During all the preceding centuries of human history, no civil war or internecine strife was so ultimately puzzling, ill-conceived or destructive as the Genderstrife of the 21st century.
It is hard to define the point at which "hot war" broke out. Women had grown used to such sentiments as "men are useless" and "you don't need a penis to shoot a rifle", and it appears as though there was a sudden tipping-point reached at which outright violence became a preferred option. Times and places are hard to ascertain now, even at so few years? remove, and it is doubtful that further study will lend greater clarity.
Buoyed up by such thoughts as those above, and similar dicta such as "The female of the species is more deadly than the male", women hit the ground running and delivered stunning setbacks to their arrogant menfolk before the dullards even realized the shooting had started. Women's communication skills, honed by aeons of practice and a social climate that encouraged blaming and shaming of males, succeeded in obfuscating the true picture for a surprisingly long time. Strategically, women were encouraged to think of men as almost entirely dispensable for any purpose that could not be fulfilled for years to come by a sperm bank, and their historic willingness to show absolute ruthlessness to a disadvantaged foe stood them in good stead.
However, wars are won by logistics. Also by strategy and tactics, which were traditional male strengths soon brought to bear against women once the need became obvious, and at this point it became apparent that men had numerous advantages. They had nearly all the military strategists and game theorists; they had nearly all the engineers and heavy industry experts; they even had nearly all the mechanics, gunsmiths, and electricians. In short, as long as women were able to use previously-available stocks of food, fuel and ammunition, they could compete reasonably effectively - although less so once it was evident that an actual shooting war was in progress ? but as soon as stocks began to run low, they had far less ability to rectify the deficiencies.
This became all the more apparent when the power grid and fuel distribution networks were closed down. Men had a near-monopoly not only on heavy haulage drivers but even on personnel who knew how to run a power station or repair high-tension cable. They also had a huge advantage in being able to cope when forced to rely on hand tools. Women without motor transport were restricted in how far they could travel and how much they could carry, and those who had scoffed at the idea of physical strength qualifications in the modern military - because it was foolish to suppose that there would be an issue with soldiers who would be too weak to lift a rifle ? soon learned that even for a modern infantryman there would always be severe requirements in terms of carrying spares, ammunition and other essentials. Not for nothing did a Great War rifleman go into action carrying sixty pounds of gear. Men were far more able to portage mortars and bombs, machine-guns and belts, and even throw grenades, and this translated into an ability to put firepower onto a target on a scale that, ceteris paribus, women simply could not match.
More: men had a cultural background dating back millennia that allowed them to endure risks and hardships for the greater good, and a ruthlessness that could let a regiment be ordered to storm a strongly-held position in the knowledge that many would not survive but the objective be achieved. Men, far more readily than women, could close watertight doors to keep a ship from sinking and put the good of the whole crew above that of those unfortunates trapped below decks. And men had the history of surrendering their will and individuality to the unit, the company, the regiment, and the army, working as part of the whole and giving and taking orders no matter what the personal cost.
Once the ammunition ran out and it came to primitive weapons, there was no more to be said. Women might have decried men?s physical strength as an irrelevance in an enlightened modern society, but in circumstances where "toxic masculinity" was, rather than a negative, an unquestionable foundation of strength and success, the case was altered beyond recognition. Men could rely on hitting harder with heavier weapons and even wearing more protective gear ? which, with primitive tools and facilities, they were far better to resupply than were women and this advantage could not be taken away from them.
Once the ammunition ran out and it came to primitive weapons, there was no more to be said. Women might have decried men's physical strength as an irrelevance in an enlightened modern society, but in circumstances where "toxic masculinity" was, rather than a negative, an unquestionable foundation of strength and success, the case was altered beyond recognition. Men could rely on hitting harder with heavier weapons and even wearing more protective gear ? which, with primitive tools and facilities, they were far better to resupply than were women ? and this advantage could not be taken away from them.
Ultimately it proved the case that for many of the remaining women ? by no means all, but for enough ? death was not after all preferable to dishonour and life at a heavy price was better than the alternative. In many respects the resulting society was poorer all round; but women were persuaded that, though their participation was necessary for childbearing, their cooperation was not, and they had better choose which course would comport best with the dignity that they had left. To many men this was repugnant. They were not forced to be any part of what had to follow; if they preferred chivalry to the survival of the species, they had earned the right not to make a further contribution to the gene pool. In the last analysis though, it seems clear that morality is not morality if extinction must result ? or if it is, it is self-defeating, because it breeds itself out of existence.
In the post-bellum world, there is time for philosophical reflection. Was this part of the inevitable evolution of the species? Did Nature allow Man to grow only to bring us low again? What humanity might have been but for the Genderstrife must remain forever a mystery ? or, perhaps, only deferred for some tens of millennia until the time when such a technological peak is scaled again with, we can only hope, no renewal of the rancour between men and women.
Reply With Quote
Grimes
