The Quota Women of the Ocean Race

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is now queen of the seas

“I Wasn’t a Quota”

Margaret Thatcher famously bristled at the suggestion that her rise to power and ability to rule had anything to do with her sex. In a 1993 interview with NPR she is quoted as saying: “Well, I would like (the assessment of) whatever I did to be that I got there because I was the right person for the job. It didn’t matter as a man or a woman. I had the right qualities for the job, the right beliefs, the right principles. I wasn’t a quota.” [1]

Feminists never warmed up to Thatcher, and the feeling was mutual. Thatcher was a classical liberal, a strict meritocrat who eschewed any sort of affirmative action other than your own blood, toil, sweat, and tears. Conversely the feminists, who pervade the global political Left, embrace what is called “equity”, which means entrusting an elite few to judge who deserves what in our wealthy industrial society. Deservedness is typically based on “historical disadvantage”, and it is assigned to groups of peoples with a recognized history. White heterosexual men are conspicuously absent from consideration. Apparently they have never known anything approaching unfair suffering, even those who worked hardscrabble jobs like mining or fishing, jobs which oftentimes injure and occasionally kill, jobs they took in order to feed their families. Of this the feminists don’t care. It is women, they insist, who are constantly facing prejudice and disadvantage. And so for nearly half a century the feminists have been burrowing their way into governments, corporations, academia, and the sporting arena to change policies and rules in order to advantage women at the expense of men. [2]

Anyway, I recently picked up an article describing boat technicals and new crew rules for the Ocean Race. For those who do not follow yacht racing, the Ocean Race, originally the Whitbread Round the World Race, is an ocean race which follows the old sailing ship route around the world from Northern Europe, eastbound in the high latitudes of the Southern Ocean. Generally speaking yacht racing has never endeared itself, nor drawn the interest of, the general public, as it is typically viewed as elitist because yachts, especially racing yachts, are expensive. I guess in this day and age it is only a matter of course that those holding the purse strings to the major yachting competitions would belong to the new globalist elite, and that they would bring their politics along with them. DEI (Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion) has found its way to the Ocean Race. [3]

Let’s begin with the new crew rules for the Ocean Race (as of 2021): “Both the 60 and 65ft fleets have a quota for women on board. There are five crew (one of whom must be a female) on an IMOCA60, plus the OBR [On Board Reporter]. There are no age restrictions (i.e. youth sailor requirements) in the IMOCA class. On the 65’s there have to be 10 sailors plus the OBR. The 65’s must have a minimum of three women on boats – with two Youth age categories – under 26yrs and under 30yrs.” [4]

So there you have it. The quota women of the Ocean Race.

In addition to gender politics they also join in the environmental crusade. Of course everyone wants a clean environment, responsible resource management (e.g. preventing over fishing), etc., but just a scroll through the Ocean Race Learning Centre and you will read lots of platitudes without scientific support. “We’re seeing first-hand the devastating impact of pollution, climate change and industrial over fishing on our ocean”. Well I’ve done my share of offshore sailing I cannot say that I have seen any of those things first-hand. How does anyone know climate change first-hand? Elsewhere they write: “Together we can turn the tide and turn up the volume: to demand systemic change, to pressure policymakers worldwide, and to radically increase ambition and urgency to help the ocean thrive again.” [5] I’m not saying that we should disregard marine ecosystems and toss our trash wherever we like, but if we are going to lobby lawmakers to change the ways we are allowed to do things, it would be nice to know just precisely what the problem is and how their policies are going to help. But I digress.

Ensuring Progress

I have written of Tracy Edwards’ astonishing debut in the 1989-90 Whitbread Round the World Race, when she and her all-female crew of the 58-foot yacht Maiden finished second in her division. [6] Like so many instances of girls beating the boys in athletics, in time it showed itself to be more of a one-off than a trend.

