Ajang Barach-Magar: The Return of Kings

Posted: November 13, 2016 by PaanLuel Wël in Ajang Barach-Magar, Columnists, Commentary, Contributing Writers, Opinion Articles, Opinion Writers

By Ajang Barach-Magar, Nairobi, Kenya

Feminist

Those who read “A Treatise on Feminism” and were rattled by views expressed therein might interpret this latest one as somewhat of a deliberate redoubling of an offense.

November 13, 2016 (SSB) — As the Latin says, “non sum dignus” (I’m not worth it), every time I stumble up on a curious cohort of fellow men trying to unravel an economic, social, philosophical or scientific puzzle, I wonder whether I truly deserve a pop at existence during this extraordinary era when humanity regularly makes ambivalent strides in a quest to immortalize our civilization.

Dear reader, I wish to categorically state that this article seeks to reopen debate about gender relations. Those who read “A Treatise on Feminism” and were rattled by views expressed therein might interpret this latest one as somewhat of a deliberate redoubling of an offense. But you can rest assured that the writer is not your average Uncle Tom or Jerry who takes delight at trivializing an important public column where only provocative thoughts should be shared.

Others who either concur with my arguments or flap around in the middle certainly have divergent perspective. Wherever you are, all I request from you is to accord me a space to clearly state my case ~ i.e carefully evaluate the veracity of the matters raised, discard what you deem frivolous and retain whatever survives your criticism. At that juncture, the ball will firmly be in your court. You can decide to agree or disagree with me at any scale that befits your logic. That is up to you.

Some of the questions that have been asked for the umpteenth number of times are: Are men and women equal? If equality is real, then why have actions of men predominantly shaped our societies? Or did men prevail over women by sheer physical force? Isn’t feminism an appalling hoax? Does the emergence of career woman threaten what Lawyers call the marriage institution?

I do not intend to answer every last one of them, and even my attempt at answering some will not be in any specific order. For a start, according to findings attributed to research study by Victoria Milan, a dating website for marriage folks looking to cheat on their partners, 65% of all the unfaithful women confessed having committed the infidel act with someone at work.

This revelation exposes the dangers associated with scenarios where one man’s wife doubles up as a co-employee of an entirely unrelated, strange male. Those men who are lucky enough to ply their trade in the same domicile as their spouses still have to come to terms with having to recognize their wives as colleagues at work and only assert themselves as husbands at home.

The emergence of career woman has introduced its own set of problems in our societies. Divorce rates have now soared to unprecedented level than at any other time in history. Tales abound of certain prostitutes being able to cohabit with their clients longer than some legally-wed couples! More and more women are increasingly buying the idea that work is more important than creating and raising families. Such women can only attract males who are prepared for part-time wives. However, they are mostly keen to top up the deficit by engaging in extra-marital affair.

Thanks to feminism’s incitement, there are women who reject their natural role of baby making factories. In another study undertaken by Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa, a Psychologist at the London School of Economics, maternal urges decline by 25% with every extra 15 Intelligence Quotient (IQ) points a woman garners. In his book, “The Intelligence Paradox” in a chapter titled “Why Intelligent People are the Ultimate Losers in Life”, he groups women who opt not to have children with ignoramuses such as Gays and Lesbians (emphasis mine).

He aptly captures this by saying: “If any value is evolutionarily familiar, it is reproductive success. If any value is truly unnatural, if there is one thing that humans (and all other species in nature) are decisively not designed for, it is voluntary childlessness. All living organisms in nature, including humans, are evolutionarily designed to reproduce. Reproduction is the ultimate end of all biological existence.”

But let’s put that aside and gauge how the modern woman is faring outside the kitchen, the living room and the other room as President Muhammadu Buhari recently put it. The people who work in public sector apply drastic measures in the form of affirmative action in order to ameliorate gender discrepancies and accommodate women, who, compared to men, hardly hold any competitive advantage. Consequently, incompetent female professionals exploit this leeway and go on to compromise the quality of service. Their presence amplifies the ills we now have in our public sectors.

Talking about the women in the hunting ground (Prof. Desmond Morris’ term for workplace), women transfer their short-term approach to thinking over to public. They continue to feign an image of a damsel in distress. We have heard of complaints of absence of women-friendly policies at work, discrimination or having to put up with uncooperative, hostile or sex-soliciting male colleagues.

A plethora of feminists seize these unverified cases and cite them as concrete evidence of how starkly patriarchal our society remains. In a past interview with a local tabloid, one female former Kenyan cabinet minister once publicly derided what she felt was overt male chauvinism and objectification of women. She said: “It is very sad how people stereotype women in this country. People believe that a woman cannot be intelligent, young and may be slightly attractive and not have a relationship with anyone for her to move up”.

But sentiments of this nature are made either out of incredulity or absolute ignorance. I have cited elsewhere a study by the Harvard Biologist – Prof. Robert Trivers & Co. The results of that study were published in the book “Evolutionary Psychology”.

