About forty years ago, I saw an ad on Christian TV promoting a new translation of the Bible. It depicted King James as he was presented with a copy of the new translation bearing his name in 1611.
Turning to one passage, the king read the words, “with the froward thou wilt shew thyself froward” (Psalm 18:26), only to ask, “What is froward?”
The point of the ad was to underscore the need for a modern translation of the Bible, arguing that the King James Version didn’t even make sense to King James, using English expressions that were even outdated in his day.
That ad came to mind when reading a since-deleted post by the National Organization of Women (NOW) which stated,
“Repeat after us: Weaponizing womenhood against other women is white supremacist patriarchy at work. Making people believe there isn’t enough space for trans women in sports is white supremacist patriarchy at work.”
I could picture Karl Marx, the arch proponent of class warfare, reading this several times over and then asking, “What in the world does any of this have to do with white supremacist patriarchy? And what on earth are 'trans women?'”
Everything about this post, from the “Repeat after us” mantra to the silliness of the first sentence and the absurdity of the second sentence, shouts Babylon Bee more than NOW, except that the radical left espouses such ridiculous positions that it unintentionally appears as self-satire.
As noted by Christopher Tremoglie in the Washington Examiner,
“NOW’s post should, undoubtedly, be the metaphorical nail in the coffin for the contemporary hyperbolic hysteria associated with the words ‘white supremacy’ and ‘patriarchy.’ Much like claiming that men can become women, these phrases are also delusional works of the corrupted lexicology of the 21st century. Objecting to men competing as women has nothing to do with race. However, being that accusations of racism have been the ‘bread and butter’ of left-wing political discourse for decades, whoever crafted this post for NOW was just repeating this toxic (and baseless) behavior.”
I was personally unaware of NOW’s post, which appeared on X on March 31, until I came across some responses to the comment from two outspoken female athletes, swimmer Riley Gaines and skateboarder Taylor Silverman.
Gaines said, “I've never seen so many oppression buzzwords in one sentence. Apparently, advocating for fair sport makes me a white supremacist. I wonder if my attorney will agree.”
Ah, but at least Gaines is not a white male supremacist! That’s one less checkmark in the “most guilty” intersectional chart. At least she is not part of the patriarchy.
Silverman stated,
“I take the National Organization for Women claiming that fairness in women’s sports is White supremacy about as seriously as I take them claiming men can be women. They are blinded by this lie and desperate to scare people into silence. Men in women’s sports impacts all women, including minorities that the National Organization for Women seemingly want to erase to push their ridiculous narrative.”
Silverman is absolutely correct, and there is no world in which NOW’s comments can be taken seriously.
Biological men competing against women hurts Black female athletes as much as White female athletes. How, then, is the call to fairness in sports an example of “white supremacist patriarchy at work”?
And when female athlete after female athlete denounces the dangerous practice of allowing biological males, who are bigger and stronger and faster than females, to compete against females, how is this “white supremacist patriarchy at work”?
Really now, what does any of this have to do with Whiteness, let alone White supremacy, let alone the patriarchy?
When tennis great Martina Navratilova, herself a feminist and a lesbian, decries male bodies in women’s sports, how is this “white supremacist patriarchy at work”?
And if the father of a teen daughter raises concerns about his daughter being forced to share a locker room with a biological male, with his plumbing still intact, how is this “white supremacist patriarchy at work”?
What kind of social madness is this?
The reality is that, just as radical feminists turned a blind eye to the credible accusations about former President Bill Clinton’s womanizing, since it was to their political advantage to do so, NOW also turns a blind eye to the needs of women and girls, since there is a more radical cause to which NOW is espoused.
The bad news is that millions of Americans who have been indoctrinated into this mindless class and race warfare will repeat NOW’s claims.
The good news is that millions more Americans will recognize that the emperor has no clothes. The more he struts around in public, the more obvious this becomes.