After Maiden, in the following Whitbread Race of 1993-94, the US Women’s Challenge would take 9th place overall out of the ten finishers. In the 1997-98 race, all-female EF Education, skippered by Christine Guillou, would finish in last place overall. In 2001, the Whitbread Round the World Race would be re-branded as the Volvo Ocean Race, and there would be one all-female entry, Amer Sports Too, who would finish in last place overall despite being allowed additional crew.

In successive races, entrants with female crew members would be allowed additional crew. Yet despite these advantages (or the disadvantaging of all-male crews) there would not be another women’s challenge until the 2015-2015 race with Team SCA, skippered by Samantha Davies. Again the women would finish in last place.

So more rule changes were put in place to favor women. In the 2017-18 Volvo Ocean race, all-male crews could only have seven men total, one fewer than the 2014 race. They could, however, have eight or nine total with one or two females onboard, respectively. Or there can be crews of five men and five women, or an all-female crew can race with eleven total. So if it’s going to be girls against the boys, it’s going to be eleven against seven. CEO Mark Turner stated: “We’re using the crew rules to incentivize skippers to bring one or more female sailors onboard. I really hope that it’s not necessary to have any rule at all in the future – but it seems it’s the only way today to ensure we can maintain progress.” [7]

In the 2017-18 race, Turn the Tide Against Plastic sailed with five women and five men and tied with Scallywag for last place. There were no all-female entrants. The winner, Donfeng, chose to sail with two women. Now in 2023 every boat must have it’s quota of women onboard.

The unquestioned assumption here is that the natural dominance of males in this competitive sport–like so many others–is a problem. Mark Turner pitches his affirmative action program for women as “progress”. He doesn’t say precisely what he means by that, but I will here venture a guess: unequal representation of women (i.e. less than 50%) in a given endeavor is the result of sexism. Women are getting shut down and shut out by paleolithic sexists attitudes, by “The Patriarchy”, by the systematic slighting and disadvantaging of women. But is this true?

Western Civ in 2023

Let’s review the state of Western Civ in 2023 from the standpoint of gender.

Our first stop will be the UK, where we will examine how boys and girls are doing in the education system. The National Curriculum assessments carried out for Year Six students (between 10 and 11 years old) supplies student performance data for both tests and teacher graded assignments. For teacher graded assignments, girls outperformed boys on all measured subjects: reading, writing, science, and math. However, on standardized tests, the gender gap is consistently narrower, with boys predictably doing better at math. It is also worth noting that only one in eight primary school teachers are male. [8] This suggests that the female dominated primary schools are biased against boys, as boys generally do better on standardized tests than when they are graded by (most likely) a female teacher. It is also a fact that there is no measurable difference between the average IQ of males and females. The research indicates that boys are viewed less favorably than girls on account of their naturally more rambunctious behavior and this is reflected in the grades they receive from their teachers. [8] (pp. 63-64)

It is well known that boys are generally more interested in things and girls more interested in people. Thus technical schools naturally play to boys’ strengths, and given the fact that boys are not faring much better in US schools than their English counterparts, it would seem that supporting good technical schools might be a great way to get our boys back in the game.

Here is what happened with Aviation High School in New York some years ago. At this school students immerse themselves in the mechanics of jet engines, electrical wiring, etc. but yet have to maintain passing grades in English and history in order to participate in all the fun hands-on stuff. Philosophy professor Christina Hoff Sommers writes: “The school’s two thousand pupils—mostly Hispanic, African American, and Asian from homes below the poverty line—have a 95 percent attendance rate and an 88 percent graduation rate, with 80 percent attending college. The New York City Department of Education routinely awards the school an “A” on its annual Progress Report. And it has been recognized by U.S. News & World Report as one of the best high schools in the nation.” [9]

