Feminists do not understand evolution

Why are we expected to believe that nature has allowed our species to consist of half the population being fundamentally flawed (males), while the other half are in full working order (females)?

Everyone, at some point, has been impressed by the results of evolution, need I even mention them? What is of most interest here, is the strictness of the evolutionary net, in fact, it is this that defines the process of evolution. Flaws are rarely allowed into the next generation, and on the rare occasions that they are, they find themselves quickly extinguished.

Most people are fully aware of the brutal strictness of the selection process, yet to despite this, we are expected to accept a flaw, so extraordinary, so appalling, so fundamentally cloddish in its oversight, that it should force us to review our awe of nature, or even the great creator (should that be the working paradigm).

The accepted premise, that half our species is ‘flawed’, yet that same species has managed to dominate the planet. The belief is almost magical in its increadibility. What a phenomenal defiance against evolution this represents. If the mainstream premise that half our species (male) is ‘non functioning’ were actually true, just think about what a remarkable triumph in the face of a ‘deal breaker’ handicap, we have collectively managed. It goes against the grain of evolution so blatantly, that we have to either dispense with the theory of evolution, or dispense with the premise that half our species is flawed. They are mutually exclusive.

Let’s just reflect on the degree of our triumph. Our species, homo-sapian has clearly been a success story. We have covered the entire planet, and moulded the terrain to suit our needs. We are clearly the species that has ‘captured the globe’. Any alien studying the earth’s history, and writing a thesis, would put several chapters aside, purely dedicated to the incredible success story of a single species…us. Clearly, something went right along the way.

To despite these points, we are expected to believe that half the human stock (xy) is fundamentally flawed. The span of this ‘so called’ inferiority, we are told, includes most of the factors that define our humanity: Intellect, morality, spirituality, empathy, compassion, planning, seeing the world from another vantage point, and mercy, plus more. If humans were software, we are lead to believe that males would be version 1.0 and females would be version 1.1.

We are also expected to accept that this bizarre biological model only applies to our species, all other organisms are exempt, that is, they have an insignificant number inferior units to be considered relevant. Nature has done its job just fine.

All other species, apparently have no need to worry about the quality of their populations. The templates used to make the individuals are in fine working order, whereas, with humans, the ‘male’ template is apparently seriously flawed. When you actually think about it, the whole concept is ridiculous, it’s childlike in its simplicity. No biologist would ever seriously consider this as a viable evolutionary strategy.

Regarding all the non human species, we happily accept the output of millions of years of evolution, and why not? By definition, the existing organisms on earth are the ‘winners’. The ‘losers’ genes have been sent down a blind alley to sink into obscurity, and yet here we are, by definition, part of the evolutionary ‘success club’, in fact, probably the most successful of the ‘success club’.

Yet we humans who have taken control of the planet, we who outnumber the other primates by factors of thousands, we who have been to the moon and back, are told that only half our members are in fully working order.

By any definition of success, we are it. We own it, so, how could it possibly be true that only half the species is ‘the full deal’ and the other half, flawed? Simple biology would determine that we should see this model in other successful organisms, yet where are they? Could it be that we are the only species that operates on this ‘half-working’ / ‘half- not working’ system? Why would the process of evolution, brutal and strict as it is, allow this to happen? Why only use this bizarre model on a single species? Why not two, five, a hundred? If there is indeed, only one species burdened with 50% of flawed units, then how could it come to pass that it is the most successful species on the planet?

The conclusion is obvious. This ‘fem superior’ asymmetry model does not represent any logical consistency with the principles of biology. It is, at best, intellectually dishonest, more likely, it is an outright lie, or put another way, shameless propaganda that will put shame to our generation in years to come.