Man vs Silly Feminist

If civilisation had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts.
-- Camille Paglia 
Famed survivalist (and drinker of his own urine) Bear Grylls has apparently pissed off (heh) several feminists by casting his latest reality show with only men:
The Island Of Lost Blokes will see 12 hardy souls join Grylls in trying to survive on a desert island using just their instincts and ingenuity.
    But – as the name of the programme suggests – something crucial will be missing from the experience, along with proper food supplies and shelter: Competition from the girls. 
    The lack of female participation in the show has sparked protests, with questions being asked as to why, in 2014, survival should be seen as a male-only challenge.
    Ruth England, who has made back-to-nature shows on the Discovery Channel – including presenting the series Man, Woman Wild – says the concept is ‘laughable’. 
    ‘The basic tenets of survival are the same, regardless of your genitals – and women cope very well,’ she told The Independent. 
    ‘I’m disappointed in Channel 4’s decision, but not wholly surprised.

    The sheer amount of different types of terrain that I have survived in means I have more primitive survival experience than most soldiers. [Didact: I'll be impressed when you survive hostile contact with a real enemy intent on killing you, when you're outnumbered and outgunned, wounded, and struggling to keep your brothers alive through the hell of war.] 
    Yet I still get internet trolls telling me to get back in the kitchen.’ 
    Her comments were echoed by explorer Sarah Outen, who took to Twitter to express her frustration at The Island Of Lost Blokes. 
    ‘Surprise, surprise,’ she tweeted. ‘An adventure show of blokes and beards.’  
    ‘Yawn, yawn, yawn. Where are the women?’ [Didact: If they've got the least shred of sense, they're at home, in the kitchen, thanking men for building civilisation to the point where they don't have to participate in such tomfoolery.]
    Channel 4 describes the programme as ‘a bold new documentary in which Bear Grylls undertakes the ultimate survival experiment to discover what it means to be a man.’ 
    Its male volunteers will be stranded in a remote island location and asked to fend for themselves over four weeks, with basic supplies of food and water quickly running out.
    Personally I really couldn't care less what Bear Grylls is doing next, because I do not watch reality TV. (I find the very concept to be an insult to my intelligence.) I am even less concerned- is sub-zero concern a contradiction in terms?- about what women think about his newest show. However, in the interests of sending up feminism for what it is- namely, an absurdity disguised as a serious philosophy- let us consider what would happen if there were, in fact, groups of men and women on this show.

    Indeed, such an experiment has already been tried. The results were... enlightening.

    As the article over at RoK demonstrates, when separate teams of men and women were cast into the wild and told to fend for themselves, the men did what men do: they took the initiative and built a functional tribe of sorts, with clear hierarchies and specialised tasks. Each man did what was necessary for his own good, as well as the good of the tribe. The result was that the men had food, shelter, and a modicum of comfort despite enduring some hardship and deprivation in the process.

    The women spent their time sunbathing, catfighting, eating, catfighting, paddling around in the water, catfighting, complaining, and catfighting.

    So then the producers decided to mix things up a bit by sending a few blokes over to the female side of the island, and sending a few sheilas over to the bloke side. The results were entirely predictable again.

    The girls who went to the men's side had a great time. They were able to take advantage of the comforts that the men had built, and had the added benefit of undivided male attention.

    The men who went to the women's side had a miserable time. They had to do all of the work that the women should have done, without any of the rewards that their other male counterparts were enjoying.

    The rest of the women carried on sunbathing, catfighting, eating, catfighting, paddling around in the water, catfighting, complaining, and catfighting.

    I predict that the exact same thing would happen if women were to barge into this new show. And it is telling that, despite all of the complaining about how "unfair" it is that no women are allowed into the boys' club, not one of the most vocal critics of this new show is willing to do what is truly necessary to prove that teh wimmenz are as strong as the men.

    Namely, not one of the critics are willing to take the risks required to put together a show of their own that showcases women in the same settings, facing the same challenges, and tackling the same dangers that the men are going to face on this new Bear Grylls show.

    And that, my friends, should tell you everything you need to know about how utterly hollow their complaints are. There is no value or worth whatsoever to their criticisms, because they are completely unwilling to put themselves and their futures at risk to prove the man wrong. They attack him from a position of utter safety, secure in the knowledge that their silliness will go unchallenged by the majority of people- and will even be supported by clueless feminist and white knight manginas alike.

    Fortunately, those of us who have the wit and the eyesight to see their nonsense for what it is have a very powerful and very effective tool for dealing with this. Namely, we have the power of laughter.

    For is there truly anything funnier and more ridiculous than the sight of a clueless feminist being hoisted by her own petard, shrilly proclaiming the eeeeeeeeevils of masculine oppression even as she enjoys all of the luxuries that men have fought and bled and sacrificed for through the generations?


    Popular Posts