So a smashing success except for one glaring problem in the eyes of educators: the student body is 85% male. Feminist groups like the American Association of University Women (AAUW) and the National Women’s Law Center began waging legal warfare against technical schools like Aviation High School on the grounds that girls’ rights were being violated. Aviation’s claim that both genders are welcome and that technical schools are naturally more appealing to boys than girls was roundly dismissed by the feminists. In 2010, Marcia Greenberger of the National Women’s Law Center lobbied the Obama Administration to apply Title IX anti-sex discrimination outside of athletics, and against Aviation High School in particular. [9] (p. 11)

Even as the data was piling up about male underperfomance in school, the feminists refused even for a moment to desist from their war against boys. Boys succeeding where girls are not means sexist discrimination, there can be no other reason. As a result of these pressures “vocation and technical schools won’t get rid of their ‘male teams’ in welding, engineering, or automotive repair, but they are likely to cut them back and practice reverse discrimination in favor of girls. More resources will be deployed to change the preferences of young women to suit the ideology of groups like the AAUW and the National Women’s Law Center. School leaders have no matching incentive to develop programs that could attract great numbers of disengaged young men. On the contrary, they are well advised to avoid them. Such programs will put them at risk of a federal investigation and loss of funds.” [9] (p. 166)

Both in the UK and the United States, female university students began outnumbering the males by the mid-1990’s. This was the period when feminist writer and professor Daphne Patai began noticing that women’s desire for a hassle-free learning environment, free in particular from the male sexual appetite (purportedly …), began taking a strange and dangerous turn. What this would become she would call the Sexual Harassment Industry (SHI): “No longer a well-intentioned effort to gain justice for women, it has been turned into a tool (powered by a legal apparatus and manipulated by a professional cadre of trainers and enforcers) for implementing, and indeed normalizing, what was once merely a marginal and bizarre feminist worldview … [SHI became] a means of controlling male expression of sexuality, a way to put men on notice, while dressing up the attack on them as the pursuit of equality and social justice for women.” [10]

SHI is an outrage machine fueled by feminist hatred of men and heterosexuality, and, to quote Andrea Dworkin, they’re gonna prosecute the pigs to prove it. According to feminist orthodoxy, heterosexual sex is never innocent, it always involves the man asserting his power and dominance over a woman. All heterosexual men are thus, to a greater or lesser degree, the sexual harassers and rapists of women.

Their claims on male sexuality, however, are based not on any sort of measurable social science but on the opinions of leading feminists. In her 2018 book The Diversity Delusion, Heather MacDonald wryly begins her assessment of the alleged campus rape epidemic as follows: “It’s a lonely job, working the phones at a college rape crisis center. Day after day, you wait for the casualties to show up from the campus rape epidemic—but few victims call.” [11] To which the feminists are unwavering. They didn’t build out this Sexual Harassment Industry for nothing. MacDonald continues: “Could this mean that the crisis is overblown? No: It means, according to the campus sexual-assault industry, that the abuse of coeds is worse than anyone had ever imagined. It means that consultants and counselors need more funding to persuade student rape victims to break the silence of their suffering.” Yes, of course.

In 2011, SHI received federal backing from the Obama Administration with the infamous “Dear Colleague” letter which essentially told the universities: get your rape numbers up or face federal investigation. In response the universities adopted a preponderance of evidence standard for deciding rape accusations, rather than the beyond reasonable doubt standard used in the real world. They encouraged accusers to come forward, denied the accused the right for cross examination, and: “reverse[d] the presumption of innocence and treat[ed] the male as guilty unless overwhelming evidence unavoidably demands the opposite conclusion.” [11] (p. 124). That is, men are guilty until proven innocent. Unsurprisingly many men have been expelled on flimsy evidence–evidence that would never stand in an actual criminal court.

