'Effeminism' and the War on Boys
Today I'm coining a new term: effeminists. These are misguided (if not malicious) women who have an agenda to emasculate men and erase masculinity from our culture. They have progressed beyond "feminism" and into "effemininazation" of what historically and culturally had always been sacrosanct: little boys being nurtured and encouraged to develop and grow into well-rounded and healthy men. It was always the job of mothers to makes sure their baby boys left the nest in 18 years and made their way in the world as men they could be proud of.
Not anymore. Some moms seem preoccupied with scoring political points by turning their little boys into little girls and cutting them off from masculinization.
In our politically correct and increasingly totalitarian society, where anyone who chides such developments or steps outside the ideological left's approved talking points, we as individuals are never allowed to voice any opposition to the transforming of little boys into little girls, but it is worth risking the ire of the social justice warrior hordes to push back against the effeminists.
Today, I was horrified to read an article in the New York Times by Laurie Frankel, titled "From He to She in First Grade," in which the author waxed nostalgic about buying skirts and dresses for her son to wear to grade school. This had started, she explained, with her buying a sparkly green dress for her son to wear as play clothes and it progressed from there. Frankel seemed to virtue-signal in her article, begging for mainstream approval from other morons who think it's cool to cross-dress little boys. I could almost see her sitting there at her computer, awaiting the thunderous applause and pats on the back I'm sure she received from her fellow leftists. No doubt, admitting that she gender-blurred her son on his way to first grade was the ticket to Laurie Frankel being invited to all sorts of speaking engagements, cocktail parties, and fancy dinners in her native Seattle.
I miss the days when such an admission would have earned her a 72-hour evaluative hold in the psych ward.
Human culture is based on the yin and the yang, the opposing yet complementary forces of masculinity and femininity. That black and white swirl you see now and again on bumper stickers is much more than just a cool decal that college students really love: it's an ancient symbol of the balance of energies between the two sexes and an acknowledgement that humans indeed are a binary species, with a male and a female version.
Effeminists want us to live in an imaginary world of their own design where we are supposed to willfully ignore the fact that little boys and little girls are biologically and physically different from one another. I suppose this is the natural progression from feminism, which made the claim that men and women are supposedly equal and the same in all ways—except that we are not. Men excel in the physical world and their bodies are built for grueling physicality in ways that women honestly can't compete. The left is very preoccupied with finding the rare woman who can go toe to toe, pull-up to pull-up with men—and sometimes they come close—but more often than not physical fitness standards have to be lowered for admission into police forces, fire departments, and military academies or special training courses for women to clear the bar and be accepted.
That's because men and women are different physically. It doesn't mean men are smarter than women, but it does mean that men can do more pull-ups and push-ups and pass Army Ranger and Army Green Beret courses that leave women crying in the mud. Not every man can pass those obstacle courses, either. Not every little boy gets to grow up to be a United States Marine.
But, every little boy is entitled to the chance to have every opportunity to try to grow up to be the best man that he can be. His masculinity is his birthright. Does a six-year-old boy really want to wear skirts and dresses and transition into a little girl? Or is it that his mother benefits socially and career-wise from being a writer for the New York Times who just happens to have a son she can write about who wants to wear dresses to school?
Would all of this cross-dressing and gender-fluidity be unfolding the same way if Laurie Frankel was someone who swam in different social and professional circles?
When a child is 18, he can choose to be whatever he wants to be. When he is old enough to enlist in the military and cast his ballot in national elections, then he's old enough to decide if he wants to surrender his masculinity and abjure himself from that birthright. Until he's 18, he is still learning about the world and his place in it.
Effeminists see an opportunity with little boys to erase their masculinity before they even understand what that means. This is stealing their futures from them and robbing these boys of their manhood. Our culture is so irredeemably sick that this sort of thing is now applauded and commended.
The saving grace is that no society can continue to function and no civilization can endure for long if it erases the masculine gender. Little boys skipping off to school in skirts and dresses are a harbinger of the disaster to come. It's hard to imagine a future where the effeminization of men leads to anything but invasion, subjugation, and conquest by some other nation that didn't decide to put its boys into dresses and go to war on masculinity.