A Beautiful Man Is Hard to Find

 

Women and men are different.

This should not be controversial. It seems to me that anyone finding this controversial is shockingly lacking in empathy.

Since the Sixties and feminism, we have been fighting against this truth. Feminism insisted that any difference was just a role forced on women by society.

Perhaps the rise of the “transgender” movement is at least in part the inevitable rebellion against this claim. Its insistence on “gender” as a core of one’s identity is a direct contradiction to feminism. To feminism, “gender” is not a trait you are born with, but a set of arbitrarily behaviours forced on you. Otherwise feminism makes no sense.

Transgenders insist there is a female or a male soul. Otherwise you could not be “trans.”

Leave aside the other questions raised by transgenderism: whether gender is independent of sex, and whether one can be “born into the wrong body.”

There are three transcendental values: truth, good, and beauty. They are the goals of existence. They bring value to life. We are created in order to seek these three things, and to express these three things.

Of these three, it is obvious that women, not men, are most responsible for beauty. Women are more visually attractive than men; women care about being attractive; men don’t. This is not just to attract men sexually; women definitely also dress and make up for other women, for the sake of abstract beauty. Both men and women would rather look at a woman than a man on a magazine cover.

If you introduce a woman into a home or office or business, she will instantly go about trying to make it more beautiful, more comfortable. You leave men on their own at a workplace, and it will be functional, no more.

Cultures that devalue beauty, like Protestantism, or Islam, will devalue women. Cultures that value beauty, like France, Italy, or Latin America, will value women more highly.

This is why feminism began in the Protestant countries. It was here women were devalued. Although it has since spread to Catholics as well; due to the overwhelming cultural influence of America.

And why does a man marry a woman? The question has come up online recently: MGTOW. Is it worth all the insults, demands, and worries, the risks of ruinous divorce, “just for a vagina”? What else does a woman bring to the relationship?

This, after all, is what feminism has left us with.

But properly, a man marries to bring beauty into his life. To make his house a home. Not just her physical beauty, but her charm, her attitude—for this is her proper role, to be supportive, “inner beauty.” And her ability to decorate the living space. And her ability to cook, which is a form of beauty, appealing to the sense of taste. If she is a good wife, she brings grace and comfort to his life. Along with the joy of children.

This is what a good wife should do. Feminism has devalued it all, and women have come to neglect and distain all of this. Reducing them to no more than second-rate men with vaginas.

And now we must acknowledge that men too have their role in civilization and the human enterprise. As feminism would deny. They are more than bicycles, more than a means to an end.

Women are the guardians of beauty; men are the guardians of truth. Men are born with an internal compass that points towards the North Star. Women will believe anything; men will want proof. This is why Jesus, who obviously knew what he was doing, chose only male apostles. We should not second-guess God. And this is why St. Paul said women should be silent in church. It is not their role to lead and teach, any more than it is the role of a man to wear makeup and give fetching smiles. Either has gone off the rails.

Not incidentally, we have made a grave mistake by giving the teaching profession over almost entirely to women. This is not their role. Notice that, in the New Testament, Jesus’s genealogy is traced back to David through Joseph—even though Jospeh is not his biological father. This is because the role of the father, of he man, is to guide and educate, to pass on truths. In this sense, Joseph and his genealogy are fully relevant.

If we value truth, but not beauty, as in Protestant (and now secular) Northern Europe, this will look like a misogynist view. If we value beauty as well as truth, it will not. It is both received and revealed wisdom. It is common sense.

And what of the third transcendental value, the good? Indeed, this is the central of the three: “and the greatest of these is love.” We were created to choose the good, of our free will.

Men and women seem to have an equal role here; but being good means different things for each. Goodness means justice, on the one hand; mercy on the other. In America, to say someone is good, you say “he is honest.” In China, you say “he is kind.” And these are different things.

Good women are kind and merciful. Good men are honest and just.

We need both. We need both men and women in our culture, and in our individual lives. And we have lost this.

Sex and the Single Cell

 

Can you spot the difference? Need a minute?

The gospel reading last Sunday was this one:

“Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.”

King James has the colourful “not one jot nor tittle.”

This is because the Law is the Logos, Christ himself, the order on which the cosmos is formed. Pseudo-Chrysostom comments:

“…since all things which should befall from the very beginning of the world to the end of it, were in type and figure foreshown in the Law, …, He therefore here declares, that heaven and earth should not pass till all things thus foreshown in the Law should have their actual accomplishment.”