I think it is fair to say that the universities don’t much like men anymore. Not only male students, but male faculty as well. Especially if they are white and heterosexual. Affirmative action hiring is standard in America’s elite universities. For example, in the UC San Diego physics department: “[The department] advertised an assistant-professor position several years ago with a ‘specific emphasis on contributions to diversity,’ such as a candidate’s ‘awareness of inequities faced by underrepresented underrepresented groups.’ Social-justice concerns now apparently trump the quest to solve the mystery of dark energy. All five candidates on UC San Diego’s short list were females, leading one male candidate with a specialty in extragalactic physics to wonder why the school had even solicited applications from Asian and white men.” [11] (p.177)

But surely outside of the university hot houses the feminists are rather more circumspect, more measured with their views when it comes to hard working American families, the backbone of the US economy? Not a chance. Feminists hate the traditional nuclear family, as they see it as the basic patriarchal unit from which the rest of society issues. Feminists have thus led the political Left in America in an unrelenting war on fathers while the conservatives on the Right have done little to stop it. Stephen Baskerville, who has published numerous articles and books on the plight of American fathers, writes: “For years, so-called conservatives have accepted and even supported feminist policies, the express purpose of which is nothing less than to enfeeble and degrade America’s men on an enormous scale. This is done especially by destroying men’s home life and authority over their children, but elsewhere too: by patently false accusations of domestic violence and rape; by family courts that confiscate children from legally innocent fathers, whose authority has been undermined and terminated before their property is plundered and their persons incarcerated without trial; by politicians and celebrities who, even after being falsely accused themselves, mouth obsequious mea culpas and shrink from denouncing the entire charade in principle, and from defending other men.” [12]

Thus far I have only discussed the US and the UK, but the disadvantaging of men has long since gone global. “It’s there for all to see” says Janice Fiamengo, “at the heart of the United Nations and all of its affiliated international organizations is the determination to export radical feminism to all corners of the globe … the agenda is, as always, to disenfranchise men and boys, to weaken families and to produce increased dependence on global organizations and thus more power centralized in the hands of those who run the UN.”[13] White papers from the UN outline initiatives to empower women according to boilerplate feminist doctrine, exhorting women to resist traditional gender roles. If the man refuses to do his share of housework women are made to understand that this counts as abuse. Women must extract themselves from financial dependence on men–from patriarchal oppression– which naturally results in a lot of women turning to government handouts. UNICEF, which purports to care for the welfare of underprivileged children around the world, caters almost exclusively to the needs of women and girls.

I could go on, as I haven’t even touched on the misandry which now permeates popular culture, but I hope that this much will suffice. Quotas for women, as in the case of the Ocean Race, assume that women and girls are disadvantaged, that they suffer injustices in need of correction. I have here made my case to the contrary.

A Woman’s Place is in the Home

I have never heard this stated unironically. It comes from our bygone patriarchal past–allegedly. But that’s over now. Women are on the move, making their own way, proving themselves as good as men, building a whole new world where women finally have a seat the the table. Women’s empowerment is all upside, right?

Certainly the Bible does not advocate female empowerment. Ever since our original mother and father were evicted from Paradise men have had to work for a living, women to bear the pains of childbearing, and God commands of Eve that “Your urge shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you”. A woman’s place in the world is a subordinate one.

While many moderns (and postmoderns) dismiss the Bible, it must be admitted that it has been around a heck of a lot longer than feminism, Post Modernism, Social Constructionism, Critical Theory, and etc. There is something to be said for a long track record.

But OK, fair enough, we live in a scientific age which demands scientific evidence. I shall here endeavor to present my case that women’s empowerment, particularly in contradistinction to the gender roles prescribed by the Bible, is ultimately wrong-headed and destructive.

I am obliged to begin with the “not all” disclaimer. I started off this essay quoting Margaret Thatcher, who did step into conventionally male shoes and showed the world that she had what it took. As I am talking about the world of ocean yacht racing, I should point out that there have been women who have made their mark here as well. In 1977 Naomi James completed a circumnavigation of the world via the Southern Ocean, the same route as the Whitbread Round the World Race, and was the first woman to do so. I have written of Tracy Edwards and Maiden. And just recently Kirsten Neuschafer won the Golden Globe Race. [14] As with nearly all traditionally male arenas, there have been females, albeit a small minority of them, who have competed with males on a even field and have occasionally beat them.

