Men and women are by nature different.  It should come as no surprise, therefore, that these differences which exist by nature shine through societal mores generally.  Thus, gender roles exist, and there are certain practices, habits, and activities that preclude one of the two genders entirely.  Contemporarily, feminists seem to strive for what has been called gender-neutrality.  To pursue this agenda, feminists seek to eradicate all vestiges of gender roles from society.  As such, the modern feminist movement thrives upon a fallacious conflation of equality and gender roles.  For feminists, upholding the practice of a specific gender role is tantamount to rendering one sex (generally women) unequal to the other (generally men).  However, this kind of attitude is not only ill-founded but dangerous.  By trying to compel people to live in conflict with their natural gender inclinations, feminists force people to live contrary to their natures.  In effect, the beauty, harmony, and balance resultant of the interaction between the genders is lost.  Feminists, therefore, have gone too far in their pursuit; their agenda is absurd.

To buttress this contention, I will first discuss the nature of Valentine’s Day.  Valentine’s Day is a holiday in which gender roles come to the fore in an astonishingly apparent manner.  On Valentine’s Day, men are expected to fulfill certain obligations, the minimum being the provision of roses and chocolates.  And if men want to get laid, they better make dinner reservations and fandango movie tickets to the newest chick-flick at the cinema as well.  Men have a duty on Valentine’s Day; women do not.  Women are the recipients of all of this romance.  Valentine’s Day ensures that women get to experience love at least once per year by providing men with a certain framework for romance.  Men, after all, do not understand the concept of romance.  Men know that it involves flowers and chocolates with a nice dinner in low lighting, but men have no insight upon what romance is intrinsically.  Women on the other hand seem to require romance.

Who could dare make the argument that Valentine’s Day exists as it does to make men happy?  Or even more absurdly, who could contend that the genders roles could be rationally reversed on Valentine’s Day?  In what world do men want to receive flowers?  In what world do women want to give men chocolates?  This is downright stupid.  Women love Valentine’s Day as it is now; they do not want it to be any different.  While some may assert that only women in relationships like Valentine’s Day, it is more correct to say that single women really wish they had a man on Valentine’s Day.  All women love Valentine’s Day as a concept, and all men hate it, but men still do what is expected.  Envisioning this holiday any differently is just ridiculous.

Next, take at how the genders function between one another in the context of relationships.  It is generally correct to say that men “wear the pants.”  After all, women tend to default to their men when making big decisions; it always takes a man to do whatever manly thing is necessary to get the job done.  Women cannot bring themselves to take initiative in this way.

However, everyone also knows that men really are not in control.  If men “wear the pants” in a relationship, then women govern their men by removing those pants, literally.  Women have been ruling men in the bedroom since time immemorial.  Any big decision that a man makes is decided after he and his wife just had relations intimately.  Following intercourse, she simply hints at whatever outcome she desires, and he readily assents to her wish.  This is just the nature of things.  These two roles could never be juxtaposed or eliminated; everyone knows this.

Finally, consider the obvious difference: sex.  There are gender roles in the bedroom.  I will refrain from describing the action in detail, but we all know just how it works: men penetrate, and women allow themselves to be penetrated.  This is followed by some, well, movement, culminating in, you know, the end.  And there are many positions available for the pursuit of this end, but the end is always the same.  Speaking strictly within the heterosexual context, this never changes.  And both sexes seem to be very happy with this arrangement; evidence for this persists in population growth.

If feminists indeed do aim for gender neutrality, then sex is quite a mystery.  I often wonder exactly what feminists think sex ought to be.  I cannot even fathom what body parts would be involved, what it would look like, or what actions would be made.  This is quite a conundrum.  How can there be sex in a gender neutral society?  It seems that sex may not be possible, and if sex is not possible, then procreation is not possible, and if procreation is not possible, then the human race dies.  The logical conclusion of the feminist agenda, therefore, is the extinction of the human race.

Without question, the feminist movement has gone too far.