Skip to main content

Mainstream Feminism: A Paradox of Gender-Discriminatory Fuel

Think gender discrimination (or sexism) is nearing extinction? No way! The mainstream feminist movement will never allow its Sisyphus-size rock to roll off the cliff! 

Despite gender’s potentially-indefinite scale of relevance, given the not-so-controversial and even desirable positions assumed by their billions of specific representatives on either side, the controversy generator seems prepared to weather the virtuous storm of those compelling forces whose incidental consequences have long advanced more gender-blind, merit-based dynamics in the general marketplace. These phenomena are evident at both the macro and micro level, across esteemed roles in public and corporate office, shared household duties, and academic and athletic achievement. Of course, there exists plenty of idiosyncratic disparities between specific households, cultures, and interpersonal relationships, whereby gender often serves little more than incidence to complement the slight of hand of the statistician who wishes to conjure up vitriolic discontent among those intertwined within his class-action-sized assault upon visible, politically-vulnerable, and vilifiable opponents.       


HerCampus.com, in keeping with those accompanying self-satirizing TV channels and publications BET, Jet, Oxygen, and Lifetime, contribute to a self-perpetuating and
-inducing psychology of superficial sets of dispositions, whether decidedly favorable or unfavorable, which may only coarsely resemble reality while failing to clearly encapsulate it. On this website, freelancers contribute to the proclaimed global collage of what it truly means to be a girl on campus during this second decade of the twenty-first millennia. On its page currently are posts classified under sex, selfies, feminism, Netflix, hair, Greek life, and study abroad. 

It seems that the seven aspects of womanhood could never be more completely characterized than they have been so neatly and succinctly assembled on this single page of brilliantly colorful, sparkly web-text. It seems genuinely set to the tone of offering bonafide life guidance to every collegiette who prioritizes her insatiable appetite for The 16 Types of Sorority Girls, Vera Bradley study breaks, and 10 Things Nobody Told You About Sex, over tomorrow's economics exam, a serious investigation into world history, a cursory geographical survey of the Middle East, and her looming mortgage-style debt obligations complementing her graduation into a marketplace of increasing underemployment poised to land her back home with mom and dad. And of course, no editorial would be complete without a Campus Sex Survey! Never mind the classifications here employed in data collection, though, as they may reveal grave contradictory themes.

It seems important to note that there exists a market for this style of dramatic, blood-boiling publication, yet its utility has yet to be proven or even remotely harnessed in a way to advance beyond the perpetuation of their subscribers’ confused, snapshot-fueled fury. I'm convinced that this webpage and its followers would reasonably concede, away from their MacBook Pro keyboards, that the site's content only touches the surface of what it means to be a female college student these days, but I would urge them to delve even more deeply to reconsider the publication's motives, guiding principles and not-so-scientific methods of discovery, hastily-designed conclusions, and non-specific, Barnum-style generalities which widely and conveniently ignore those more inconspicuous, idiosyncratic features beyond gender.

It seems as though the incremental shift from reality may be most aptly epitomized by the generational placation exhibited in editing one of the most iconic films of that generation: Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

In a little-known segment of the script, John Hughes' 1986 hit Ferris Bueller's Day Off originally included an economically-valid statement that would later be eliminated due to the general female response to it in post-production.

In this scene, Sloane says to Cameron during their parade scene walk, "The future's worse for a boy, isn't it? A girl can always bail out and have a baby and get some guy to support her."

Cameron responds, "That's a pretty grim thought."

"True," says Sloane, "but it's an option. No options is worse."


The elimination of this scene may have singlehandedly secured any chance of economic sanity remaining part of gender politics in the United States.

What is purely a truthful remark about oft-assumed and respected gender roles has seemingly become an international rallying cry for women who pound their chests and proclaim that their femininity will overcome the supposed shackles of their domestic servitude, condescendingly ridiculing that place of solace and pride that defined the lives of many women for generations and even still today.

So while a segment of the population unwittingly derides the prideful work of the family-serving housewife in pursuit of their own myopic and ill-informed agenda against aggregates-based outcomes underlying purported inequality, men are working longer, riskier and more productive hours while their competitive counterparts are acquiring the skills and prudently planning their lives to compete in the commercial space rather than jockeying for political advantage. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Goldmoney: Real Money Purposed for the Future

The institution of money entered the minds of sophisticated traders several millennia ago, when instead of bartering with limited numbers of people within the cumbersome double coincidence of wants, large-scale economies developed from the reach and transparency of commodity money which was scarce, durable, fungible, transportable, divisible, recognizable, and usable in and of itself. 

While we may appear to have transcended those primitive times and those so-called barbarous relics, the truth is that we have merely mutilated the concept of money by clandestinely replacing it with its more manipulable and abstract representative, the proverbial coat check without the coat. 

This is but the device of a large-scale social experiment run in real time, and we are its unwitting and unconsenting subjects who’ve largely never heard of the Federal Reserve’s dual mandate, much less its missions of “maximum employment” and 2-percent annual inflation.

Yet there is hope after all.

Finally, after deca…

The Kaepernick Craze: Exposing the Nation's Fools One Conversation at a Time

The Kaeparnick craze and other viral movements haven't merely pressured people into becoming simpler caricatures of their prior selves, but they have manifestly exposed people for how foolish and uninformed they've been all along. 



In his final year in the NFL, Kaepernick ranked 17th in passer rating and 34th the year before that. 

He played through an entire season in only two of his six years in the league, and his best full-season performance ranks far outside of the NFL's top-250 single-season passing performances in the league's history. 

For reference, the oft-criticized Tony Romo posted a career passer rating of 97.1, as compared to Kaepernick's 88.9. 

Romo's passer rating dipped below 90 for only one season of the eleven seasons he played, whereas Kaepernick failed to eclipse the 90 mark on three of his six seasons, a full 50 percent of his time in the NFL. 

In fact, Kaepernick accomplished this feat only once if we are to discard those other two seasons in …

Bitcoin: Are You Feeling Lucky?

The popular cryptocurrency, bitcoin, has tumbled greater than 50 percent since its all-time high set just a month ago near $20,000. 

Since then, it has traded as low as $9,000 before rebounding modestly back over the $10,000 mark. 
The short story of bitcoin (XBT) is powerfully illustrated by its graduation from its initial use case as an easy, inexpensive medium of exchange to an erratic and highly speculative risk asset which scarcely resembles anything more. 
And despite the chance that it regains steam, it is steeped equivalently in bubble territory at $9k as it is at $20k or even $100 or $100k. 
Plainly, it is a bubble at nearly any price. 
The only difference is the anchoring effect which seduces the investor into interpreting the drop as a buying opportunity. 
So while the fundamentals and the use case haven't dramatically changed since the decline, the greedy investor assumes that the price has dropped because of reasons unrelated to its future viability. 
This is wishful thinkin…