There is a Law, a Logos, to the universe.

I have not been inclined to comment on the whole gender thing, because there is little to say, and saying it gets you in trouble. 

But here goes:

Gender is a grammatical concept. People do not have gender. Nouns do. People have sex.

There are only two sexes. This is a binary system.

If you are male, every cell is identifiably male. If you are female, every cell is identifiably female. But for the rare anomaly of an XXY in the 23rd chromosome pair, there is no ambiguity.

Women and men differ in many more ways that the visible shape of their sex organs. Women’s bodies are different from men’s in many appealing details. Their brains are also different.

It is a denial of reality for a man to declare himself a woman, or a woman to declare herself a man.

Denial of reality is delusional by definition. It is insanity.

It is not helpful to anyone to encourage a delusion. This is like encouraging an alcoholic to stay drunk. It is usually a way for people to avoid their problems.

Why do people want to deny the two genders? Because they want to deny binary systems as such. All binary systems are limiting to the human will. Each is a line you cannot cross. Gravity is annoying. Not being able to stay 18 forever is annoying. Not being able to eat some given apple is annoying. As a graffito seen during the Paris uprising of 1968 had it, “Be careful: even the ears have walls!” The border between life and death, human and non-human, self and other, is annoying. It prohibits abortion. Not to mention offing your inconvenient grandparents or Republican neighbour.

But the ultimate binaries are true and false, yes and no, Aristotle’s law of non-contradiction; and good and evil. These are the enemies that the non-binary really want to destroy.

No surprise that Biden’s transgender appointee as undersecretary of state for whatever turns out to steal other people’s luggage; or that transgender swimmer Lia Thomas worships Satan. Or that more men in prisons declare themselves transgender women than in the general population.

Vive la difference. 

“La difference”: there’s an example of gander.

Taylor Swift's "The Man"

 

The great advantage of art is that it is the one place one is permitted to speak truth. The disadvantage is that most people either misunderstand or misrepresent what you say; usually to mean the opposite. The classic example is the parables of Jesus.

But another example that has come to my attention recently is Taylor Swift’s music video “The Man,” which one of my grad students has been asked to comment on. Everyone reads it as a criticism of male gender roles and a complaint about the oppression of women by the patriarchy.

“It's a thinly-veiled attack on the disparity between how men and women in the same roles are viewed by society,” explains the BBC. The Washington Post calls it a "symbolism-packed takedown of the patriarchy."

I don’t discount the possibility that Taylor Swift herself believes so. That is not relevant, for it is the intentional fallacy. Artists are not necessarily aware of or in agreement with what they are saying. They are inspired; they are speaking, ideally, for a higher being. As Cohen writes in “Going Home”:

But he [Cohen; God is speaking] does say what I tell him

Even though it isn’t welcome

He just doesn't have the freedom

To refuse

The video indeed seems to be doing this. Superficially, Taylor Swift’s video is a feminist lament about the advantages of being a man. Examples of traditional complaints include “manspreading”; the sexual double standard that men are permitted to be promiscuous, while women are criticized for it; that men are the bosses in the work force; that men are more free to express anger, while women must always be “nice”; that old men get to marry younger women. Even that men get to pee standing up. Each familiar claim is portrayed in a brief tableau.

But the whole thing seems subverted at the end of the video by the big reveal: that the man being portrayed is not a man at all, but Taylor Swift in masquerade.

What is the point of this, if not to suggest that the image of the male life being portrayed is not real, but a woman’s fantasy of what it might be like? As if demanding of us that we question its accuracy. The more so since the final scene knocks down the fourth wall and demonstrates this was all a video as well, all “made up.”

Also subverting the superficial interpretation are hints throughout the video that woman are actually in control “behind the scenes.” Most obviously, at the end, Taylor Swift is revealed as the director, giving orders to the man and criticizing his performance, while he humbly defers and promises to do better. When the credits run, everything was done, they say, by Taylor Swift, and “no men were harmed in the making of this video.” Suggesting a status for men equivalent to that of a trained animal, or a pet.

In an earlier scene, of a man competing in a tennis match, on the rear wall we see the legend “Womens’ Charity.” That id, all the effort being put out by the man is for the benefit of women. A shot on a subway displays, on the rear wall, a fake movie poster titled “Man versus Master.” Which surely implies that the man is not the master. Another scene features a poster that reads ““Missing. If found, return to Taylor Swift.” 

