don’t what the social manipulators tell them. I see it every day in the working world. Women aggressively competing with men in every aspect of work (although very few want the dirty jobs).

Women are competing in the workplace because they are finally being allowed to. That must be to the common good because otherwise you are wasting the talents of around half your workforce. And anyone who thinks cleaning house, or cleaning up the messes created by small children - or grown men who behave like small children - is not dirty work has never done it. Seversky

BA, When you have been reduced to absurdity, that is a sign that you have swallowed a crooked yardstick somewhere along the path, one which is now confronted by a plumb-line. KF kairosfocus

Yeah, the a/mat leftists have taken western societies beyond the point of insanity. And to think that these people used to call themselves "brights." What a joke. Truth Will Set You Free

Why dont the girls just “identify” that they won and give them first place medals? Vivid vividbleau

Semi-related follow up ... A talented middle-aged women here was complaining that there are too many men at leadership levels and more diversity is needed. I asked why diversity? She replied, "It brings different viewpoints that are valuable". I asked (I guess a killer question): "Are women different from men"? Silence ... uncomfortable and long pause. I felt a little bad - she couldn't win that one. If "yes" -- then there goes feminism. We're supposed to be the same. If "no" -- then we don't get any diversity benefit since women are the same as men. She cleverly said "women have been oppressed so they have a different viewpoint". Ok, but I'd hate to have to rank the value of people's contribution based on how much or how little oppression they've suffered in life. I think a lot of men would qualify under that notion. Silver Asiatic

The most vulnerable in society (in this case the teenage girls) have to pay the price of the social manipulators. We have a broken society where the collaboration, love and respect between men and women is now a warfare. A failure to respect women and uniquely feminine qualities (both men and women are to blame) gave rise to feminist claims that "there is no difference between men and women". That lead to masculine women and effeminate men -- both rebelling and fighting against the other, destroying themselves in the process. The logical consequence is boys who feel like women, think they're really female and merely need sex-change operations to become female. It's a continued disrespect. Some will argue that women "should" be able to compete with men because the only differences are learned from society. They point to women who can bench-press 600 pounds. All of this is from people who have a loathing for women - and that's not only men who are abusive. Feminist women have hatred for themselves and want to be men. It's logical for boys to see hardened, masculine women and just decide to be gay because the result is the same but a lot easier to deal with. The girls are just trying to protect themselves, or they think they're going to win something - and mostly they're just don't what the social manipulators tell them. I see it every day in the working world. Women aggressively competing with men in every aspect of work (although very few want the dirty jobs). Silver Asiatic

Barry, have a look at the comments appended to the article. Most readers are lacerating the cowardly author. "No easy answers"? Horse's donkey! The good news is, the real price tag of progressivism is - just possibly - becoming apparent to the public before it hits the sciences harder than it is doing now. We can do without girls' athletics (for anatomical girls). Taking it seriously is a relatively recent invention anyway. But we can't do without science and medicine. Watch for an article from me on that soon. News

This is what I get:

451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons Sorry, this content is not available in your region.

In fact, the whole ctpost.com site is blocked. Bob O'H

Surely science has an answer for this war on science disguised as sports. I'm sure Bob O'h, AK, and Sev are waiting in the wings to tell us what it is. They are the Smartest People here, you know. Andrew asauber

Barry, it's part of the current meltdown of progressivism. Women's athletics was started in order to give plain old biological females a chance to win, which they couldn't do in direct competition with biological males. (Has any woman ever played out a normal career in the National Hockey League?) But there is Olympic women's hockey and an entire fan support structure. The Paralympics, the Special Olympics, the Commonwealth Games, the Canada Games all exist for a similar purpose: Give people who can't be the best in the world a chance to win in a more restricted competition. More fun and opportunity all around. As progressive culture flowers, it must deprive more and more people of more and more of these normal and natural things in order to achieve its goals. The article you link to is a masterpiece of moral failure in terms of the author's inability to face that fact honestly. News