Monday, 30 May 2016


The following is the unedited version of an exposé currently featured in the 27th revised edition of Malleus Maleficus  The Moonshine Memorandum. If you wish to report sexism, racism or inaccuracies, please email  To make a formal complaint under IPSO rules please contact IPSO directly at .  

   ..and don’t get me started on a social policy which treats the female as a failed being, and adopts the need to fill gender quotas as a matter of fawning insincerity. For me,
social theories have to redeem anomalies, not create them. Nothing  legislation can do will alter the complexities of the human beast, and feminist fundamentalists who insist that we are  equipped to think and act in ways other than those determined by nature have taken out an injunction against it. My position is plain,  the more of a woman you are, the more of a man I’ll be.   Moreover, it seems dangerously misguided to stoke the prejudices of a liberal society while trying  to get rid of the facts. Take Sheryl Sandberg’s organisation,, and its backslapping report on workplace gender bias. It found that women are less likely to be promoted and hold less than 30% of senior corporate roles.[1] The rejection rate for female engineers’ coding at Facebook is 35% higher than for their male counterparts. The tech giant Google revealed in its annual diversity report that that its workforce was 69% male, and that women had only 20% of technical roles. At the same time, 70% of Apple’s global staff are male, or 80% when it comes to strictly technical positions. Which comes as no surprise. Imaginary bias can be seeded among facts, but clearly the market knows best.  Indeed, there is a truism to the effect that water finds its own level, and while Bitcoin traders are almost exclusively  men - to put it at its crudest, “a bunch of dudes with a lot of money,” - usually between 25 and 40, the predominance of ‘gender biased’ drives was central to Darwin’s theory of the fittest when  he raised it to the status of an evolutionary principle. And no justice, false truth or progressive fancy will alter the laws of the market. Why pretend otherwise?
            Nor do I believe that increasing the number of “women and disabled people”(an inspiring, definitive comparison?) on various ‘governing bodies’ to, say,  25%, amounts to anything but blatant condescension.  To me it looks as patronising and anachronistic as Freud’s castration complex. Its  prime characteristic, needless to say, is a sense of deprivation, but it goes some way nevertheless towards  redeeming itself with a final, chilling premonition: What if we are mistaken in condemning gender disparities as sexist, bigot, patriarchal and anachronistic? What if the ‘equality’ of the sexes is, in fact, some grim Darwinian vision of what all females will eventually become? Hyperandrogenics! A formidable genetic mutation with a man’s frame, female genital organs and a testosterone level similar to that of the male. 
God's worst nightmare!

          Admittedly, there is a vibrant Darwinian virtue in the ascent of the strong and the elimination of the weak, but it also means you can’t have it both ways. The environment – not wishful thinking – controls genetic development. What’s more, nature loves complementarity but not equality. The female loves equality but not liberty! She measures herself against the male. The male is her metronome, the selective beat of her confinement. Whereas the defining characteristic of the male is not that he asserts, but that he doesn’t  bother to assert himself, a female  emerges  still captive to the male she aims to equal; a feminist ever anxious, braced against his seeming superiority; challenging quests or pursuits with the suspicion of someone about to be bested or derided.[2]  Which is, in fact, just one aspect of the feminist outrage – of the combative militancy, the spin, the act, and the determination that females should strive to escape their biological “limitations” and make themselves more than females.
             The most spectacular demonstration of this came at the end of last year, when the Lady Garden Gala (LGG), which raised more than £250,000 for gynaecological cancers, was emulating the meanwhile disbanded all male Presidents Club charity dinner, traditionally looked after by dazzling hostesses. The LGG, an all female affair, was hosted by po-faced rent-a-hunks in trunks. I say – yummy! Feminism emancipates itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. Or as the former editor of Loaded magazine put it: “There is a sense of revenge objectification... a feminist argument that it’s time men were on the receiving end of the lustful gaze and have no right to complain.” 
                  We all contain polarities, needless to say, but in the whole course of social history, no dog has ever run after its own tail with the determined persistence of the feminist, whose self-esteem only exists when acknowledged by the male. Girls are no longer “classy and fabulous”[3], not because girls have become unsightly, but because feminism at the peak of intensity can no longer find any purpose for their continued existence. Sally-Anne Huang, head-mistress of the private James Allen’s Girl’s School in south London,  insinuated that she not only regarded gender identity as an unproven hypothesis, but even rejected  the female as an essentially miscarried and logically unsustainable falsehood. Appropriately, figures show a surge in the number of young individuals - mainly girls - seeking help to change gender. A
celebration of maleness that is testimony to some rather sanguine notions about who the female really is. As indeed, it is the male who governs the feminist the female has become. Nor can there be a single standard for both sexes as long as women are mothers! Which is precisely what Oswald Spengler meant when that most eloquent prophet of the decline of the West wrote:  “And not until women cease to have race enough to have or to want children, not until they cease to be history, does it become possible for them to make or to copy the history of men.”
      Men set their own standard. Women are inspirational in politics and indispensable
in life chiefly for their femininity. And how delicate, indeed, the female seems, so unaware of  her terrifying powers. For that in turn is based on the central tenet of quantum-dynamical lore:  the female is cosmic, sum-over-histories - the male, a Newtonian planet, adrift in interstellar space. For my stellar point here is indeed, that this ‘sum-over-histories’ or so-called ‘path-integral’ approach is just another way of understanding that there are areas of human perception which rely on unconscious, or feminine, intuition and not just ‘masculine’ analyses of facts. As a matter of fact, thanks to a subtle balancing act between two opposing forces there exists a natural tension between the sexes, neither sufficiently sovereign to do without  the other; but – and  no one is likely to dispute this fact -  the more equal the female becomes, the less powerful she is going to be. 

[1] Outrage as tech guru tells women to hide their gender. Danny Fortson, The Sunday Times – Business. 02.10.2016
[2] As the superbly “militant” planetary scientist @carolynporco tweeted on Dec. 23rd: ‏” I am militant feminst in that if u r male&assume u r superior bc of it, I will rip ur lungs out.”
[3] Coco Chanel


1 comment:

Damian S. said...

Eureka - Some truths we hold to be self-evident....