I will also state for the record that my own politics aligns with the classical liberal tradition. I believe that all adult humans, as it says in the American Declaration of Independence, have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. With few exceptions such as conscription during war time, incarceration of dangerous criminals, or committing the insane to mental health facilities, I oppose any government policies which are coercive. In general I oppose forcing anyone into a life that is not of their choosing.

Alright, with that out of the way, let’s get to it. In a previous essay I put forth the hypothesis that the feminist push to turn women into breadwinners like men, though apparently enjoying a great deal of success in Western countries, is nevertheless a fight against female nature which is costing both businesses and central governments more that they can afford. [15] Women naturally try to turn their workplaces into something closer to an intimate living space, into a home, desiring comforts and safety and security. We’ve seen how this led to an insidious Sexual Harassment Industry in the universities. In the working world, working women will frequently require lengthy paid leave while they are pregnant and caring for newborns, and then require child care once that they return to work. The overall gender dynamic has not really changed: men raise the money while women raise the children. Except in the feminist version, men, particularly high earning men, pay high taxes to subsidize “empowered” women. In this new arrangement the government becomes their husband while individual men are optional.

Feminists prefer it this way, that women can always fall back on the government and use the government to control male behavior. And feminists like the government, for they have had tremendous success as lobbyists. Earlier we saw what they did to technical schools like Aviation High School. When their step and fetch President Obama came into power, the feminists went hog wild. “When President Obama presented his multi-trillion-dollar budget, he declared he was calling for a freeze in discretionary spending. Feminists immediately had a tantrum and won exemption from the freeze for all feminist programs and organizations … A White House document titled ‘Opportunity and Progress for Women and Girls’ describes fifteen federal programs that will receive increased funding to appease the female left. The Violence Against Women project, for example, was targeted for a 22 percent increase. The budget would also appropriate $50 million to give grants to incentivize the states to adopt paid family leave and increase funding for day care, with Head Start scheduled for additional funding of nearly $1 billion. Obama’s budget also increases funding for a new program to recruit under-graduate students from underrepresented groups in science and technology careers and increases funding for a special program to give women more jobs in academic science and engineering careers.” [16] Make it rain, Barry, make it rain.

Now recall that while all of this girl power was going on, the feminists were simultaneously working to enfeeble and degrade men and boys, beginning with the education system. This has resulted in generations of weak men.

In his book The United States of Fear, psychiatrist Mark McDonald chronicles the horror of the Covid-19 pandemic. Though the virus could be deadly to minority of the population (mostly the elderly), it unleashed a social contagion from which few could escape and which produced debilitating psychological effects in many. In July of 2020, McDonald, along with several other physicians, stood on the steps of the US Supreme Court to publicly air their criticisms of the US government’s response to the pandemic. McDonald focused on the school closures and the harm it was causing the young based on what he was seeing as a psychiatrist. Breitbart news live streamed the event and it was viewed by millions. But then something very shocking happened: YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter removed the video and all shares of it from their platforms. President Trump’s son, Don Jr., tweeted a link to the video and then his Twitter account was suspended. McDonald writes: “Everything we had said was factual, medically sound, and backed up by empirical evidence, but we had challenged the pandemic narrative, and that was not allowed … For the first time in my life, I saw the removal of civil liberties occurring under the guise of safety. And fear was fueling it.” [17] It was by now clear that something had gone seriously wrong with democracy in America.

McDonald had seen the storm clouds gathering for some time. Schools began handing out participation trophies so that there would be no losers. Mothers would no longer let their kids walk to school unattended (I can remember walking to and from school alone or with my schoolmates on a regular basis). Universities starting providing safe spaces, issuing trigger warnings against controversial ideas. It is likely that this new prioritization of safety and comfort is directly related to the massive influx of women into public spaces. For it is a well documented psychological fact that women on average have higher levels of anxiety than men, experience more negative emotions, and are more prone to hysteria. “In one study of nearly 27,000 women across cultures, women displayed nearly double the prevalence of generalized anxiety and panic disorder compared with men. Greater susceptibility to fear, then—both rational and otherwise—appears to be a natural consequence of being a woman.” [17] (p. 32) The most obvious reason for this difference is that women are the primary care givers of infants, and thus are naturally hyper-vigilant.

