Friday, November 10, 2017

Girls & gridiron

Kellogg's is pushing for more American girls to play American football. The campaign is not supported by D.C. McAlister. Her effort to explain why is, I think, well done.

Her first argument is that football has traditionally been a male space that boys need for their own development:
First of all, why in the name of “equality” do women insist on invading man spaces? There is a camaraderie among boys that is necessary for their development as men, and this is fostered in all-boy sports. It’s a kind of initiation into manhood — something that must be done by men in a male-only environment. Injecting females into the mix dilutes the experience, robbing boys of training in masculinity and male bonding that they desperately need.
The loss of male spaces has had a significant effect on society. When you put boys together in schools, or sporting clubs, or cadets, then some of the distinctively male moral instincts begin to emerge, such as loyalty, courage, strength and honour. Society is impoverished when these are no longer generated within male spaces and so wither away.

Her second argument is one that I have made myself in arguing against women in combat roles. It is contradictory to train men to be physically aggressive/violent towards women in sports, but then to expect them to see physical violence towards women as abhorrent and unmanly:
Second, I find it ironic that in a time when we’re hearing a lot about domestic violence (especially by football players), sexual harassment, and sexual assault, we have no problem training and encouraging boys to plow down girls on a football field. It’s insane...

But it’s a sport, some might say. Just a game — no big deal. Such a response ignores the power of sports in developing our character and our psychology...

...When you put a girl on a football field, you are training boys to go against their natural (and good) instincts not to hit girls. Part of growing as a man is to learn how to properly treat women, to protect, respect, honor, and cherish them. Not to beat the crap out of them in sports or anywhere else.

Her third arguments is that having girls play violent sports with boys disrupts the sense of complementarity between the sexes:
You are teaching the boy that women don’t need men to protect them — or worse that they can be just as aggressive with women as with men. And you are teaching the girl that she doesn’t need a man. That she’s strong all on her own, if not stronger than a man, and that she doesn’t need a damn thing from him.

This rips apart the fabric of our society as men and women no longer complement each other but compete against each other. Instead of benefiting from each other’s strengths and supporting each other in our weaknesses, we are fostering a hyper-individualistic mindset that says, “I don’t need you!”


  1. Something I see time and time again, and I don't know whether its a function of the current times and social attitudes (but I suspect its NOT), is that women fail to understand the significant mental and spiritual differences between men and women.

    Its like they think men are just slightly larger women, and with a little 'coaxing' should really be like women. So just 'let us in' to every activity you're engaged in.

    I never see men (except those virtue signalling) ever pretend that women are the same or 'equal'.

    Furthermore I see men display far greater awareness of women's issue in and of themselves, and then in relation to larger society. And I just don't see that from most women-- they understand their own travails and problems, and those of children as direct emotional attachments to their needs and interests, but no insight into larger problems of men as men or society.

    Just one example: very few women even see poverty in men except in relation to a man they might know and his specific circumstances. Other poor men just do not exist. This is nothing new.

    Its why I don't believe women can or should be in leadership positions. Their perspective is more limited, often shockingly despite the platitudes and jermaids about their own issues.

    Men see more, and what women don't see they can't even undersand how it could be an issue. Things like male spaces, male accomplishment, independence, need for recognition, are necessary to have a functional civilization.

    Its not just about women and children and 'caring'. In fact without these other things, women and children ultimatley don't get 'cared' for at all.

    1. I agree with you, albeit with a qualification.

      As a general rule, I think it is true that women are less likely to acknowledge sex differences and less likely to consider the issues that men encounter in their lives. In this sense, many women do have a more limited perspective.

      However, I think we need to be careful at the moment when discussing the issue of women in leadership positions. The provider/protector role of men rightly extends into political leadership within the community, so you would expect in a well-ordered society that men would dominate when it comes to formal political office.

      But I think it would be a mistake not to draw the right sort of women into a certain sort of leadership role within society.

      Women consume vast amounts of literature, whether that be novels, films, music, magazines or social media. There do exist talented traditionalist women who are capable of leading other women in the right direction via this kind of literature. We should have the clear aim that we wish to promote these women into positions of influence, rather than allowing the usual suspects (the unhappy undergraduate women, the women with daddy issues, the lesbian women etc.) to fill the vacuum instead.

      A group of talented, capable traditionalist women is starting to form. They are our allies and we need them at our side, doing good work in society. Yes, we should ask that they follow through with traditionalist principles by forming a family of their own in a timely way. But I don't think we should dismiss the power for good these women potentially have in "politico-cultural" terms within society.

    2. Yes, I have no issue with women leading other women at times. I've seen that work in the past.

      But it needs to limited to that area. When you have women leading (or more truthfully, pretending to lead) other men, it is a recipe for dissolution and apathy

    3. Here's another timely example of this issue:

  2. American football is/was as close to a game of organized "white (s)upremacy" as a heritage America could conceive. Its destruction via the entryism of females at the pee-wee/high-screwl level and the racialist political stooges at the professional level is, without a doubt, entirely deliberate.

    That "we" as "sexist racists" are provoked to defend the creative originality of this controlled game of organized violence from those that would gut it with their poly-tricks is a testament to "our" side lacking the initiative.

    American football is a game for the specific display of the greatest, white male athletes...

    Both females and "blacks" HAVE AND ARE destroying the game from within.

    This ^^^ is the reality.

    1. Kellog's is a commercial whore. They sell cereal.
      Hannah Mouncey - named Cullen when born - is trying to get below the size of the typical middle linebacker on a U.S. professional football team; six-two, 240lbs. A middle linebacker is often, and hopefully, the most physically tough player on the defense.
      Hannah is an Australian footballer on a female team. He's taking his meds, trying hard to reduce his muscle mass. His female team mates are said not to object. His male coach says that "she has good hands".
      Hannah says that "we live in a non-binary world and sport is unprepared for it."