Note: As you can probably tell from the title and essay-esque format, this is not going to be my usual type of post–I wanted to experiment with a different style. Please read until the very end, or, at least, read the endnote before you show up at my door with a meat cleaver.
Without further ado, I present to you, my…
Simple Answer To Inequality, Reasonableness Ensured
In recent times, with the rise of feminism, an increasing number of males have been accosted by irate feminists claiming to be unfortunate victims of centuries-old misogyny and rallying to “overthrow the patriarchy.” But do not fear—there is a simple way to solve this festering issue once and for all! To end the debate of so-called “gender inequality,” we must simply strive to eliminate women altogether.
No doubt the first objection to be raised is how the human race will continue without females, as they are necessary receptacles for incubating fetuses. Beyond that, of course, they seem to serve no other purpose. The good news: at the current rate modern technology is progressing, we can foresee a way to bypass women in the reproductive process altogether, perhaps by fusing sperm cells with cryogenically frozen ovum in the laboratories. The bad news: we’re not there yet. In the meantime, we can gradually impose increasing restrictions on women to better transition to wholesale extermination.
You may be wondering how restricting women (and later removing them altogether) benefits society. Do they not have rights? Clearly, you have been misled by the notion that women are people, too. The truth is that women are embarrassingly useless, and men are saddled with the responsibility of caring and protecting these burdens to posterity. Women are soft, emotional creatures that are incapable of making any reasoned decisions. That’s why male Congressmen are allowed to pass abortion bills to control what females do with their bodies—it’s because men know better. So, we would be doing everyone a favor by removing women from society—if not entirely, then at the very least to their natural habitat, the kitchen.
Confining women to the kitchen is an example of the numerous benefits restrictions on women could offer. First and foremost, this would eliminate road dangers, as women are also inept at driving and are responsible for every single car accident. Secondly, restricting women to the kitchen would save everyone a whole lot of trouble, as women inevitably end up there anyway. Why waste resources on educating them in men’s STEM professions when, clearly, such intellectually taxing endeavors short-circuit women’s feeble brains? Why let women steal men’s opportunities in the workplace and pocket a whopping 78 cents for every dollar a man makes? Women should not be rewarded for supplementing the undertakings of men; that is their sole purpose in life. This is an absolute injustice.
Finally, consider how removing women from the public eye would greatly lessen all the annoying complaints from insatiable feminists! Man-hating feminists are always going on and on about “victim blaming” and “rape,” when clearly rape is the woman’s fault. Women seduce helpless men into violating them by wearing seductive clothing like T-shirts and shoes and jeans and sweatpants and parkas and spacesuits. I mean, come on, that’s just asking for it. Women leave the house after dark, which is obviously implied consent. And studies have shown that one hundred percent of rapists are BORN FROM WOMEN. No women, no “rape.” The solution is glaringly simple.
No longer should men have to bear the unjust burden of protecting and providing for these useless creatures. The removal of women, first from the public and then from the earth, is absolutely necessary for societal progress. This solution for gender inequality makes perfect sense if you think about it really hard, or don’t think about it at all.
If you have finished reading this and still feel incredibly offended by my misogynistic “proposal,” I advise you to reread the title until you get the joke.