What does a woman want?

Freud's question remains unanswered 

Mar 26, 2022 Michael D. Shaw

 

While Sigmund Freud is hardly the first to be troubled over this matter, he is the most famous for pondering: 

The great question that has never been answered, and which I have not yet been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, is 'What does a woman want?' 

Nearly 100 years after this quotation was uttered, are we any closer to an answer? 

Just a few days ago, a Black female candidate for the US Supreme Court refused to provide her definition of what a woman is, to a questioning female senator. The reason she was willing to answer in this absurd manner was, of course, to keep her liberal bona fides intact. If she had given the correct biological answer “A member of the human species with two X chromosomes,” she would have upset the forces which serve to undermine society. 

But then, this particular judge, Ketanji Brown Jackson, also demonstrated a profound sympathy toward pedophiles, who surely prey upon little girls. Yet, several media outlets, including the execrable New York Times, praised Jackson for how she comported herself during the hearings, and condemned the questions she was being asked. 

That conservative Supreme Court candidates, starting with Robert Bork, followed by Clarence Thomas, and all the way through to Amy Barrett, were treated far worse matters not. 

However, the worst element of Jackson’s hearing occurred when she claimed to be unfamiliar with the landmark case of US v. Virginia (1996), which prohibited the Virginia Military Academy from discriminating against women by its male-only policy. This case is considered historic since it shattered barriers in the long male-dominated military sector, and featured a majority opinion written by feminist icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 

Moreover, this case is well known to many people outside the field of law. That an appeals court federal judge could claim to be unfamiliar with it is preposterous. Bear in mind that there is no good spin on this. Jackson either lied, or is as dumb as a bag of rocks. 

Yet, the reason she lied is simple enough. If the case broke down barriers for women, a previously unnecessary question raises itself: Who and what are these “women” who are now protected from this discrimination? 

Thus, I echo Dr. Freud. If someone who wishes to be a member of our Supreme Court cannot define what a woman is, and this disgraceful charade is allowed to stand, what DOES a woman want? Why didn’t millions of women scream in protest at this outrage, which denies their very existence? 

You might as well also ask why did only a pathetic handful of women complain about the ascendance of a “transgender” female swimmer (complete with male equipment) to the heights of the NCAA? 

You might as well also ask why so many “soccer moms” and others who would otherwise support conservative political principles would oppose the re-election of Donald J. Trump, presumably because he is “mean” and a “bully.” That Joe Biden is hardly a pleasant fellow, and has displayed annoying and weird habits, including smelling little girls’ hair, and alleged inappropriate activity with his own daughter does not seem to matter. Certainly, it is not sufficient to counter the animus against Trump.

One can hardly imagine that these women who evidently favored Biden over Trump are pleased with the current state of affairs. 

Thus, women’s sports are under siege, as is the very definition of “woman.” Two existential threats are raised, and the silence is deafening. amid the cheers of officialdom. Women’s lib, indeed.