I sincerely hope you have five minutes. I promise it will be worth your time (in fact, the music alone is worth it) to watch this shockingly beautiful clip of Olympic Gold Medalists Aliona Savchenko and Bruno Masso.
Go ahead—I’ll wait while you watch.
Are you back? If so, tell me this: In what universe would it be possible for these two individuals to reverse roles, where Savchenko acts as Masso’s rock, raising him up over her head while he falls into her embrace?
Exactly. There is no such universe. Such a dynamic cannot exist due to the biology and wiring of males and females. And yet, that’s exactly what we in the West insist is possible when we talk of “gender equality.”
Indeed, to even allude to the differences between women and men is now officially unlawful, as a federal labor board has just proven in shooting down former Google employee James Damore’s lawsuit. According to Google, Damore has “advanced gender stereotypes” for suggesting the low number of female techies may be rooted in biology.
May be rooted, he said. It is, of course, rooted in biology; but Damore didn’t even go that far. For simply having the thought that biology might play a role in the outcomes of male and female representation and expressing it, he was fired.
No debate in America more pressing, and more subject to scrutiny, than “gender equality.” For those who doubt this, they need only be reminded of Jordan Peterson’s debate with Cathy Newman, the Britain Channel 4 journalist who went toe-to-toe with Peterson for his non-feminist, or non-ideological, approach to the gender gap.
The interview, if you can call it it that, has now been viewed more than 7 million times with a whopping 90,000 comments. In addition, Peterson has catapulted from near obscurity to the equivalent of a rock star and has given those who have politically incorrect but sound views of gender a voice.
Gender equality is a pipe dream, for exactly the reason Peterson gave in that interview.
I’ve been grilled by feminists in the exact same way ad nauseam, and my answer has always been the same as Peterson’s: There is no way to have a discussion about gender equality without defining what equality means.
Let me repeat that because it really is the whole enchilada: There is no way to have a discussion about gender equality without defining what equality means.
Cathy Newman made it clear what is meant by gender equality, at least as it’s defined by those in power. “Gender equality” means interchangeability. Until men and women perform the same tasks—until women want to be CEOs and brain surgeons in equal numbers with men, until men want to be full-time dads in equal numbers with women, until men become women and women become men—gender equality will cease to exist.
But as Olympic pair skaters prove in spades, this is an utterly impossible and futile goal.
Believing otherwise has not just made a mess of American values and politics, it has all but destroyed marriage and relationships. In any relationship, there must be one masculine and one feminine energy. Two people cannot drive the same car—it won’t move. To have harmony, there must be balance.
And only those who move with the biological tide as opposed to against it, the way Aliona Savchenko and Bruno Masso so beautifully demonstrate, will succeed.