No Equality Between Complements

Or: Why Equality Between the Sexes is Chimerical at Best

The whole thing seems bloody self-evident to me; when you try and enforce equality between two things that are fundamentally different in nature, one of them winds up being more equal than the other.  Whether it’s apples and oranges, pigs and horses, or women and men, any attempt at making them equal is worse than just a false pretense, it’s a recipe for disaster.

Common sense, really – but the problem with common sense is that it’s common.  We don’t have common people anymore.  Nowadays, folks are educated.  Go ask any parent about the difference between their sons and daughters, and if you phrase it just right, they may admit to believing their lying eyes.  They’ll go on at length about how, right from the youngest age, the sexual dimorphism is palpable.  Girls cry more, girls are more confident; boys are nervous, less sure of their status, but they’re also more troublesome.  There isn’t a parent alive who hasn’t noticed this.

Next, ask them if the sexes should be treated differently: “Of course not – gender is just a social construct!” It’s usually the women who say this.

As any student of Metaphysics will tell you, the nature of the Masculine is the formal, the explicit, the direct; that of the Feminine is the informal, the occulted, the indirect.  If you don’t believe me, just look in your pants.  Men are the actors, and women the acted-upon – but the power of the acted-upon is that it seduces the actor into acting.  It’s called the come-hither stare; men enact the mating ritual, but it’s women who initiate.

This Feminine power extends through every socio-political context.  Men act explicitly and overtly – they build companies, masterpieces, empires – while behind the scenes, it’s the feminine allure which drives them to these great feats.  This is the natural balance of the human species; the balance that keeps the social fly-wheel steady as it drives the engine of civilization.

Needless to say, we are drastically out of balance; that’s the source of the humming sound you hear.  We’re liable to lose control on the next curve.

When you start inducting women into the world of the Masculine – the world of hierarchy, rules, and achievement – all manner of things go wrong.  The women now have a double-helping of power: the allure of the feminine, as well as the force of the masculine.  She’ll demand equal respect, while receiving un-asked-for help on the side.  She’ll demand unquestioning obedience to the rules, while subverting them on the sly.  She’ll insist that everybody follow her, and then complain about the lack of leadership.  She’ll make bold declarations, and then expect somebody else to put their money where her mouth is.  In short, she’ll make everyone miserable, especially herself.

The men, meanwhile, will cope through the only method that makes sense; by embracing the Feminine, and all of its subversive wiles.  By placing a woman in their midst, you just destroyed the whole conception of honour; you can’t play fair against an opponent who has an openly-secret advantage, and you can’t defeat an opponent who cries “No fair!” every time she loses.  When a man loses to a woman, he loses hard – and if he wins, he loses even harder.

So the man learns to sublimate his Masculinity.

Some men learn Game; somebody has to.  Women eroded the power of their come-hither stare with sexual-harassment lawsuits; nobody is dancing the mating dance, despite their hormonal yearnings.  Using the power of Logic, the man studies the origins of the come-hither stare, and learns how to trigger it amongst a significant portion of the female population.  He learns Day Game.  The mating dance is back on.

Only now, it’s a construct, a machine – the organic wisdom of two squirrels chasing one-another in the park is a forgotten memory, as a relationship becomes something to be managed.  The woman makes Masculine-style demands of her partner (poorly), while the man keeps a second woman in rotation, just in case.  It’s not dissimilar from Marketing: you might identify with Nike, but Nike doesn’t identify with you.

Other men sublimate their masculinity differently; they invert it into a seeming-embrace of the Feminine.  Some restrict it to gossip and manipulation, while others go full-out and seek attention through beauty.  Both are unsettling to witness, and both are far more dangerous than if a woman were to embrace her nature.  This isn’t true Femininity, after all, but inverted Masculinity – the rim is edged with masculine violence.  Where the true-Feminine seduces the pro-social building of the Masculine, this faux-Feminine animus threatens destruction if its needs aren’t met.

Gay Pride and the Office Weasel – different degrees of the same perversion.

Despite my reputation as a hoary old sexist, I actually hold women in high esteem.  For instance, I’m fairly certain that women are capable of being moral peers to us men… I’ve never seen them behave this way, but I’m certain it’s within the realm of possibility.  Whether you blame evolution, or God, or both, it’s clear that these lovely creatures have been designed as our complements, yin to our yang, so it stands to reason that they’re able to match us on the moral level, as well.  It’s this theoretically-possible moral nature that I appeal to here; it is well past the time that women drop their conceit of holding legal equality with men, and start embracing the power which is their birthright, that of the Divine Feminine.

Leave “legal equality” to us men; it’s the only way that’s fair.