In light of these background references, we have a right to assume irony. Now go back and look at the visual examples of male privilege. Are they not actually mocking these claims? Beginning with their chilche’d nature. The man manspreading on the subway has his legs spread absurdly wide. He is wearing a business suit and smoking a cigar—not the sort of person you would see in a subway, and not something you could get away with in the real world. Images of men throwing bills in the air; stepping over women lounging in bikinis on a private yacht. 

More irony: the imaginary man is seen throwing a tantrum on the tennis court, on the ground and banging his fists. Is this meant to illustrate a male right to express anger? But it seems most obviously to refer to a recent such outburst by Serena Williams. A female line judge rolls her eyes in a brief reaction shot: men are not allowed to get away with such behavior.

A gentleman of obviously advanced years is shown marrying a younger woman. If this is meant to suggest male privilege, her big smile as she flashes a huge diamond ring to the camera is not the best way to do so. It implies instead that she is getting just what she wants here.

A woman has to work twice as hard as a man to get ahead? The video shows the very opposite: immediately after criticizing her male lead, Taylor Swift as director heaps praise on a female actor for doing no more than rolling her eyes at the camera. The scene is too obvious to be without meaning.

The reality Taylor Swift is portraying is that feminism is all wrong. Men do not get the better end of the social bargain, and never did. Women are always in control; for the simple reason that men do everything they do in hopes of pleasing women in the mating dance. A pretty young women gets whatever she wants, whenever she wants it. She simply says, “try to be sexier—try to be more likeable”; as Swift does to her male alter ego at the end of the movie; and any man will react like a cowed but devoted dog. 

Men are whatever they are because that is what women tell them to be.

Jordan Peterson on Transgenderism

 

It is a new form of child sacrifice.

Whether we see it or not, our modern society is in the business of wholesale genocide against the young. And this is no new thing--it is an eternal temptation throughout human history.

To too many, children are resented as damned inconvenient; an unfortunate byproduct of the sex act.

He or She?

 

Filipino transvestite beauty queen.

Jordan Peterson rose to prominence over which pronouns to use to refer to transvestites. This has become a dominating issue: if someone looks like a woman, but is in fact biologically male, do we say “he” or “she”? Or “zhe,” or “they.” Or seventy or a hundred other possibilities now being floated.

This is a relatively new problem in North America, but it occurs to me it is not elsewhere. In Thailand or the Philippines, transvestitism has been open and socially accepted for generations, perhaps centuries. So I thought to ask my Filipina wife, in Visayan, do you refer to a male-to-female transvestite as “he” or “she.” 

She reports that, as indeed seems most sensible, biological sex is definitive. He may look like a woman, but he is still, in fact, “he.”

Problem solved.

The North Carolina Bathroom Wars

He or she needs to pee.

Readers are probably aware of the ongoing North Carolina Bathroom Wars. My Facebook feed is full of it. Major celebrities are cancelling appearances in the state. Not to mention protests and pullouts by many large corporations, notably Target stores.

This time, it seems, it's total war.

And yet, this is all about a law that changes nothing, and should be common sense.

Traditionally, men are restricted to men's public rest rooms, and women are restricted to women's. The current North Carolina law would simply continue this practice, which was and is under threat from new ordinances in places like Charlotte. All it adds is a regular, legal method of checking in case of dispute that does not violate anyone's privacy: by the sex shown on the birth certificate. It does not call for any new enforcement procedure: only that a sign be posted advising everyone which washroom to use.

Back in the 1970's, the feminist movement pushed for an “Equal Rights Amendment.” It failed, primarily because, given the logic of recent “separate but equal” decisions by the US courts, openly requiring equality of treatment before the law between men and women in the US Constitution would logically require integrated toilets. It was obvious then, and went without saying, that this was not in women's interest. Surely the reasons are obvious? As it happens, men and women are actually not the same. If nothing else, women can get pregnant as a result of sex, and men cannot. Ergo, women's interests in any encounter between the sexes need to be protected. Enforcing unisex washrooms amounts to an open door, literally, for rapists, sexual molesters, pederasts, and voyeurs. Equal rights in this case are a violation of women's rights to privacy, security of the person, and (for example, for those, such as orthodox Muslim women, who still believe in the virtue of modesty) freedom of conscience.

