SOME FURTHER SINS OF EVE

    This week, the Center for Disease Control issued another statistic, showing that for the second straight year, Life Expectancy rates in the exceptional United States have dropped. This is the first time since the Kennedy Administration that there has been a consecutive yearly decline. The Junta blames these trends on the Scamdemic despite the CDC's own admission to lying about the figures. The Scamdemic also doesn't account for why the death rate among women has remained relatively stable while the numbers among men are falling radically. 

   While the Whacko Left Wing is probably high-fiving each other over the news of more male deaths, some elements on the Right are breaking out into their "O tempora! O mores!" routine. After doing absolutely nothing for the last few decades to resist the increasing emasculation of American culture, they've suddenly discovered that the widespread marginalization of men might actually be a significant social issue. As usual, they get it all wrong in their assessments. Rather than examining their own failures, they blame it all on women; as if male apathy and complacency had nothing to with contributing to any of it. 

   Dennis Prager, for example, who's been teetering delicately on a metaphorical balance-beam between Neoconservatism and Red Pill level neurosis, finally has toppled over into the abyss with his latest article 'Women Are Disproportionately Hurting Our Country.'  Prager is wailing loudly that (mostly radical feminist) women have hijacked our cultural institutions. This in spite of the fact that many Feminists seem a bit displeased with the Junta for throwing them overboard in favor of the Homo Agenda. 

   Prager's argument seems to center on the premise that while men have learned to curb their innate aggressiveness (though it's passing strange that he believes curbing it is a desirable goal) women haven't learned to tame their innate emotionalism. He doesn't really explain though how feminine emotionalism automatically translates into Radical Leftist Activism. (There's certainly no shortage of emotionally-driven females on the Right). He also seems to miss the obvious point that suppressing male tendencies towards aggression, competitiveness, and healthy sexuality is the basic cause of all of the things that he is complaining about. 

     Back when we actually had a reliable social policy, these 'innate male aggressions' that Prager complains about were sublimated into socially useful pursuits. Certain interests began seeing a problem with this, and they promoted Radical Feminism---which until the mid-1970s was nothing more than a crackpot fringe-movement. One group with an interest in 'deconstructing' masculinity was the Corporate Deep State, who realized that men supporting a family were more likely to do things like unionize---demanding a living wage, better working conditions, and opposing things like offshoring. Flooding the workplace with women drove down wages and facilitated the (totally coordinated) 'transition' to a service-based economy. Conservative men didn't oppose any of this: it was good for the bottom line and stakeholders. 

   Another group supporting Radical Feminism were the weaker, less productive, and less competent men. To them, elevating the so-called 'status of women' was a means of social levelling---cutting their more capable and responsible peers down to size. As usual in today's America, greed and envy combined to bring about a disastrous situation.

    

   Prager totally ignores the role of men in elevating women who (often by necessity) are being shoved into social roles for which they aren't suited---and then claims that women are responsible for failure. He disingenuously tells us that "young children are prematurely sexualized—they are, for example, exposed to Drag Queen Story Hour in class and in local libraries from the age of 5. These feature a man dressed as a woman reading and dancing for them. And who is facilitating all of this? In virtually every case, a woman. Ninety-two percent of kindergarten teachers are women, 75 percent of all teachers are women and 85 percent of librarians are women." Somehow, it's escaped his attention that 100% of drag queens are male: or that we had about the same percentages female teachers and librarians in 1980 when these things weren't tolerated. 

   He continues: "And they are teaching young people to despise their country (the creator of the poisonous '1619 Project' is a woman), to feel guilty about their 'white privilege' or to think of themselves as victims if they are black. Even worse, they are indoctrinating them in 'nonbinary' thinking regarding sex and gender...These ideas originated in university gender studies and women’s studies departments, nearly all of whose professors are female." True, but these university departments originated in schools which weren't run by women and mostly still aren't. They've also been funded by a multiplicity of federal, state, and local governments who haven't sought even the slightest accountability. 

     "Last week an organization called Physicians for Reproductive Health published an open letter to the nation’s reporters and news editors, demanding they censor anti-abortion activists" Prager continues, “the open letter was signed by more than 600 medical doctors and other health care professionals. Nearly every signatory was a woman. And all four of the listed leaders of Physicians for Reproductive Health are women." And all nine of the Supreme Court Justices who enacted Roe vs. Wade in 1973 were men, and Planned Parenthood was founded by Bill Gates' father. Prager seems to be arguing a la Vox Day that women couldn't wait for legal abortion back then. We've always had a number of women in the medical profession, especially in nursing; but most were like Dr. Mary Jones---who pioneered American Obstetrics techniques---and who stated that "the woman who seeks the destruction of her own child deceives herself, darkens her soul, and casts down her whole moral existence.”  

    This is a major problem with Prager's line of reasoning: he seems to be taking a reductionist view of female psychology that makes his whole article sound like typical Manosphere poppycock. It's almost like he's channelling the ghost of Dalrock, he states that "Women clergy have been at the vanguard of pushing Christianity and Judaism to the left, leaving mainstream churches and synagogues increasingly empty. Of course, the increasingly feminized male clergy go along with their female colleagues." Much like Rollo Tomassi's assertion that the Holy Spirit has been supplanted by the so-called 'Feminine Imperative.' It happens awkwardly enough for Prager and Tomassi however that only about 1 in 8 denominations that allow it have female clergy. Catholics, Moslems, and Orthodox Jews don't even ordain women. 

   Prager makes the highly dubious assertion that "women are disproportionately supportive of cancel culture" though I seem to recall male Corporate Oligarchs, Tech Lords, Media Moguls, and Mad Scientists like Fauci mostly leading that charge. If we weren't starting to question Prager's sanity already, he drops this bombshell:

  "Teachers and their unions did great damage to young people during COVID-19. They demanded—because of their hypochondria and an apparent inability to apply reason to COVID-19 risk—that schools be closed for nearly two years. Teachers unions in big cities threatened to go on strike if schools opened...The unions are overwhelmingly composed of women members and women leaders."

    

    On the contrary, this was a time (and sadly not the only one) where the so-called 'Conservatives' went even further than the Radical Left. Frankly, I was hoping that public schools would never open again and that the supposed 'party of school choice' would seize the opportunity to push for more parental control. But, no; Prager and his ilk showed their true colors and forced Americans back into the dysfunctional system in spite of opposition from the Left. And this completes the Circular Reasoning of his whole thesis. He and his fellow Neocons have marginalized men in society and set women up to fail---now he blames women essentially for not manning up and not behaving more like men should have been doing.

   There is no "sin of Eve" but it's the same as it was from the beginning. When Adam finished eating the fruit, and God asked why he'd disobeyed His commandment to protect the Garden he replied: "She made me do it!" That excuse didn't work for Adam and it won't work for modern Neocons or Red Pills either.