Gorging on Tapir

by Jon N. Hall2/24/17
Paleontologists have recently unearthed compelling new evidence suggesting that for most of the early Pleistocene, the instincts of Man’s proto-human ancestors were severely attenuated. Although there are still disagreements in the scientific community over certain particulars of the raw data, some researchers speculate that some members of Australopithecus africanus may not have even sensed, however dimly, that they were related to and belonged with the others in their group. How, you may well wonder, could scientists know such a thing? More importantly, how could creatures so bereft even survive, much less take part in the long evolutionary march that ended with us, Homo sapiens—Modern Man?

To answer those questions you must first appreciate how terribly difficult life was on the arid savannahs of East Africa where Man arose. Indeed, life was so grindingly hard in this epoch of severe drought and global warming that our hominid ancestors, it is theorized, were drained of the vital energy needed for instincts to fully arise.

Our Pleistocene forebears spent their days under the torrid equatorial sun feverishly searching for the roots and bark of the xerophilous plants that sustained them in their wretched existence. (On that point, the coprolite evidence is unassailable.) During this desperate ceaseless toil, males and females were utterly oblivious of each other.

There is now a consensus among top scientists that these creatures at dusk scurried separately to a communal cave shared with other non-threatening species and, utterly exhausted from non-stop foraging, collapsed upon a nest with their cave mates, falling into a deep dreamless sleep. And there, dozing in that clutch of intertwining herbivores, our ancient ancestors, against all odds, miraculously found each other, and the seeds of our species’ survival were precariously sown. (We must take care here, as the fossil record is not yet complete, but we do find vestiges of such somnambulistic coupling even today, primarily in the mating habits of the suburban middle class.)

Be that as it may, Man’s prospects for survival would soon brighten when an alpha male hominid discovered that the jawbone of an ass could be used to subdue one of the pesky tapirs crowding him at the waterhole. This discovery so shocked and amazed the hominid that he whacked the poor tapir again for good measure, killing it. It then dawned on the hominid that he, too, like the leopard he had once observed, could eat of the flesh of the tapir, and he ripped into it, greedily devouring it.

The flesh was more delicious than anything he had ever tasted, and with every mouthful, as the rich nutrients flooded his starving system, came a wave of well-being and strength such as he had never known. When he had gorged himself, for the first time in his life—indeed, for the first time in the history of his species—he reared up to stand on his hind legs. Then he flung the half-eaten tapir over his shoulder and walked back to his communal cave entirely on his hind legs, thus completing one of the most dramatic evolutionary leaps in all of Natural History.

It was later than usual when the hominid returned to his cave. The other cave residents were about to retire for the evening, but a strange creature loomed in the twilight shadows at the mouth of their cave. They dimly recognized one of their own, a fellow herbivore, but hideously transformed, standing on but two legs, clutching the jawbone of an ass, an indeterminate mass draped over one shoulder and, worst of all, sporting a fiendish leer that nary a one of them could interpret as that of an herbivore. Then, as it filled their nostrils, they realized that what matted the hair of the creature’s face and chest was blood and that the mass on his shoulder was a corpse, and they collectively gasped in horror. One by one, giving the fearsome new creature a wide berth, the antelope, sloth and all the cave’s diverse inhabitants scrambled past the hominid and out into the African night. All the creatures save one: a hominid female. Immediately, she grasped what the other creatures could not—tapir could be eaten.

As the male laid the carcass down upon the cave floor the hominid female raced for it, but he kicked her across the cave as though she were a mere tabby cat. When she came to, she began moaning from hunger. For the first time they were alone in the cave. Her whimpering and whining softened him and he noticed her for the first time. She was a creature much like him, who, like the leopard, could eat of the tapir. Being gorged, he decided to share the tapir with her; besides, there was more where that came from. He allowed her to approach him on all fours and threw her a haunch.

Her propinquity, as it were, gave him ideas, as his instincts, dormant since his kind had descended from the trees, began to assert themselves. While the female feasted upon tapir, oblivious to everything but its succulent flesh, the alpha male had his way with her. (The ability to mate while otherwise engaged, unique to the female of the species, survives to this day.)

When he had finished, sated and feeling the prehistoric equivalent of “it doesn’t get any better than this,” he let go of a blood-curdling whoop of triumph that reverberated throughout the cave and startled even he himself. Just then an inquisitive leopard entered the cave. The hominid female cowered in terror, but the male cracked the leopard’s skull with his trusty ass’s jawbone and smote him. From that moment on, herbivores throughout the veldt shunned the pair, and the cave would be theirs alone.

Thus, millennia ago on the arid plains of East Africa was forged the bond—nay, the contract—between the sexes that has stood the test of time down through the ages, from prehistory through antiquity to the Space Age until, roughly, 1969.

That contract, which defined our gender roles and duties, stipulated that males provide meat, and that females provide, let me be delicate here—themselves. (Over the eons females gradually began to augment their part of the deal by gathering berries.)

