User Rating: 0 / 5

Star inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactive

Equal SexualityOver time we have heard a large number of nonsensical "equalities" but the so-called "gender equality" must be the stupidest of them all. Of course, if we drop all pretence of political correctness, we need to call this kind of stupidity for what it is: Equal Sexuality.


Biologically speaking we know that there is a rather large difference between males and females. Everybody knows this. Presumably (and we can't be sure here) politicians are the only species on the planet that may not be aware of this. Maybe the day they explained sex in Primary or Secondary school they missed that class. Later on as they grew-up inside of a black box, they were -allegedly- never exposed to the real world. But then again, there is enough pornography on the Internet to last us a few millennia and they continue to add more every day. How is it possible that politicians don't know what's going on? All indications point to the conclusion that they can't possibly know because they keep insisting that both sexes are equal! They are either incredibly stupid or incredibly disingenuous.


In terms of raw intelligence the final and conclusive analysis has not yet been reached. Current theories are all over the map, but the data to day suggest that if there is any difference in intelligence between genders, it is minimal.

However, and there is always a however, if we move beyond the raw analytical abilities and measure intelligence holistically we do find significant differences. Male intelligence seems to be action-oriented while female intelligence seems to be intuition-oriented. But then again, we don't know for sure. These differences were determined by biology. This type of intelligence is what the biological needs of each gender demand in order to be successful at procreation and the survival of the species. Yet, according to politicians, women and man are equally intelligent.


There are economic differences between the sexes and those differences can, in part, be traced back to biology. The metabolism of women evolved to provide them with stamina and endurance. Males, on the other hand, were provided with peak strength and agility but no sustainable power. Both genders are physically different. Is then a surprise that both genders perform differently economically speaking? Of course not. Left to their own devices without any external influence both genders do have different economic outlooks and tendencies. Yet, according to politicians, women and man have the same economic performance.


The goals of women and man tend to be different. Woman tend to seek shelter and a family life while man tend to seek thrills and the opportunity to inflate their vast egos. It is no coincidence that men prefer very active sports and even violent ones while women prefer other types of quieter activities. Again, this can be traced back to the biological needs of each gender.


And yes, those are gender profiles. You can find vast amounts of profile characteristics in the internet and therefore we will leave up to you to visit them all. What we want to do is to point out that gender profiles are correct…insofar any profile can be correct. Which is to say that any given profile is simply a statistical measure with a large error embedded in it. But for our purposes these profiles are good enough.


And finally we land on the land of never-ever-land also called politics. Politicians are obsessed with equal sexuality because it is a no-brainer and a sure vote-buying strategy during election time…regardless of the fact that it makes no sense whatsoever. Consider this. Women and men are indeed different. Our biology mandates so, and so far we have not yet reached a point at which politicians can dictate to our biology.

So, what do politicians do? They mandate that women and men get equal "opportunities" which translates as forced hirings (in public and private enterprises) regardless of the respective and personal capabilities or suitabilities of each person of each gender. So why would a company have to have a preference of women over men in certain circumstances? This is the same type of stupidity as the concept of "visible minorities". Aren't women "invisible minorities"? And as such, why are they protected and pampered by the law?

As usual, politicians make a gigantic mess of the simplest of all things.


In order to understand what should happen, let's go back to reality. Women and men are indeed different and as such they have different economic performances. To deny this is to deny biology. However, what isn't true is that either gender is superior to the other. Allow us to repeat this again: they are different, not superior. To deny this difference is to force private enterprise to become less efficient. It has the same effect as if governments would force the hiring of men with naturally blond moustaches and women with large feet just because they are different. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Although it is true that in many companies there are biases against women (i.e. men are hired over women even when less qualified) it is also true that these companies will suffer financially. It is never a good business practice to shoot oneself in the foot just before beginning a marathon. And so, why do business do so?

Other than being stupid you mean? Because they don't perceive the fact that they are becoming less efficient than the competition. It does not seem in their best interest to hire more women. And why is this so? Because in our "managed" markets the naturally occurring cut-throat competition has been tampered with and tamed. There are so many laws, rules and regulations that the very word competition has become meaningless. And if your competition has been diminished, why would you bother looking for every cent you may be losing? You wouldn't. Particularly when your egotistical bias gets in the way.

However, what would happen in a true free market? In such a market there are no idiotic government rules determining the limits of competition. The only existing rule is the rule of private property: as long as you don't mess with other people's property without their voluntary agreement, you are free to do as you please. In a scenario such as this one, every possible advantage counts. This is so because you positively, definitively and absolutely know that your competition will be doing exactly the same. In that scenario you will be looking for the absolutely best person you can hire regardless of gender, colour, religion, size, shape, form, shoo size or moustache color. You will be doing so because not doing so will get you bankrupted! Furthermore in a true free market there is wealth and in such conditions most people have a job. This means that it is a seller's market and you can't afford to let opportunities go because of your egotistical bias. You just can't afford to do so.

The conclusions of these scenarios are quite simple. Governments interfered with the natural evolution of markets and as such they created "gender inequality" issues which they then attempted to "fix" through hiring laws which only decrease the efficiency of companies. Furthermore, in so doing they further exacerbate the inefficiency of markets which decreases wealth which produces more "gender inequality" and so forth.

The issue of "gender inequality" is yet another one of those things that can and should be blamed directly on governments.


Then, we have the issue of political evolution. Since "modern democracy" was created (200+ years ago) it has been stagnating political evolution. Of course, this could not have been otherwise but evolution is now overdue. Part of this evolution is market evolution; the realization that even the best company in the world (according to profits and loses which are the only metrics that matter) cannot waste precious resources. Every company must make the best uses of the human resources they have. This means using women and men where and when they are the most productive, disregarding entirely any gender issues. This is so precisely because women and men are different. It is these differences that make them suitable for many mutually exclusive jobs. It is these difference that allow for better productivity. It is these differences that allow for flexibility and out-of-the-box thinking. What we should be striving for is "gender inequality" because it is inequality (in a free market) that raises our standards of living.

Sure, there are also many coincidences between women and men, but when they happen in a free market, they only exacerbate competition which is a good thing.

Lastly, it is to be pointed that every group of people evolves at their own pace. There is no pushing or imposing evolution, it only backfires. In this case, the natural evolution is towards free markets and the soon we get there, the sooner we will reach "gender inequality".


The concept of equal sexuality is one of the most idiotic concepts we have seen in long time. Politicians hyperventilate about them because they may lose votes. Yet, every time they are in power they apply the incorrect solution to the problem: more regulation. But then again, politicians live by generating the incorrect solution to problems. They are hammers and every problem seems like a nail while in reality it may be an egg… and then people wonder as to why we have economic omelettes time and time again.

But this is just our opinion. If you prefer your food repetitive, boring, flat and unimaginative, keep supporting politicians and their "gender equality" principles. Just one thing, don't come crying to us for a different menu.

Note: please see the Glossary if you are unfamiliar with certain words.

English French German Italian Portuguese Russian Spanish
FacebookMySpaceTwitterDiggDeliciousStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditNewsvineTechnoratiLinkedinMixxRSS FeedPinterest
Pin It