By Selwyn Duke
Article Source

If you doubt that “equality” has become akin to a religion, just consider the “gender” dystopia billed as a utopia envisioned by United Nations Women. Outlined at the organization’s website and replete with cartoon illustrations of imaginary country Equiterra’s “Unstereotype Avenue,” “Toxic Masculinity Recycling Plant,” and other attractions, it looks like the product of a Mao-Molly Yard hybrid on a bad LSD trip.

Commentator Andrea Widburg addressed the folly of such endeavors, writing Wednesday:

The true utopian believers invariably envision some variant of socialism with everyone participating equally in perfect harmony.

The Pilgrims, when they came to America, went for the Utopian model and almost starved to death.

The French Revolution was meant to reconstitute French society with liberty, equality, and brotherhood, but merely ended up with the guillotine, followed by tyranny and war.

Boston’s transcendentalists almost starved to death in their utopian Fruitlands community. Other utopian experiments in America, right up to all the hippie communes, ended badly.

Marxist utopian revolutions started with blood and ended with oppression, war, starvation and, inevitably, mass death. (Russia, Nazi Germany, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, large swathes of Africa and Central America, etc.)

Now we have Equiterra, where traditional “male-female couples are a minority. Instead, there are lesbian and gay couples and gender-neutral couples,” relates Widburg. “There are mommies without daddies and daddies without mommies, and two mommies and two daddies. Only one traditional nuclear family (father, mother, and gender-neutral child) appears, but this shocking breach is rescued because Dad has only one leg.”

“There are no private cars in Equiterra, although you’ll find a single pink truck with an emergency light flashing and a recycling emblem on its side,” she continues. “It’s only when you look at where the truck is headed that you understand the emergency: That truck is driving straight to the Toxic Masculinity Recycling Plant.”

That Equiterra is portrayed via cartoon is appropriate: A dys-dope-ia, really, it looks like the product of a highly indoctrinated 11-year-old with ample artistic talent (image below).

Image credit: UN Women/Ruby Taylor

Widburg correctly points out that “utopian” experiments invariably come to ruin because they deny the realities of man’s nature. UN Women epitomizes this.

It rails against stereotypes, writing that teachers in Equiterra “encourage all of their students to choose STEM fields.” Why? Is a world comprising only scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians somehow better? Without social scientists, for example, who’ll conjure up the next utopian scheme?

UN Women then writes, “In Equiterra, diversity is celebrated, not feared, and a culture of acceptance dominates the hearts and minds.” Then why doesn’t the Left accept the profound, naturally occurring “diversity” between the sexes as opposed to recoiling when someone even alludes to it?

Relevant here is that leftists generally embrace a naturalistic philosophy holding that man is merely another animal species. Alright, but then, is there a species where males and females don’t have different roles? (If so — and I’m not aware of such — it’s the exception proving the rule). Sure, the roles may vary among species, but they’re not the same within them.

So why do leftists think human “animals” are this rule’s one exception?

Moreover, is it logical believing that sexual dimorphism would give us two sexes clearly quite different — e.g., size, musculature, voice, and secondary sexual characteristics in general — but that the differences wouldn’t at all extend to the brain, personality, and other things?

The documentary The Gender Equality Paradox (part of which is below; YouTube “age-restricts” the full video) illustrates how this assumption not only is illogical, but untrue.

UN Women also has an “Equal pay street” section in which it complains that, globally, “women continue to be paid 16 to 22 per cent less than men.” Yet the data on this were in long ago. As I explained in my 2014 essay “Equal Pay for Equal Work Means Paying Men More” (scroll down to page 27), the sexes command different incomes because of their lifestyle and career choices, not because of unjust discrimination.

It’s easy laughing at UN Women, but one problem is that such organizations do have power and influence. Another is that the assumption underlying the Equiterra vision is widespread and rarely refuted properly.

That is, many today assume the world would be better if everyone were equal. But why?

Consider an example I commonly present: Imagine two tennis centers training children. After a given period, all the kids at the first are advanced beginners. At the second, there are some advanced beginners, a large group comprising varied intermediates, a decent-size set of advanced players and a few approaching tournament caliber. Which center exhibits more equality?

Now, at which are the kids faring far better on average?

The lesson is that equality tells you nothing about quality. It’s irrelevant.

This applies to everything, do note, from wealth to health to accomplishment in any and every endeavor.

But none of this will matter to the Equiterra, equality-on-the-brain types. “Equality” has absolutely become akin to a religion, a false one; it gives its adherents’ lives meaning, and they won’t relinquish it any more than a jihadist would Islam.

To the Equiterrians, only dogma matters. Facts are inconsequential, oppressive, and probably white and patriarchal.

Share This