Forty or so years later, the left will no longer even listen to such counter-arguments. They want unisex washrooms. The N.C. bill designed to preserve separate restrooms, and titled, to make the intent clear, “The Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act,” is instead always and only referred to in the mainstream media as the “anti-LBGT bill.” According to the left, it is rank discrimination if “transgender people” cannot freely choose for themselves which bathroom they use, depending on their own view of their “gender identity.”

This post is characteristic of the genre. It appeared of late in my Facebook feed:

http://uproxx.com/life/angry-dad-trans-bathroom-laws/

The irony here is thick as peanut butter. The article ends with an appeal for open-mindedness and tolerance. Yet it begins with a recommendation to un-friend on Facebook anyone who disagrees with you. If the author were at all open-minded, he would at least address the stated intention of the bill, clear in its very title, instead of imputing to its framers a different, unstated motive. The arguments and concerns of the bill's backers might be misguided, but honesty demands they be addressed in some way. To avoid accusing the writer and his original source of dishonesty—and the same goes for essentially every reporter and commentator on the bill in the mainstream media, and all those who repost this stuff on Facebook and elsewhere--it is necessary to assume an extreme closed-mindedness. They do not know the arguments for the bill, they never read it, and they do not want to know.

A Thai transsexual (male to female). Not a problem.

Note that the present bill would not affect transsexuals. They have always freely used rest rooms corresponding to their anatomical, not their genetic, sex. Nobody cares; most often, nobody knows. They would continue to do so under the present North Carolina bill. You use the rest room for the sex given on your birth certificate. Like most US states, North Carolina allows you to change the sex on your birth certificate if you have had “sex reassignment surgery.” This might be a bit of a hassle, but trivial compared to the surgery. And, in the real world, a transsexual probably would not need to bother. Nobody cares, and nobody with the new bill is going to be at the restroom door demanding to see your papers. If you look like a woman, why would anyone think to challenge you in the women's room? If you look like a man, most certainly, nobody will challenge you in the men's room. Where's the problem?

The problem, contrary to almost every piece of propaganda from the left, is not with allowing transsexuals, but with allowing “transgender people,” into the women's room. The left constantly uses this phrase, “transgender” but does not seem to understand what it means. They apparently think it means the same as “transsexual.” A transsexual is someone who has altered their anatomical sex with surgery. “Transgender” is a broader term. “Transgender” follows the feminist dogma that “gender” has nothing to do with anatomy or genetics, that it is a role assigned by society. The rest is just plumbing. Therefore, anyone can feel inwardly he is “really” a woman, or she is really a man, despite either genetics or anatomy.

Do you see the problem yet? 

The Rape of Lucretia. Problem.

Allowing such “transgender people” to choose which washroom to use, therefore, based only on their own claimed opinion as they state it to you, means in practice letting every man or woman choose for themselves which washroom to use at any given time. Yes, even at any given time. According to the politically correct definition, "transgender" includes "gender fluid." If challenged on entering the ladies' room, all anyone need do is say they feel like a woman today. And then perhaps file a complaint against the unadvisedly brave interrogator for discrimination on grounds of sexual identity.

Real transgender people, if they really exist, are of no concern here. Presumably they are not going to abuse this. But pederasts, rapists, molesters, and voyeurs certainly will. They cannot simply be held on their honour. If they were honourable, they would not be pederasts, rapists, molesters, and voyeurs. In effect, allowing “transgenders” free choice means the end to washrooms segregated by sex.

One response I have gotten, more than once, on pointing this out, is that there is no need to worry, because we already have laws against rape, molestation, voyeurism, and pederasty. But by this logic, we ought also not to waste good money on well-lighted transit stops, or police patrols. There is no good reason to avoid dark alleys, or certain districts of town. After all, we already have laws against anything bad that might happen.

Who cares if we have surrendered any good chance to prevent, apprehend or convict in court?

This may be the left's Waterloo. It is not just that they have jumped the shark. They have also now thrown women under the bus. It was all very well when they could make straight white males the villains. They are a minority. A little bit larger than the Jews, but still a minority. They can be pushed around. Also sacrifice the obvious interests of women, though, and you have doubled the numbers.

It only remains to be seen how strong the herd instinct is in keeping women in line. Or how long a ganeral closed-mindedness on the left will protect them from actual thought.