There is a difference between sexism and biology. And before throwing down the “sexist” claim, it’s important to understand the difference.
Sexism is basically telling people (historically women) that they cannot do X, Y, or Z because of their sex. These things were possible, but due to social constraints were not “acceptable” and so they were forbidden. That’s sexism.
However, there are certain things in life that may appear sexist at first blush, but are actually biological constraints. These are not sexist, although they may be sex-specific.
Men cannot, for example, have babies. That is not sexist, that’s biology.
Or to make examining such things less heated, it’s often helpful to extrapolate from the animal world, from nature in general, to understand the difference between sexism and biology.
Besides the seahorse and Emperor penguin and a few other token examples, for the most part, by and large, it is the female of the species who does the bulk of the work rearing the young. Now one could fight it is not “fair” till the cows come home, but it simply is what it is.
Without mothering, most offspring simply do not survive or if they do they are confused and unprepared for what lies ahead. Sure there are examples of animals who need no mothering or fathering (sea turtles, for example), but again if that’s the way they are biologically designed that is a far cry from it being a “choice.”
In the animal kingdom, none fight this. They simply go about life doing their biological role and everything works out great.
We humans, despite being the “most intelligent” species on the planet, seem to be the only ones who want to ignore biology and define it for ourselves.
It’s at most a fool’s errand. But people still do.
Let those who have ears hear!
Can you name some examples of this either in your life or that you have seen in the lives of others? Please share in the comments!
Notes From a Red Pill Girl 
A transgender weightlifter who transitioned from male to female caused outrage after he won a female competition Sunday.
Laurel Hubbard, born a male, outperformed his female competitors in the Australian International competition
http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/20/transgender-weightlifter-wins-womens-competition/
I don’t think looking at nature is a good comparison for how humans do or should act. Nature gives examples of all ways in which things can and do work.
Birds for example 1) some birds mate and never have anything more to do with each other 2)some birds mate and remain with each other until the young leave the nest 3) some birds mate for life.
Fish usually have the female lay eggs and the male fertilizes them and neither of the parents have anything more to do with them.
With mammals it is often one male controls many females and is not replaced until another male drives him off. Leaving many males to go without reproducing ever. Some males will share food with the female and the offspring but there are many species that do not, in fact many times the female must protect the offspring from the male.
In nature it is rare for the male to have any purpose other than to breed with the female. It is common for herd animals to have a male keep his females near by so that he can be sure that they are not taken away by another male but he does not supply the female or the offspring with anything.
Humans require a long time to reach maturity. So we need something very different than what is required in nature. We are part of nature but we have a brain that functions very differently from that of other creatures in nature.
I think it is our brain that makes it difficult to define our biology. And without a clear definition it is hard to state what our biological roles actually are. We all know how the sex part works but that is about the only thing we can say with any amount of confidence.
All of the examples of how the creatures of nature interact is more social rather than biological. Nature has the advantage of knowing its own social rules and it adheres to those rules. Humans seem to have a problem in this department. As you go back in history and see less and less choices/diversity the better we seemed to have functioned.
There still exists pockets of humans that have set social rules and all adhere to those rules and all is well in their society. So perhaps social freedom is our problem.
We are in the current crisis of culture because women have been “raising” sluts and fornicators for the last 60+ years.
I know of one family where some or all of the children a woman raised grew up to be alcoholics, drug users,or bastard spawning fornicators like herself who left the practice of the Catholic faith.
I chose not to live that way. As the man I raise my children, my woman works.
Raising kids nowadays is to important a task to be left to women folk anymore.
Always knew them Olympic lifters were weirdos
It happens all the time in modern heterosexual relationships. Women are encouraged to be more masculine, and men are encouraged to be more feminine. As a result, sexual attraction/polarity dissipates which causes many of the broken and bland relationships that plague our society.
I thought it was common for most penguins that the parents trade off watching the brood to allow each other to eat. However, I don’t think there is another species that requires as much parental input as humans.
As for “sexism”, feminists deeply resent any limitation put on women by society or nature. Their first appeal is to government. This can lead to very hare brained concepts. The most recent that comes to mid is feminist snow plowing in Sweden. It was said that hospitals an clinics had to deal with four times as many broken bones as normal. If I didn’t put such a high value on doughnuts, I would bet they do it again next winter.
There’s also sexism that is the logical outgrowth of biology.
Like, for example, not allowing to vote. This is sexism, but it’s an outgrowth of the biological fact that women favor a larger government that ‘nurtures’ its people. Freedom-loving men would be foolish to support such a status quo.
On top of that, women only get to vote if men deign to allow it (look at how the 19th Amendment was passed), which reveals what a joke the notion of ‘equality of the sexes’ really is.
The “dad figure” does not exist in mammals. Just in birds.
Mammals have the “babies daddy” alpha individual who impregnates all the females, but the “babies daddy” leaves the scenario. He does not stay there to take care of his offspring. That is something female individual do all together in matriarchies.
The figure of the dad staying together with the mom and the babies is totally artificial. It comes form the Agricultural Revolution.
Due to this artificial fact we have such a figures as the “dumb dad”, the “beta provider”, the “cuckold hubby”, the “raped in Court hubby”, the “bitter dad who killed his dreams to rise a family”, the “alpha who becomes beta” (Bard Pitt case, and so many cases)…
I think the best deal for a man is to be child free, or in the worse case, to be a deadbeat dad.
Being with a divorced mom with already grown up children who receive economic support from biological dad is not a bad deal, too.
“Besides the seahorse and Emperor penguin and a few other token examples, for the most part, by and large, it is the female of the species who does the bulk of the work rearing the young.”
This is only true in species that use internal fertilization of eggs. In species were fertilization is external (spreading sperm over ejected eggs, like in most fish or amphibians) the male is actually slightly more likely to provide care of young than the female.
Why? In internal fertilzation, it is easy for the male to be fooled into caring for offspring that are not his- leading to the extinction of those genes. Hence, he is less likely to care for the young or invest in them.
In external fertilization, he usually can’t be tricked into caring for another male’s young, so it is beneficial for him to care for them and invest more.
The takeaway? If you want me to care for the kids, the man needs to be sure they are actually his… sexual promiscuity encourages abandonment of kids by men.