To make things worse, popular culture nowadays enables female hysteria, or perhaps put more accurately, disables male hardheadedness and skeptical rationalism. When Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, challenged Greta Thunberg’s prophesies of environmental apocalypse, he was labeled a misogynist. As hysterical women are supported uncritically by world leaders and the media their anxiety gets legitimized and thereby amplified and spread. Hence much of the Westernized, feminized world was already primed for a mass psychosis. Then came covid.

“There is a reason the term ‘Karen,’ rather than ‘Peter’ or ‘James,’ came into popular use in 2020” writes McDonald, “Women in large numbers—mainly middle-class, liberal white women—took to the streets to accost, shame, and even physically assault anyone out of compliance … In effect, Karens became the psychotic enforcers of the arbitrary rules imposed on the population by unelected bureaucrats and unaccountable politicians.” [17](pp. 76-77)

McDonald could see clearly that the majority of such women had one thing missing in their lives: strong, dependable men. “Traditionally, as everyone knows, it has been the role of men to calm and ground women’s fears, not the role of doctors but of fathers, uncles, brothers, and, of course, husbands. As science amply shows, men are evolved for the good of the species to adopt a protective attitude toward females, and this innate proclivity is powerfully reinforced by millennia of social and religious conditioning in every known society on earth. No society exists where women are left to fend for themselves. Men are evolved and socialized to love, provide for, and protect their women.” [17](pp. 39-40)

Except our own. Women’s empowerment insists that women can fend for themselves, “a woman needs a man like a fish need a bicycle”, etc. People with persistent anxiety will often try to control their environment as a way of alleviating their discomfort. This was precisely the psychological mechanism of the “Karens”: as the media and government officials (particularly the former) stoked fear and panic over a new virus, these women, overcome with anxiety, began trying to control everyone around them, and the result was often more than just annoying, it was destructive and sometimes tragic. The lockdowns and mask mandates may have made a lot of women feel as if they were protecting their children, but the effects of these measures may have in fact done a lot of harm. “The Brown University Department of Pediatrics has found that babies born after January 1, 2020 show an IQ point loss of twenty points, presumably caused by the deprivation of home confinement and universal mask-wearing that impeded normal brain development.” [17] (p. 24) The desire for control of course also meant curtailing free speech, as McDonald experienced first hand, which also produced the very dangerous situation of people submitting to policies and medical procedures (e.g. vaccine mandates) without enough information to give informed consent. This lurch toward totalitarian control of the populace is the direct result of weak men standing aside while the women lead.

Finally, in what may become an “existential crisis” (as our politicians are like to say), human fertility and birth rates have been dropping almost everywhere for several decades now. For those of us who grew up believing that overpopulation was a future certainty in almost any scenario other than nuclear holocaust, and that there would be mass starvation, wars, and environmental destruction as result, this may come as rather strange news. Yet, while world population will continue to grow for some time, it appears that it will thereafter begin to decline, possibly at an alarming and, economically speaking, catastrophic rate.

“Birth rates are falling much faster than many dominant societal narratives imply. The global fertility rate for all of Latin America and the Caribbean fell below replacement rate (2.1 babies per woman) in 2021. India will achieve that status in 2022. China is expected to be at half its current population by 2066. First-generation immigrants in the U.S. fell below re-population rate in 2019. Already 115 countries, representing about half the world’s population, are below replacement rate. By the end of the century, nearly every African country is projected to have a rapidly declining population.” [18]

Presently no one knows why this is happening. Those writing and podcasting about it, however, seem to agree on three possible causes: 1.) environmental toxins, which may, for example, be responsible for the drop in male testosterone and sperm production 2.) the decreased utility of children due to industrialization, i.e., children are expensive in modern societies 3.) the feminist movement.

