It has always been an active mystery to me how evolution allowed the male of the species to evolve in just such a way that sexual relations with the female of the species was not only possible but successful. Darwinian theory should make such chance parallel evolution by random chance and natural selection an impossibility. All this is discussed here: Evolutionary Theories On Gender And Sexual Reproduction.

Exactly how did we arrive at two separate genders-each with its own physiology?  If, as evolutionists have argued, there is a materialistic answer for everything, then the question should be answered:  Why sex?  Is sex the product of a historical accident or the product of an intelligent Creator?  The current article reviews some of the current theories for why sexual reproduction exists today.  Yet, as these theories valiantly attempt to explain why sex exists now, they do not explain the origin of sex.  We suggest that there is no naturalistic explanation that can account for the origin and maintenance of sex.

I have asked biologists but no one knows, and there are no theories that even come close to sounding plausible. 

Well, almost anything and usually not as well. There is some evidence that the feminist tyranny we see at every point is coming towards an end. It will never end completely since there are many women who reward any male who is nice to them. But there have been a few amongst the male of the species who have been seeing through this process lately and saying so, but this was the best: Women’s Tears Win in the Marketplace of Ideas. This is how he begins which is a good place to start since he notes other bits of writing on the same issue:

Having mentioned the concept a few times, many have been encouraging me to write a Substack on the feminization of political life and its connection to free speech issues. Noah Carl beat me to it, and the idea has also been picked up by no less an authority than Tom Edsall at the New York Times. I’ve already written about the overrepresentation of women in HR. We can understand the decline of free speech as a kind of female pincer attack: women demand more suppression of offensive ideas at the bottom of institutions, and form a disproportionate share of the managers who hear their complaints at the top.

Read the entire article and watch the video he attaches.

And since we are at it, there is this as well: The coming era of feminine tyranny. This is the opening two paras:

Leftists and feminists have seized control of the vast majority of our civic institutions and are coming for the rest of them. For a glimpse of what this future could look like, observe what’s been happening on some of our most prestigious college campuses. Administrators, disproportionately female, are seizing tight control over the student population through aggressive COVID policies (see Michael Tracey’s excellent coverage of this). College students, nearly 100% of whom are vaccinated already, have been limited in their activities, prevented from socializing and gathering in groups, and even stopped from leaving the county, in the case of Princeton University. So far, colleges have also been slow to remove restrictions.

Many campuses opened up snitch hotlines or email addresses for people to rat out their fellow students for failing to adhere to mask mandates or other COVID policies early in the pandemic. At a few colleges, administrators have required the use of certain technologies to track students’ movements as part of their COVID enforcement efforts.

This is how he ends:

Under the guise of advancing women’s interests or a more progressive criminal justice system, we’ve allowed our fundamental shared values – individual liberty, autonomy, free speech, due process, and much more – to collapse. I’m not sure of the way out but it sure seems like the drug companies and big tech and big government are using this new feminized landscape to push too hard on the people and force us towards some kind of grand-scale cultural re-evaluation.

It’s just how it is and how it will be perhaps until some other religion becomes dominant (not saying which). And then there’s this: Has feminism gone too far? He does beat around the bush a bit, but eventually makes his point, sort of.

We need to drop this narrative around toxic masculinity. Because I tell you what folks until we do, I reckon we’d be hard-pressed to win any war were the Russians or the Chinese to catch the Eurostar over the Channel to invade these shores. But what do you think? Has this whole equalities agenda and feminist movement gone too far? Or do you think I’m talking rubbish and women do have it wrong in modern life?

He is on the media in the UK so no matter what he might really think, that is about all he is able to say. But what he means is that so long as the feminist tyranny continues, which is as far as the eye can see, they will be hard pressed to win any war at any time in the near future. And it is not just against the Russians and Chinese, but against all those migrants who are crossing the Channel on a daily basis.

This business with Whoopi Goldberg commenting on the holocaust as just one set of white people killing another set of white people really is a moment of great insight into both her mind and no doubt the minds of many others.

She is utterly indifferent to the murder of Jews during the lifetime of many who are still alive right now. Slavery was historically the mode of harnessing labour as it had been till the arrival of the market economy, but the murder of Jews because they were not part of the Aryan race was an absolutely unique experience during the whole of history. Massacres had occurred in the past over conquest and domination, but this was the first, hopefully the last time individuals were killed in the millions because of their racial identity. Slavery was abolished in the United States in 1865.

The events are discussed here: Whoopi Goldberg Says the Holocaust Wasn’t About Targeting Jews. Not sure the title captures the point, but the description will do.

Discussing an obscure Tennessee school board deciding to remove the Pulitzer Prize-winning graphic novel “Maus” from a Holocaust unit for eighth-graders, Goldberg launched into an explanation of the Holocaust dazzling in both its ignorance and its malignity.

Joy Behar, the usual top contender for the Crown of Idiocy, led off by explaining that the Tennessee school board members “don’t like history that makes white people look bad.” Then Goldberg got going: “Maybe. This is white people doing it to white people. Y’all go fight amongst yourselves.”

This comment would have been insanely insulting, in and of itself: Here was Goldberg, referring to Nazis and Jews as “white people doing it to white people.” But Goldberg was just getting started. “If we’re going to do this,” Goldberg said, “let’s be truthful about it because the Holocaust isn’t about race. No. It’s not about race.” Behar correctly said, “They considered Jews a different race.” But Goldberg would not tolerate the dissent: “It’s not about race. It’s not about race … It’s about man’s inhumanity to man. That’s what it’s about.” …

“But it’s about white supremacy,” Navarro said. “It’s about going after Jews and gypsies.” No, said Goldberg. “These are two white groups of people … You’re missing the point. The minute you turn it into race, it goes down this alley. Let’s talk about it for what it is. It’s how people treat each other. It’s a problem. It doesn’t matter if you are black or white because black, white, Jews, Italians, everybody eats [hates?] each other.”