CHCH News - All Are Equal - Some More So Than Others

"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."

--George Orwell, Animal Farm

"I pondered how sad and unfair it was that he and other young men had been branded, stigmatized, and marginalized in the institution which was supposed to enlighten them and set fire to their minds...I thought of the timid male professors who were so content with their own careers that they were perfectly willing to allow 18 year-old boys to be beat up on rather than jeopardize their own comfort by speaking out. And I asked myself a question which hundreds of thousands of male college students often ask themselves: 'What am I even doing here?' "

--Glenn Sacks, gender-issues columnist.

The years of Bill Clinton, the 1990s, will almost certainly go down as a watershed era in American cultural evolution - much in the same way as did the Transcontinental Railroad symbolize the closing of the West, or V-E Day mark the start of new challenges and struggles for America and Americans.

For it was the election of Clinton which brought the passing of the torch to the '60s Generation. And it was the years of Clinton in which the social-engineers, the group-quota proponents, the radical feminists - the Radical Left, in short - were brought to unmask.

The lie was put to feminist rhetoric when the loudest, most shrill iconoclast leaders couldn't find it in them to condemn the serial non-consensual amorous adventures of a man who, if not for his position, would have fit an FBI profile of a serial sex-offender. The lie was put to the pro-abortion movement when, given the choice of joining in condemnation of the horrific procedure euphemistically called "partial-birth abortion," instead ratcheted up the volume and hysteria about keeping hands off the bodies.

The lie was revealed when, shown the progress by minorities in advancing in the workplace and socially...groupthink advocacy agencies instead dug in their heels at proposals to end Affirmative Action programs. Far from being a temporary remedy to set things on the right course, Affirmative Action was, instead, their birthright - their due. Far from taking us to a color-blind society, these programs have instead made us a culture of people who draw their identity from skin color and ethnic background, rather than individual achievements.

In the midst of these disillusioning developments, lying was found to be moral and good, when it was "just about sex" (even when practiced by a serial sexual offender being investigated for Sexual Harassment, which is also Just About Sex) and dodging the draft was found to be Good if accompanied by broken promises and a taunting letter; but Bad if accompanied by National Guard service and fighter-pilot training. It was as if Bad and Good had, not switched places, but needed labeling based upon political expediencies as determined by the Mainstream Media and whatever puppetmaster was pulling their strings.

And it's not surprising that in the midst of this moral anarchy, one of the most precipitous developments for the future has gone all but unnoticed.

Men have always gone off to post-secondary education more frequently then young women. Partly this was a social phenomenon, and partly it was economic: Such an education was necessary for many leadership positions, which women were not likely to fill, for social reasons and family requirements. A more affluent society was able to offer more opportunities - and more options; and higher education for young women became more frequent following World War II.

In numbers and in percentages, though, women still lagged behind men. That was all the Feminist Movement needed to know to wage war on the state of affairs; and through the magic of Pressure Groups and liberal Republicanism, things were set to right.

Government social engineers, armed with Title IX monies to which educational institutions had become addicted to quicker than crack cocaine, were able to dictate remedies. Quotas in admissions and in sportsparticipation. Preferences in enrollment and disbursement of scholarships. A "feminist-friendly" environment, which encouraged young women in learning (in practice, it encourages them to revilemen).

Couple this to the near-universal practice of doping young boys who show any characterists of becoming young boys; and the increasing prevalence of single-parent, female-headed households where the young male charges are underachievers in school...and the stage is set for the "problem" to be righted.

More than righted. In 1997, women comprised about 57 percent of all colleges' enrollment. At many institutions it is higher: Both at City University of New York and at Concordia University, women comprise over 60 percent of the student population.

Yeah. So what?

There's several so-whats in this equation. First, education is a commodity like any other, and it has relative scarcity. Every seat given to someone on the basis of social-engineering needs, is a seat denied someone who would otherwise have it on relative merit.