Number 3 gets my vote (not to say that 1 and 2 inconsequential). “Elite feminists push all women to plan their lives around careers. The result is that young women give little thought to marriage and motherhood and instead spend upwards of a decade becoming highly qualified for the workforce. Women believe this is the better life plan, since their mothers’ lives, they are told, were empty and meaningless” [16] (p. 51) Yet many women find their lives to be empty and meaningless precisely because they did not do as their mothers had done but listened to the feminists, and now they have no children and are already infertile.

We have already discussed the plight of many modern males in education system. At present universities control much of the career accreditation business, and the traditional male dominated blue collar trade schools have lost their social cache. Hence large numbers of men are losing social status. To make matters worse, an alarming number of men are not participating in the labor force at all, as carefully detailed by Nicholas Eberstadt in his recent book Men Without Work. That is, many men are dropping out of society. “More than 60 percent of young men are single, nearly twice the rate of unattached young women, signaling a larger breakdown in the social, romantic and sexual life of the American male. Men in their 20s are more likely than women in their 20s to be romantically uninvolved, sexually dormant, friendless and lonely. They stand at the vanguard of an epidemic of declining marriage, sexuality and relationships that afflicts all of young America.” [19]

Now it is an established fact that females naturally seek high status males for partnering, a phenomenon known as hypergamy. Moreover, the higher the woman’s own status the stronger her hypergamous impulse. Thus: “Successful women face a shortage of demographically superior men to marry. Indeed, the nascent decline in marriage has been attributed to a putative shortage of economically attractive partners for unmarried women. Applying data imputation methods to national survey data, researchers found that unmarried women face an overall shortage of partners with either a bachelor’s degree or yearly income exceeding $40,000.” [20]

While some women will end up childless, others, following feminist promptings, will marry the government, use men as sperm donors, and become single mothers. Research shows that single mother homes have many detrimental effects on children, not the least of which is to perpetuate single motherhood. Compared to traditional two-parent homes, single mother homes are especially bad for boys. Boys raised in father-absent homes likely have lower IQ’s and get lower grades in school, are more likely to drop out of school or get expelled, are more likely to be unemployed, are more likely to be incarcerated, and … the list goes on. [21] Naturally these boys will seldom grow into the men women would like to marry and start a family with.

Unsurprisingly there is also an increase in celibacy. I think it was David Deida who introduced the idea of sexual polarity, that male and female are like the north and south ends of the magnet, and the more pronounced the gender distinction (i.e. the more masculine the male and the more feminine the female), the stronger they attract each other. The feminists want to erase all of this, insisting that gender is largely a social construct.

Before DEI descended on the Ocean Race, one can find clips from previous runs of the Ocean Race where the skippers were accompanied by walk-on girls as they greeted their shore-side fans [22]. These are always young, attractive females who are there for spectacle and glamour. They also represent the natural socio-sexual dynamic that has existed forever and which still exists no matter how much DEI they try to ram down our throats. The top males–in this case, the boat captains–parade in the company of beautiful women.

It is no small matter that the feminists want to shut down this kind of pageantry. Not long ago they drove away the Grid Girls from Formula One auto racing [23]. Janet Street-Porter, speaking for the feminists, lays down the law: “Goodbye grid girls – there is no place in sport for sexual objectification anymore”. Men working and striving and competing for the attention of beautiful women, who they desire sexually, is over. We’re all on the same team now, sweating, grunting, wearing the same grey overalls. She can take the helm and bark orders like any man; she can drive a race car and chew tobacco and spit like any man. The famous scientist James D. Watson is quoted as having said “Almost everything I ever did, even as a scientist, was in the hope of meeting a pretty girl.” Sorry buddy, pretty is just a pretty way of saying you desire her sexually, and that’s not allowed. We could probably do without your double helix anyway. Certainly not if it comes at the cost of aiding and abetting the sexual objectification of women.

