For feminists everything is a feminist issue. Such is the price of zealotry.
I have long suspected that ideologies make people stupid. Of course, those who master the extravagantly crafted intellectual constructions called ideologies believe that they are showing how smart they are.
In truth, ideology blinds them to reality.
Take adultery. Watching a feminist try to force reality to conform to her ideology is a sad sight indeed.
Good feminists are not allowed to think of gender in biological terms. Good feminists reject science, especially Darwin.
Good feminists think that whatever goes on between men and women can be explained as a power dynamic. Dutifully, they follow the famed German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche.
Writing at the end of the nineteenth century the wildly reactionary Nietzsche tried to explain human motivation in terms of a will to power.
College students today read a chapter or two about Nietzsche and glom on to the idea that the will to power can explain everything.
For the record, Nietzsche was not a feminist.
Yesterday, Katie Baker wrote on Jezebel that she was tormented by the seemingly inexplicable fact that powerful men cheat more than powerful women.
She does not note that powerful women are more likely to be unmarried than powerful men.
Hyper-vigilant about anything that resembles gender discrimination Baker is seriously aggrieved because David Petraeus had a beautiful young mistress but that Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright did not have a bevy of handsome young men yearning for their sexual favors.
To Baker it feels like an injustice. I am sure you are just as puzzled as she is.
And when she sees an injustice, Baker, good little feminist that she is, blames the patriarchy.
Allow her to express her thought in her own words:
For the high-powered woman, the concept of "having it all" means pressure to succeed professionally while also being a good mother and wife. For the high-powered man, "having it all" apparently implies succeeding professionally while also having a respectable wife and a high-paid prostitute/housekeeper/intern/biographer mistress on the side. Why do powerful men risk everything on affairs? As more women take over positions of power, will they break adultery's glass ceiling?
Ignore the fact that the adultery debate has nothing to do with whether or not women can have it all. We already know, from no less than Anne-Marie Slaughter, unless she is a superwoman a woman cannot be a good wife, a good mother, and CEO.
If she is, how would she ever find the time to have an affair.
Science tells a different story. It turns out that alpha males attract a considerable amount of female attention because they are presumed to offer the best genes: they are considered to be best at protecting women and children and providing for a family. Moreover, a woman who is attached to an alpha male, even as his No. 1 concubine, gains status.
A man who attaches himself to a sixty-year-old powerful woman will not be looking to pass on his genes. And he will surely lose status.
Among mammals these facts are universal. As long as men and women continue to be mammals, and as long as social customs harmonize with biological reality, such will be the case.
Since Darwinian science sees sexual relations as a means to reproduce fit members of the species, biology has it that older, powerful women are significantly less attractive than older, powerful men.
Anyone who cannot figure this out should get her college tuition refunded. Anyone who believes that the situation will change if only we speak about it differently has gotten lost in the ideological clouds.
Like it or not, in the Darwinian mating game a woman’s value depends very largely on her fertility. A young, fertile a woman is more attractive to men.
Sexual attraction has a cultural component, but that component normally reflects biological realities.
The feminist failure to understand Darwin is a disgrace.