The study involved observation of our closest primate relatives, the chimpanzees. Male chimps were often seen offering portions of meat to females. In return, a female would then allow him to mount and copulate with her. It is thought that our modern sexual relations had a similar primordial history which hasn’t fully been phased out. Men whose wives seem to cultivate excellent “professional relationships” with their male CEOs or colleagues have every reason to be wary. That term is a surrogate for something far from great! As the economist’s hackneyed philosophy goes, there is no free lunch. That is the harsh reality.

One major influence of work on women is the glaring erosion of their traditional social etiquette. Historically, a “well-mannered” female’s demeanour is punctuated by submission, humility, gratefulness, docility and gentleness. She must be a nice girl who is sensitive to feminine matters such as her appearance, length and tightness of her skirt.

In contrast, the career woman is everything the conventional woman is not. In public functions, you must have come across that lady who doesn’t smile easily, one with a bloated sense of importance. These women are generally difficult to control and appease. In China, successful middle-aged ladies are called leftovers. We have to respect the Islamic world, because they have successfully tamed their women.

Another consequence inoculated by the emergence of career woman is reflected by male reaction to infringement of what has always been our sphere of influence throughout the centuries. Why is it that it is the women who want to take over roles that are reserved only for men? Why can’t it be the other way? If they want equality with us, are they also going to demand that men should begin to give birth, too? Were it not for feminism, I would certainly not have written “A Treatise on Feminism” which had offensive sections about women. Others such as George Orwell would not have been forced to criticize feminist movements.

In reality, the vast majority of males vehemently disagree with gender equality. In the United States, they unequivocally spoke the other day. Yet this provocation is unwarranted.

Thoughtful women such as Suzanne Venker recognize this. She once wrote: “Prior to the 1970s, people viewed gender roles equally valuable. Many would agree that women had the better end of the deal! It is difficult to claim women were oppressed in a nation where men were expected to stand up when a lady enters the room or lay down their lives to spare women. When the Titanic went down in 1912, its sinking took 1450 LIVES. Only 103 were women.”

Compare that with the sinking of Costa Concordia, an Italian cruise ship which capsized and sank off Isola del Giglio, Tuscany in 2012. That tragedy took 33 lives. Apart from the lower death toll, one other significant difference with the Titanic case was the absence of “women and children first” policy.

If men and women are equal, then everyone might soon be expected to fend for themselves, which will certainly tip the odds against women. And this grandiloquent variety called feminists will have no one else other than themselves to blame for male apathy towards the plight of women.

May be people do not understand the linguistic purview of the term “equality”. Perhaps, Prof. Taban Lo Liyong should come out and clarify what the Anglophone societies just don’t understand about it. Last year, Prof. Tim Hunt, the 2001 Nobel Prize winner in Medicine, forfeited his membership in the Royal Society and lost his job at the University College London for suggesting that female scientists offer nothing much more than distraction to their male counterparts, and should therefore operate in separate laboratories.

Nearly all male Biologists (I’m referring to Nurses, Pharmacists, Biomedical Scientists, Medical Doctors, mainstream Biologists – all of us) do agree with equality, simply because it is false. It is impossible to implement. The charade of charlatans will take in many but we know that the hyena does not eat grass. Naturalists believe Mother Nature is the super scientist.

Some day, all this Marxist social engineering façade about gender equality will be smitten and effectively collapse. The natural order will be restored, and loose Christian liberals will be ashamed that the Muslims could deal in advance with a problem that they are unable even to acknowledge.

Despite being the planet’s most advanced species, we are still a simple biological phenomenon, fully subject to natural laws. The few of us who openly criticize feminism have only come forward with this in mind. It does not point to a strained relations with women.

Before I leave, I would like to recite the following fable:

In T. H. White’s novel, “The Once and Future King”, a badger relates a parable about the origin of animals. God, he recounts, created all animals as embryos and summoned them to his throne, offering them whatever additions to their anatomy they desired. All opted for specialized adult features – king lion for claws and ultra sharp teeth, the deer for antlers and hoofs. The human embryo stepped forward and said:

“…please, God, I think you made me in the shape which I now have for reasons that are best known to you, and it will be rude to change. If I’m to have any choice, I will stay as I’m. I will not alter any of the parts that you gave me…I will stay a defenseless embryo all my life, doing my best to make myself a few feeble implements out of the wood, iron and other materials which you have seen fit to place before me…”

“…Well done”, exclaimed the creator in delighted tone. “Here, you all embryos come here with your beaks and whatnots to look at our first man. He is the only one who has guessed our riddle…As for you, man…you will look like embryo until they bury you, but all others will be embryos before your might. Eternally undeveloped, you will always remain potential in our image, able to see some of our sorrows and feel some of our joys. We are partly sorry for you, man, but partly hopeful. Run a long then, and try your best”.

You can reach the author via his email: Barach Magar <barachmagar@gmail.com>

The opinion expressed here is solely the view of the writer. The veracity of any claim made are the responsibility of the author, not PaanLuel Wël: South Sudanese Bloggers (SSB) website. If you want to submit an opinion article or news analysis, please email it to paanluel2011@gmail.com. SSB do reserve the right to edit material before publication. Please include your full name, email address and the country you are writing.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Ackoy says:

    Great Article. Thanks to Barach – ma gaar and the Web team

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s