All State’s popular ad for its Safe Driver Discount shows how a feminine-primary society is focused on eliminating risk, propping up fictional world views, and stomping out dissent. It also illustrates how when the rubber meets the road, women rely on men, not other women, to enforce the existence of their fantasy world.
The woman starts her attack with “remember when you said men are superior drivers?” The term “superior driver” doesn’t mean the same thing to men and women. When men imagine the best drivers, they picture precise high speed maneuvers. They envision hitting apexes on an F1 circuit and white knuckle NASCAR battles. They conjure the glory of the podium celebration. To men, the most superior drivers are those who take risks and reap the rewards.
To women, driving represents something else entirely. It is transportation, not competition, and success is measured by safety, not the checkered flag. When the man in this ad said at some point in the past that men are superior drivers, it’s doubtful he bragged about men’s talent for maintaining the speed limit with hands at 10:00 and 2:00, while the kids watch Dora the Explorer in the back. It was more likely in the context of discussing Danica Patrick’s career. So right off the bat, the woman misses the mark with her attempt to connect “men are superior drivers” to her safe driver check.
In feminine-primary Girl World, safeguarding against risk is a matter of great importance. This is an extension of female nature wired to secure the survival of offspring, especially when offspring is young and vulnerable. In a state of nature where life is brutal and uncivilized, assuring continued survival for the present day is far more important than implementing a carefully thought out plan for achievement that enables a higher quality of life months and years down the road.
Furthermore, female nature is not so concerned with acquiring resources beyond those needed for immediate survival, or those provided by a male. The drive to acquire resources through risk taking behavior is primarily a male trait. To the feminine-primary psychology, risk taking is foolish because it can threaten the well-being and survival of a woman’s children. The man brings home the resources anyway so there is no need for a woman to jeopardize her safety trying to do the same. Therefore, to women, superior equals safer. Superior does not necessarily mean achievement or demonstrated excellence.
Minimizing risk taking behavior sounds good on the surface, but it leads to societal stagnation and collapse. Without risk taking, we would have little of the technology and creature comforts that exist today. When Girl World becomes overly focused on risk avoidance, it smashes the fruits of success by disincentivizing potential risk takers through onerous red tape and regulations.
This is a recipe for sharp decline. The underlying psychology of risk avoidance is a reason why feminine-primary societies fail to rise to greatness in the first place.
The second fallacy of the woman in this ad is the idea that a single exception disproves a statistical probability. Without arguing the merits of whether men or women are better drivers on average, she presents her safe driver check as evidence that men can’t be superior, because if they are, no woman could receive such an award. It’s the equivalent of declaring victory over someone who says men are taller than women by producing Brittney Griner’s driver’s license showing she’s 6’8″.
Furthermore, the level of accomplishment that a driver must achieve to get a safe driver check is paltry. The woman in this ad carries on about six months without an accident. Does she expect that her male companion, or that most men across the country, aren’t able to meet this low standard? To assert that men can’t be superior drivers because women receive safe driving checks is the same as arguing men aren’t taller than women because look at all the women who are tall enough to ride the kiddie roller coaster at Six Flags.
When the man is about to stammer out his reply to the woman’s attack, she shuts him down by channeling the voice of the President from 24. Her own voice would be insufficient to abruptly stifle the response. This illustrates how when women find themselves in conflict, or if someone comes along who challenges their fantasy world view, the knee-jerk reaction is to get a man with authority to take her side, and use that authority to defeat the opponent. In this case, the authoritarian voice bestowed upon her is from a man who any viewer knows could physically crush her companion.
Rather than have an honest discussion about what “superior driver” means, and how her own situation doesn’t outweigh averages across an entire population, this woman chooses to present her meaningless evidence, declare victory, and shut down the conversation. This is the same mindset that leads to the “equal pay for equal work” cohort continuing to parrot the same false and misleading statistics that have been debunked time and time again. For them, it’s not about being correct, it’s about using rhetoric to advance their own interests.
Whether in the form of winning a fleeting girls vs. boys argument, or winning victimhood status as supposedly oppressed members of the workforce, this arguing tactic comes from the same underlying scheme. Win through rhetorical means, and at a minimum receive the good feelings that come from perceived victory.
In the more socially harmful cases, a rhetorical win results in lavish wealth transfers for the poor victims, courtesy of policies adopted and enforced by the predominantly male government.