Considered that way, even a 50/50 ration of men to women would not be automatically desirous. A woman may want a career. She may be good in the field. But there's the matter of biology...having children involves time. Time to give birth. Time to settle in with the newborn. Many women see the folly of dumping a child into custodial care by dull-normal caregivers when his mind is the most ripe, the most fertile; and will opt to stay at home for some childhood years...perhaps all of them.

When juxtaposed against the use of education as an economic good, it doesn't make good sense to utilize it on someone who will be out of the workforce for a significant period of her life.

Of course, having children is not automatic. Are we to encourage our college-educated women not to reproduce? Do we want our people, our society, replenished biologically from only those who show less intellectual agility? And what of the wants and desires of the young woman herself?

There's further nuance in the social tragicomedy about to be played out in real-time. With women receiving higher-education nearly 2-to-1 over men, there is going to be social friction and adjustment. Women, most likely driven by instinctive drives, look for a mate stronger, more successful, more competent than other men or themselves. This has survival benefit - a smart, strong father is more likely able to bring his children to adulthood.

A man without a college education will have that much less in common with a woman who does. Her earning potential will be far above his own, by average. His outlook on life will be quite different. While an educated man can be condescending toward a woman who is not, a man uneducated will not accept condescension from a woman.

Great things have been done by unlettered men, true. Edison, Ford, Carnegie, Gates...none had a college degree. But, it's telling, the businesses these men founded are run by men who do.

In today's industrial meritocracy, the positions of power are held by persons with a college education - it's a modern substitution for a title of nobility. A college degree is a back-door into the Old Boys' Club. It means little by itself, the world is full of educated fools - but it's an obstacle that cannot be overcome. It's a ticket that must be punched.

Allowing new entries into the centers of power, at a 2:1 ratio of women to men, may meet the needs of certain Radical Feminists. It won't do much to legitimize the system to those men who have been locked out.

It won't change the nature of male H.Sapiens, which is inherently more aggressive than the female.

It won't create a new Feminist Utopia administered by "Grrrls" and serviced and maintained by unimaginative male drones.

What it will do is create fearful, unbalancing pressures in the culture, as competent, excluded men seethe, alone and then in conspiratorial movements.

All of this is going to happen as the United States continues to be tested, buffeted, pressured and threatened, as the world's lone superpower; the Fastest Gun that everyone wants to take out.

The natural female instinct is toward negotiation, conciliation and compromise. Education does little to mute that; as we've seen in our latest international adventure in Afghanistan and Iraq. Negotiation may be smart strategy in some cases, but negotiating with persons, groups, nations who wish you obliterated, is a time-wasting tactic that favors the challenger.

Are (predominantly male) soldiers going to be called to fight a Vietnam-style half-a-war, a Politically-Correct conflict, where they're told to win, but without hurting anyone? Will they fight it?...or will we find a new trend, American troop insurrection?

Will American females be able to generate enough aggressiveness to survive as movers and shakers in a rough-and-tumble capitalist economy? And if they do, will their drone-males lash out at them, rejecting their affectation as pushy, insufferable, bitchy? More likely we will slouch down the road of socialism, the men drinking themselves insensible as the womenfolk scrabble ever more frantically trying to keep the economy from collapsing - as did the culture.

This isn't just possible - it's likely. Only part of the equation, the relation of men to women, is learned and social. Much more of it comes from biology and behaviors hard-wired into the human animal. These are no more subject to repeal by Political Correctness and government edict, then were the laws of economics to be overridden by the brilliance of Marx.

It's a dangerous road we're embarking on. And we have no choice - the wheels are in motion. We, as adults of today, are going to have front-road seats to whatever train wreck ensues.

December 05, 2004

* * * * * * * * *

Engineman, sailorman, gravedigger, thief - JustPassinThru has been all of these and more. A former political-science student, a lifelong vagabond and a highly trained observer of the human condition, he now writes his misconceptions on the Web - while he searches for better-paying employment and waits to find out What The Deuce Is Next.

================================================