The 8th of March, International Women’s Day, has acquired great significance, not as an act of celebration, but of confrontation: confrontation between a totalitarian ideology —which is any ideology that achieves an all-encompassing dimension— and men, by virtue simply of being men. It can be experienced simply by taking a walk around the university campuses or streets of any country in which the Western interpretation of reality prevails. Or by listening to statements and speeches made by its political leaders.
But the process of deconstructing masculine identity is driven each and every day of the year, from each and every institutional guardian metastasised by feminism (to the detriment of any perspective that does not share its commands), among which are schools and universities, the mass media, parliaments, councils of ministers, the courts of justice, trade unions, state law enforcement agencies, international bodies, gender observatories, etc. And this is done, to an extraordinary extent, through the appropriation of language to redefine the meaning of words by imbuing them with an ideological bias; inventing what Orwell called «newspeak». In other words, a language with a strictly political intent, geared to imposing a certain mental attitude on those who use it.
For example, in Spanish, and in other languages, there is an instrumental use of the word varón (male), to replace the word hombre (man): it can used to refer to an alleged murderer or to those attending an event; and teachers even explain to their students, submitting to the politically-imposed language guidelines, that in the 19th Century «males (varones) worked in the mines, while women (mujeres) worked in other occupations». However, the word varón designates people of the male sex, not gender; while its equivalent for naming the female sex, not gender, is hembra (female) not mujer (woman).
The same happens with the term persona (person), when it is used to subsume into it the presence of men in order to hide their existence. That is why when the statistics of work-related accidents are published —particularly in the case of fatalities, with 95 % of them being men— we are told that «in 2021, 741 working people died in work-related accidents» (the trade union UGT: Unión General de Trabajadores). In fact, the figure is 704 men and 37 women; but this breakdown does not appear anywhere. In contrast, we are told in detail that «at least twenty-two migrants have died, among them sixteen women and a minor» (RNE: Radio Nacional de España).
As well as the incessant indoctrination of society as a whole, either blatant or subliminal, another feature which characterises the feminist movement is its distress at the natural inequality between men and women. This is true, above all, with respect to the inequality of intellectual and creative capabilities, given that legal differences have disappeared completely from our midst, and in the case of weaker muscular strength, it has been assumed, or resolved, either by segregating the sexes (as happens in sport) or by reducing the requirements for women in access tests for certain jobs (fire fighters, the police, the army...). It is from this innate difference that there emerges the insistence to make women philosophers, writers, artists or scientists visible, despite their manifest mediocrity.
The fact is that in any occupation one may think of, there are very many more men who are pre-eminent, and who have also been made invisible, over the course of history. There are male doctors, physicists, musicians, sculptors, thinkers... and poets, who may be great, minor or insignificant. They are activities in which nearly all women have been, and are, irrelevant. Not, of course, as individuals or as professionals, but as geniuses who have made truly transcendent contributions to humanity. Is there perchance any unknown woman comparable to Euclid, Aristoteles, Copernicus, Shakespeare, Harvey, Newton, Kant, Beethoven, Einstein, Picasso...? Are there any, or have there ever been any?
That this difference is due to an undesirable centuries-old marginalisation of women is a hypothesis which only the passage of time will be able to confirm or falsify. However, we must not forget that not only «[macroscopic and microscopic] anatomy is destiny», as Freud said, but so is physiology; above all, cerebral physiology.
In his book on the masculine hormone par excellence, Testosterone (2022), the American evolutionary biologist Carole Hooven states that, «exposure to high levels of testosterone, even before we are born, masculinises not only our bodies but also our interests, preferences and behaviours». This means that the hormone also masculinises our brain, and with it, our mind.
Know it and assume it, folks! The ceiling isn’t glass; it’s hormonal and neuronal.
The belief in absolute equality between men and women arose as a prejudice which was quickly transformed into an ideological dogma, a tabu, which no one dares to breach. Because of fear.
Fear of a range of consequences: employment, economic, social and personal. It’s the type of fear you can sniff out; it allows anyone who has suffered under a dictatorship to identify one. It’s the fear which resulted in no newspapers daring publish this article, even though their editors are aware —and have expressly recognised it— that they were committing the most ignominious crime possible in a democracy: the censorship of free communication of thought.
However, an unquestioning acceptance of the identical physiological capacity of the brain of men and women, a conclusion which is contrary to the observed empirical evidence of thousands of years, is simply make-believe.
Cloud cuckoo land.