The origins of sexism

The origins of sexism, by Jim Goad.

Does it never strike these “researchers” as queer that “sexism” existed in every culture across the planet long before the word “sexism” did? Do they really believe that everyone on earth throughout history got it wrong in exactly the same way?

According to Wikipedia — yeah, I know — the word “sexism” was probably first coined during a 1965 speech and first appeared in print three years later. In both instances, the context is so dumb that it’s worth repeating.

In November, 1965, a woman named Pauline M. Leet uttered the following during a college symposium:

When you argue … that since fewer women write good poetry this justifies their total exclusion, you are taking a position analogous to that of the racist — I might call you in this case a ‘sexist’ … Both the racist and the sexist are acting as if all that has happened had never happened, and both of them are making decisions and coming to conclusions about someone’s value by referring to factors which are in both cases irrelevant.

Huh? Who’s arguing that women shouldn’t write poetry? THAT’S something that actually “never happened.” Everything else you said makes me think you were premenstrual when you said it.

In November 1968, a book called Vital Speeches of the Day reprinted Caroline Bird’s “On Being Born Female,” which contained the following random agglomeration of words:

There is recognition abroad that we are in many ways a sexist country. Sexism is judging people by their sex when sex doesn’t matter. Sexism is intended to rhyme with racism.

It’s “intended” to rhyme with racism? Interesting concept, because it doesn’t rhyme and never will. Then again, social justice is intended to make people equal, but they will never be equal. The equality industry is therefore a perpetual-motion racket because you’re never going to achieve it. There will always be “more work to do.”

Why? Because people are different.

As with “racism” being framed exclusively as something that only white people do and are never targeted by, “sexism” is something that only men do, and only women suffer as a result. It absolves women of the merest responsibility for anything bad that happens to them, because even the suggestion that women aren’t perfect is swiftly categorized as “sexist.”

Still, just as we can’t go a week without hearing about what happened to Emmett Till 65 years ago because it tends to obscure the reality of interracial rape statistics in 2020, the anti-“sexism” warriors never shut their flapping gums about witch burnings and foot bindings and denial of suffrage and gendered language and how, at least according to Hillary Clinton, “Women have always been the primary victims of war” because they lose their husbands and sons to combat.

According to one estimate, men account for 97% of war deaths. Think of how out-of-touch and truly privileged you have to be to think that the ones who don’t die are the real victims. …

From the litany of glaring hypocrisies:

Were respondents asked whether women are more empathetic than men? Were they asked if men were statistically more prone to violence than women? And if they answered “yes” to either question, would this be seen as “deeply ingrained bias” or as opinions that may actually be based in statistical facts?

Were they asked about the fact that across the globe, despite the fact that they are depicted as endlessly squirming under the thumb of sexist men, women live two years longer than men on average?

Not bloody likely!

Why do these types never push for “equality” when it comes to longevity? Or in custody disputes? Or in forcing women to work jobs that can kill you, since men currently account for 92% of workplace deaths?