Gravity is holding women down

I’ve just read an article online which attracted the following comment. It takes up the rest of this piece:

It’s time to discuss the extra burden that gravity places on women, says Colleen Hyphenated-Lastname, president of the Propaganda Organization for Women.

“Feminist scientists on an archaeological dig in Mesopotamia have discovered illustrations of women who seem to be floating in the air,” Hyphenated-Lastname says. “This cutting-edge research indicates that there once was a time when gravity did not exist. In fact, these artefacts indicate that society was once gender equal, and women held most high offices of power and controlled the television remote.”

“But all this changed with the onset of western patriarchal societies that wanted to keep women down. If there were no distinctions between men and women, patriarchal oppressors had to invent them. And if there was no gravity, the patriarchy had to invent that, too.”

“Gravity is designed to benefit men, who have thicker bones and greater upper-body strength. Today, we see the results everywhere of the patriarchy’s efforts to keep women down. Gravity causes women to fall to their deaths out of windows or down stairs. It makes buildings collapse, killing women and children. It damages women’s cars when some inconsiderate construction worker topples from the tenth floor and bounces off the hood. Gravity makes the complete, leather-bound editions of Carrie Chapman Catt fall off my bookshelf and give me such a smack I can hardly see straight.”

“Navy pilot Kara Hultgreen would not have crashed her jet except for gravity. Clearly, she was set up to fail.”

“Women seek treatment for depression at far higher rates. Obviously, more women are feeling ‘down.’ Gravity is just another way in which women’s health is being shortchanged.”

“This oppression is historical, the product of white, western men who wanted to hold onto power. The laws of physics were written long before women had the right to vote. If women had had more input, the laws of physics would have been kinder, and gravity would have been supportive. Instead, we are shackled with the competitive, conflict-oriented mode of men. Isaac Newton, a typical dead white European male, was obsessed with ‘opposing’ reactions, even if he hypocritically admitted that some of them were equal. When he declared that for every action there is opposed an equal reaction, he was doing nothing less than defining the backlash. If women had had a chance to shape these laws, their conflict-free style of interaction would have made sure that there were no opposed reactions. All reactions simply would have been equal.”

“We can undo the oppressive, patriarchal mindset that would have us believe that gravity really represents the ‘natural’ order of things,” says Hyphenated-Lastname. “It will require spending money on programs to elevate girls’ self-esteem so that they are not held down by artificial concepts of patriarchy.”

“This will cost a lot of money,” says Hyphenated-Lastname.

“But I’m up for that.”

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Three cheers for that man (or woman)!

  • I believe one says LOL. But actually also a clever satire too!

    • Agreed – a very well-crafted piece. I wish I’d written it!

  • Mike Porter



  • Sort of relevant…it’s not gravity but physics which oppresses…apparently.
    Postmodernism Disrobed

    The feminist ‘philosopher’ Luce Irigaray is another who gets whole-chapter treatment from Sokal and Bricmont. In a passage reminiscent of a notorious feminist description of Newton’s Principia (a “rape manual”), Irigaray argues that E=mc2 is a “sexed equation”. Why? Because “it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us” (my emphasis of what I am rapidly coming to learn is an ‘in’ word). Just as typical of this school of thought is Irigaray’s thesis on fluid mechanics. Fluids, you see, have been unfairly neglected. “Masculine physics” privileges rigid, solid things. Her American expositor Katherine Hayles made the mistake of re-expressing Irigaray’s thoughts in (comparatively) clear language. For once, we get a reasonably unobstructed look at the emperor and, yes, he has no clothes:
    “The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids… From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders.”

    You do not have to be a physicist to smell out the daffy absurdity of this kind of argument (the tone of it has become all too familiar), but it helps to have Sokal and Bricmont on hand to tell us the real reason why turbulent flow is a hard problem: the Navier-Stokes equations are difficult to solve.