Gender equality is an insane notion.
Sometimes it's just insane in a kind of nagging and annoying way, as evidenced by the NFL's announcement on Thursday that it will be instituting a "Rooney Rule" for women in executive positions. The original Rooney Rule mandated that all teams interview at least one black candidate for any coaching vacancy, which is obviously patronizing, ridiculous, and hypocritical. None of the people who carry on about "racial inequality" in the coaching ranks seem to care about the reverse racial inequality among players. You don't hear anyone proposing a policy where teams have to try out at a certain quota of white dudes at the cornerback and wide receiver positions.
But as if the racial quota wasn't bad enough, now the NFL will be adding gender into the mix. By the decree of the commissioner, each NFL team must interview one token female for any executive job. That would seem to be great news only for the three women in the world who want to become NFL executives, but feminists treated it as a victory for the entire gender. They said it's about time the NFL addresses its "systematic sexism," and they assured us that girls are very good at doing football stuff. If NFL teams had more girls involved, feminists reported, they'd be much better at winning the sports matches and getting home runs.
This is the stupid, silly side of faux "gender equality." The insistence of involving women in football will never be more than irritating -- that is, until they require that teams start giving women contracts to be interior linemen and inside linebackers. Maybe when 250 pound football players are knocking women unconscious on live television -- maybe when their maimed and mangled female bodies are being carted off the field -- our culture will finally admit, and accept, that men and women are not equal.
Or maybe not. The other bit of news on the gender equality front would seem to indicate otherwise: Top military brass have testified that they believe women should be required to sign up for the draft. The military draft, mind you, not the NFL draft:
For the first time, top Army and Marine Corps leaders have testified that they think women should register for the draft.
"I think that all eligible and qualified men and women should register for the draft," Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley said during a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Both Milley and Marine Gen. Robert Neller said women, like men, should be required to register for the Selective Service at age 18.
There's no surprise here. We knew it was coming. Ever since Defense Secretary Ashton Carter announced that all combat positions would be opened to women, it was only a matter of time before the push for female draft registration began. I knew it was especially imminent when the Obama administration dismissed as sexist propaganda a study conducted by the Marine Corps, finding that female combat troops are weaker, less efficient, more injury prone, and a greater liability than male troops. The study concluded, shockingly, that all-male units simply perform better than mixed-gender units. But that incredibly obvious, incontrovertible, scientifically consistent conclusion didn't gel with the "men and women are equal" meme, so it was discarded and the march towards forced androgyny continued unabated.
Many liberals, faced with the prospect of being forced to actually die -- or watch their daughters die -- for the sake of their delusional beliefs, have tried to take the easy way out. They've said we ought to just abolish the draft altogether. But the draft is in place in case of a national emergency, and it's not going anywhere. We haven't had to use it in many decades, but if the time ever comes when our stock of volunteers has been catastrophically depleted in some epic, bloody war, we may not have a choice.
Now, if that moment arrives, the military will have to sift through thousands of teenage girls who can't even do one push up, let alone carry a 60-pound rucksack across the desert. The military will be absolutely flooded with egregiously unfit recruits culled from sorority houses and Justin Bieber concerts. We'll be occupied and enslaved by the invading hordes before we even get the first group of draftees through basic training.
And, at that point, we'll deserve our fate. Are we even worth defending if it means sending our daughters off to die? Well, maybe sending your daughter, anyway. Mine will not be sent anywhere. My daughter will not sign up for the draft, no matter what the government says. If this becomes law, I will break the law and do so proudly. I will not allow my daughter to be a part of this national disgrace, and if that means we must leave the United States altogether -- good riddance. I honestly do not want to live in a country that uses its women as human shields.
We already kill our children by the millions, if now we are asked to sacrifice our daughters, how can we even call ourselves a nation? We are not a nation. We are a black hole. We are a decaying carcass. We are Sodom. We are even worse than all of that.
I cannot fully articulate just how damnably evil and cowardly it is to send women into war against their will. Whether or not such a war ever comes -- and I believe it may, sooner or later -- the very fact that we are prepared to do such a thing, that the law has mandated such a thing, is enough for me to pray that God finally smites our hideous, craven society, so that we can construct a new one from scratch. And if that ever happens, I'd like to hereby suggest that we banish from our new society any gutless, reprehensible, cowed little man who is now nodding with approval at the idea of forcibly shipping our daughters off to be blown apart. Men as unspeakably selfish and weak as that can be of no use in the rebuilding process.
Yet, with all that said, I admit by modern standards this is all quite fair. After all, if we are going to pretend women are equal to men; if we are going to participate in the fantasy that men are not physically stronger and better fit for certain roles; if we are going to toss all notions of chivalry and honor aside; if women want to be treated as men in all conceivable ways; if men are going to be feminized while women are masculinized; if all distinctions between the genders are to be ignored and erased, then this is a very logical step.
The problem is that these were decisions made as a culture, but without unanimous consent. I never agreed that men and women are equal in every respect. My daughter never agreed, and she won't, because she will be taught the truth. Her mother is not a feminist shrew and her father is not an effeminate liberal submissive, so she will be raised to love and appreciate the differences between the sexes. She has not and will not cast a yea vote in favor of the genders being melted together into an indiscernible, hermaphroditic puddle. Nevertheless, our country intends to drag her in and make her a part of the stew whether she likes it or not.
Beyond innocent girls like my daughter, there have been many other victims of the crusade to equalize the genders. When all is said and done, the "gender equality" campaign will have killed more people and destroyed more lives than all the wars and tyrants in history. That is probably already the case, when you consider the 50 million children aborted in the world each year. Most of them were slaughtered so that women might be liberated from their own biology and made as barren as men. Millions of children have been cut to pieces and thrown in the trash so that their mothers could spurn motherhood, thereby spurning womanhood, thereby attaining that fabled equality.
This murderous desire for equality -- which means sameness -- with men has made many feminist women actively hostile even to the idea of children. Consider this article, just published in Cosmo, lamenting -- lamenting! -- that more babies are being born in Texas due to some minor abortion regulations. The writer complains that Texas is being plagued with dirty, filthy babies because Planned Parenthood has been the deprived the privilege of disemboweling them:
[A] study shows a 1.9 percent increase in the birthing rate in counties that once had state-funded Planned Parenthood clinics during that same time period of 2011 to 2014.
If there were any remaining doubts about how cutting Planned Parenthood funding affects women, those should be pretty much cleared up by this new data.
The article was shared on their Twitter page with the headline: "Texas women are having more babies since Planned Parenthood was defunded :("
Note the frowny face.
They are sad that women are having babies. Sad. They are sad that women are becoming mothers, because becoming a mother is something only women can do. It is very particular, and different, and feminine. It is not an expression of "gender equality," but a profound and glorious repudiation of it. If progressive feminists had their way, therefore, no women would ever become mothers again. There would simply be no more children, until -- and if -- we reach a point where babies can be conceived, grown and cultivated in petri dishes, and then purchased by a husband and wife, or a single woman, or a pair of lesbians, or a trio of homosexual men, or a man and his canine bride.
The whole process of conception, pregnancy, and birth is far too specific and exclusive. Far too womanly. Far too unequal. That's why it must be rejected and babies must be made as blood sacrifices on the altar of feminism.
All must bow to the pagan god of equality, and many must die. And now they're coming for my daughter. But I will not allow them to take her.
I promise you -- whatever this means -- I will not allow it.
TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.