One of the key elements to any religion is that whereas there might be much which is difficult to defend logically, it nonetheless fits into a broader theological picture which provides a greater truth; and what holds that picture together, in the face of all the in-built illogic, is faith. Faith creates a coherence out of the incoherent and contradictory. And when religion expects us to intellectually sustain what our reasons and senses tell us is simply unsustainable, it waves a wand and calls it dogma, thereby excusing us of thought on the matter.
When we say we respect another's religion, what we actually mean is we're not going to publicly ridicule the funny bits, even though in the privacy of our own minds, we chuckle away. Papal infallibility, consubstantiation, Defender of the Faith, Wailing Wall, Mecca, prayer scrolls, circumcision: we tolerate (though perhaps with quiet amusement) those we don't accept, but ardently defend those we do.
We tolerate other's dogmas so long as other religions don't try to impose them on us. Even Saudi Arabia turns a blind eye to the fornication and serial copulation of the ex-pats there. But there are two exceptions: Taliban is one. Feminism is the other.
Feminism is very like a religion in that it is dependent on huge leaps of faith, which cannot be explained by logic or evidence or rational argument. Feminism can only be defended by waving the magic wand and pronouncing equality between the sexes a dogma beyond discussion. Yet unlike almost all other religions, feminism wishes to impose its theology on all societies everywhere, regardless of the intellectual contradictions at its heart, and the evidence before our eyes every second of our lives.
Examine the news of last week. Did anyone see a single girl or woman rioter in Ardoyne or Drumcree? The only woman who was clearly evident in all the news footage of that appalling violence was a woman constable. And what was she doing in the middle of this nearly murderous mayhem? Simply behaving like Florence Nightingale, minding a wounded colleague.
Can anyone who believes in the "equality of the sexes" explain how it is that Washington is awash with female staffers whose ambition seems to be to bed important male congressmen? Clinton discovered this with many, many young women; so it seems has Congressman Gary Condit, who was not so much two-timing his wife, but eight-timing her.
Congressman Condit is not a pretty boy. He's not young. He plain and he's 54 and he had eight mistresses - though apparently the figure is now down to seven, and probably falling. But consider: new feminism is nearly 40 years old, yet here we have a career woman, poor Chandra Levy, aged 24, doting on this complete and utter creep, even colour-coding his shirts during the hours he'd sit waiting in his flat before he would finally oblige her with his pelvic attentions. She even told friends that she wanted to have his baby - ie, she wanted her offspring to have powerful genes. Well, if he got her pregnant, she wouldn't have been the first of his seraglio in that condition; his youngest mistress, aged 18, recently had a child.
Ten days ago, a bullshark bit off and swallowed the arm of eight-year old Jesse Arbogast in Florida. His uncle (unnamed) dived into the water and rescued the boy, then ran back into the sea, seized the shark and wrestled it ashore. A stranger, Jared Klein, drew his gun and shot the shark through the head. The beast was still thrashing around, so while Jared held the jaws open with his baton, another outsider, Tony Thomas, reached into the shark's throat and retrieved the boy's arm, which was later sewn back to his body.
This is, it's true, an incredible affair involving three remarkable men. But is there anywhere in any of these stories a place where women and men are interchangeable? Can you imagine a 24-year-old man filling the time waiting for his woman lover, plain and 54, by colour coding her blouses? Can you imagine that woman not having one such lover, but eight of them, the youngest just 18, plus of course a husband at home? Can you imagine a capital city full of young men anxious to bed women old enough to be their mothers, because their political power is such an aphrodisiac?
The argument against having women in the armed forces is that their caring instinct takes over. Very well; and was not the behaviour of the RUC officer the very proof of that objection? And far from criticising her for what she was doing, I honour her for it: not merely is she brave, but compassionate too. But in the middle of a battle, is this the best use of her skills as a riot-control officer? So is it right to put men and women in the line together, when the female desire to mend the wounded is so very powerful as to be almost irresistable?
Official enforcement of the feminist dogma requires denial of the evidence heaped before us every day of the week. You can't make a functioning society based on the lie that men and women are not really all that different. Women don't throw stones at strangers; nor do they reach into a shark's throat looking for a stranger's arm. Young men don't colour code shirts while waiting for their menopausal female lovers, or cluster in hungry concupiscent packs around older, more powerful women.
Not quite Q.E.D. But nearly.