For most men the seduction of a woman is a difficult and perplexing task only learned after many rejections. A man must therefore be motivated. Bits of pageantry like Grid Girls will fire a lot of young men’s imaginations, drive them to succeed, perhaps even to the heights of a great scientist like James Watson. But as women are drafted by feminists to fight men as if they were men, and men are feminized and demoralized, it should be no wonder that there’s not a whole lot of marriage and baby making going on.

Earlier I quoted Mark Turner and used him as a spokesman for the organizers of the Ocean Race, who views quotas for women as “ensuring progress”. Progress is understood as moving toward a better state of affairs, and overall improvement in the human condition. The race organizers have adopted the politics of the Left, of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion, of feminism, of United Nations style globalism. They believe that this is the way to go.

I argue to the contrary. Women’s empowerment is based on the false premise that women are an oppressed class. It denies the natural psychological and physiological differences between men and women in order to make the premise appear plausible. While some women will flourish in traditional male environments, too many will insist that public life resemble the cozy home that they left behind. This generally results in high costs and onerous rules of conduct coming from an ever expanding state. Women’s empowerment is also causing a breakdown in gender relations. The feminist solution to male lust and aggression is to neuter men while teaching women to behave like men, thereby reducing sexual attraction. This may be a contributing factor to a future collapse in human population.

References

[1] https://www.times-gazette.com/story/opinion/2013/04/15/page-margaret-thatcher-not-quota/19021756007/

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfrx1t1O49E&t=98s

[3] https://www.theoceanrace.com/en/rwp/news/13556_The-drive-for-diversity

[4] https://www.sail-world.com/news/228303/The-Ocean-Race-Part-4-Shore-Crew-and-Media%5D

[5] https://www.onebluevoice.net/

[6] https://kevinboothbysailing.com/2022/10/03/women-in-sail/

[7] https://www.yachtingworld.com/news/volvo-ocean-race-rule-set-to-force-change-for-women-sailors-97932.

[8] Collins, William. The Empathy Gap: Male Disadvantages and the Mechanisms of Their Neglect (p. 87). LPS publishing. Kindle Edition.

[9] Sommers, Christina Hoff. The War Against Boys: How Misguided Policies are Harming Our Young Men (p. 8). Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.

[10] Daphne Patai. Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism (American Intellectual Culture) (Kindle Locations 223-224, 1616-1617). Kindle Edition.

[11] Mac Donald, Heather. The Diversity Delusion (p. 117). St. Martin’s Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[12] https://menaregood.com/4272-2/

[13] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLLRibsjAdA

[14] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/14/travel/kirsten-neuschafer-golden-globe.html

[15] https://kevinboothbysailing.com/2023/04/07/the-future-is-female-has-us-all-going-broke/

[16] Phyllis Schlafly and Suzanne Venker, The Flipside of Feminism, (WND Books, Washington, DC, 2011), pp. 135.

[17] McDonald M.D., Mark. United States of Fear: How America Fell Victim to a Mass Delusional Psychosis (p. 13). Bombardier Books. Kindle Edition.

[18] Collins, Simone; Collins, Malcolm. The Pragmatist’s Guide to Crafting Religion: A playbook for sculpting cultures that overcome demographic collapse & facilitate long-term human flourishing (The Pragmatist’s Guide 5) (p. 6). Omniscion Press. Kindle Edition.

[19] https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3868557-most-young-men-are-single-most-young-women-are-not/

[20] https://quillette.com/2021/06/28/mate-selection-for-modernity/

[21] Farrell, Warren . The Boy Crisis (p. 402). BenBella Books. Kindle Edition.] )

[22] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UsAiqyyxX4&t=2301s (starting at 39:20) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UsAiqyyxX4&t=2370s (starting at 5:00)

[23] https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/formula-1-one-grid-girls-boxing-sexism-sport-me-too-tennis-a8190686.html