Feminists want us to trust easily-triggered, fragile feminists in jobs where the slightest hesitation or physical shortcoming can mean life or death. In short, feminists advocate for the employment of Poopypants: a physically and emotionally fragile shell of a human. If you cannot see how suicidal to society it would be to heed their advocacy, allow me to explain.
Imagine you’re a part of a highly-trained group of people tasked with a dangerous job. This could be anything: firefighters, fisherfolk, Marines, electrical engineers, Army Rangers, police / SWAT team members, Navy sailors, Air Force pilots, or really, any dangerous situation where one has to trust the skill, courage and clear-headedness of one’s coworkers.
If you saw the movie “Top Gun” you know what happens when one’s comrades suffer emotional weakness: in the final scenes, Ice Man’s life is put in increased peril when Maverick becomes emotionally overwhelmed in the heat of battle and flees the fight. Yes, in true happy ending style, Maverick recovers his courage and the day is saved but in a real fire-fight his delay would have killed all of them, except perhaps a few survivors when his carrier base sank into the sea.
Having steady allies in battle (or other conflicts) is essential to success in any significant situation involving, you know, conflict.
A metaphorical Superman is awesome; Poopypants is not an asset.
Poopypants will get you killed, widow your husband/wife and orphan your beloved children. Superman’s presence builds confidence in the team’s success (and your personal survival) and even if Superman’s competence is discouraging to one’s own career goals, you are happy to have him on the team in a premier role. You’ve weighed survival vs. quick death, and survival won.
Poopypants can be your colleague and even your love interest but in a crisis, Poopypants is disposable.
If Superman takes up with that annoying Lois Lane feminist nightmare manic pixie, that’s one less landmine the rest of those on the team have to worry about stepping on.
So, what happens when the skills and emotional wherewithal of a new recruit are unknown?
When a new recruit arrives at your badger pod, the first thing you want to know is, can I trust this fucker? Is this new recruit a Super person, or Poopypants?
This is what the currently discredited “hazing” rituals are about. Put the new recruit through simulated hell for a short ime to evaluate whether trust or exit is the best choice for all involved. If the new recruit flakes out on simulated hell, the new recruit is unsuited to the rigors of real hell. People will perish (or othewise be put at risk) unnecessarily, including the recruit.
This is just one other reason why everyone should reject feminism: they require the relaxing of performance standards, and the removal of allegedly “abusive” social tests that serve the critcal societal interest of establishing the trustworthiness of those who seek positions of trust.
I mean, seriously, when a feminist demands that we ban terms like “bossy,” how can any stakeholder – man or woman – trust a member of her supposedly “empowered woman” cohort to serve in a position of power that can be undermined by the utterance of a single word?
No thanks, bossy grrrlz.
When I first auditioned for a volunteer editor’s spot at AVFM, I carefully detailed over 90 grammatical errors (including suggested corrections) on a single page of the AVFM website of that era. A female AVFM editor called me “pedantic” and a male editor dismissed me as naive about the meat-grinder of becoming an editor – he laughed at my arrogance in thinking that I could withstand the (moderate) abuse they (now “we”) give each other in the context of the massive amount of abuse AVFM editors get from feminists.
I responded with a measured and humorous anger. I was in.
But enough about me; you can perhaps see the general principle now: in critical jobs, it is important to test the strength of the employees before one sacrifices their lives (and the lives of their co-workers) in order to appease some ludicrous (if well-intended) standard of gender equality.
Just to play devil’s advocate (meaning, I find the following abhorrent): in an over-populated world, maybe it is acceptable to balance the purported scales of cosmic injustice by killing men and women unnecessarily by sanctioning unqualified candidates into jobs they are unsuited for, merely because they happen to have female genitalia, or identify as women. Maybe sending these posers, the innocents they demand dominion over, and their colleagues, to their unnecessary deaths is an important symbol of women’s liberation.
But a symbol to what?
Take your pick.
- Feminists’ demands are more important than protecting people’s lives?
- Feminists’ demands that result in the deaths of children are paramount?
- Feminists’ demands for quotas that circumvent legitimate job standards are acceptable even in the face of real lives lost?
Both men and women should be welcome to apply for any job. When a disproportionate number of those of either gender fail to qualify, it is not necessarily a signifier of discrimination.
It is a marker of sanity.
If you are assailed by “micro-aggressions,” need men to protect you from from “toxic masculinity” while you defend women’s unmodulated sexuality, argue that society should “listen and believe” to rape allegations without the same standards of evidence society uses in all other criminal matters, well, then, the answer is clear.
You have failed. Get the hell out, loser.
Believe it or not, this is for your own good. We’re both men and women; we protect society and you, even when it hurts your ludicrous, discredited philosophical bullshit ideology.