But the contract that has served our species so well is now under siege. Females no longer need males. Tapir is no longer a problem. Females themselves can simply buy meat, as they have now entered the workforce and have the funds to do so. And females no longer need rely on males to protect them from leopard, either, as males have been extravagantly successful in reducing the number and range of all the big cats. Life is much safer and much easier than it was millennia ago in East Africa.

Where we see the schism between the sexes most vividly is in the ever-increasing number of females who bond not with males, but with other females. That unit, the traditional family, that is the basis of all cultures and economies, is now threatened. We see how boys who grow up without fathers have spawned a new crime wave. Is it in our species’ interest for this once great institution, the family, to become extinct? Wasn’t there anything to keep the sexes together besides tapir?

Besides the newfound independence of women, the family is also threatened by a new ideology of separatism espoused by women not genetically disposed to forming families who have sold a bill of goods to women who are so disposed. Lesbians are defining the terms and setting the agenda for all women. It’s time for these Women’s Studies theorists to drop trou and show which side their bread is buttered on, time for a little truth in advertising.

The perniciousness of this ideology that men are the source of all evil is percolating up through the entire culture and is poisoning that most sweet and especial thing between the sexes: romance. We men need to rise up on our hind legs and disabuse salvageable heterosexual women of this hateful new ideology and bring them back into the fold.

Women could be utterly independent from us men were it not for one nagging little thing: our essence. Therefore, men should henceforth deny their precious bodily fluids to women who cleave to hateful ideologies. And so, I do hereby exhort all men making deposits in sperm banks to put this rider on their donations: “Only to be injected into the loins of happily married heterosexual women.” Why should we men take part in the propagation of a race of Amazons that hates us?


Jon N. Hall is a programmer/analyst from Kansas City. • (791 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Gorging on Tapir

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    An interesting version of prehistory, though I’m still more inclined to the aquatic ape theory popularized by Elaine Morgan (e.g., in The Scars of Evolution). It is an interesting question how, in the absence of mirrors, one can recognize one’s own kind from other, reasonably similar, animals.

    Note that Catharine MacKinnon eventually married a man despite teaching that all sex is equivalent to rape. One wonders why. One also wonders if modern feminists seek to create the world of John Wyndham’s “Consider Her Ways”.

  2. Anniel says:

    Jon, What a delightful Tour de Farce. Thank you, I laughed until I cried.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Quest for Fire would be a good accompaniment to this article…whatever it’s about.

    Having engaged in it myself, evolutionary explanations for any traits are (to my ear now) hilarious “just-so” stories that are so speculative as to be worthless. As I understand it, there is no good evidence for a transition (evolution) from apes to humans. The mystery of homology (common traits) remains, but is also explained (probably better so) by common design.

    I no longer accept Neo-Darwinism as anything more than a atheistic religion. The curious thing is that it is apparent that life is designed to evolve. The micro-evolution that can indeed be explained, in part, by natural selection has the power to do so at all because variation is part of the miracle of the built-in design of organisms.

    Mankind is obviously adaptable enough to make people believe there is no substantive different between men and women, so go ahead and pee sitting down in the ladies room if you are a freak (excuse me…I mean “LGBT”).

    This history of mankind is still a mystery, as is the origin of life. What we can be sure of is that no neo-Darwinian process has the power or the time to build the complex life we see. Still, the details remain a profound mystery.

    What any sane man *does* know is the Raquel Welch will never be mistaken for Bruce Jenner, or vice versa. Although the two sexes share many things, there is an inherent, important, and wonderful difference. And these differences don’t disappear just because some chicks have an addadictomy or men take hormones and grow breasts. You can play Hamlet on the stage, but you’re not really a Prince of Denmark.

  4. Tom Riehl Tom Riehl says:

    Up until the last four paragraphs, this was an excellent Tour de Farce, as Anniel says. The lessons for our society are clumsy after that point.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Are you saying that the last 4 paragraphs are inaccurate? Certainly there are plenty of women who don’t share those attitudes. But there are those who like to say, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” — and presumably there are those who make the mistake of believing it.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        The current fetish for the freaks and the androgynous (and their status as a protected species) is what you get when you declare that gender is a mere identity, and that the traditional female identity, in particular, is oppressive and born of male hegemony.

        My position is that we may not quite reach the insanity of the French Revolution because there are enough relatively decent women out there who blunt the Robespierre-like destructive zealotry….even though they indeed want their feminist cake and to eat it too.

        Men have been marginalized in this Progressive culture….the very culture that is letting in, and idealizing, hordes of Islamic misogynists. The enemy of women is not white males. The enemy of women is their own contradictory doctrine.

        For now, relative peace is maintained although men continue to be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness and feminine fascism. Such cases, although serious, are relatively isolated. What is not isolated is that we now live in a world where all masculinity is suspect and the general zeitgeist is the expectation that womanhood (as defined by feminists) is normal. Men, in effect, should aspire to be more like women. No wonder there is such championing of queers and such.

        How far this play-acting can go before the bubble bursts (women in combat, for example) is anybody’s guess. But we do know that when dealing with the Left, people’s lives — in fact, the very survival of civilization — are not too high a price to pay to maintain the Utopian ideology.

        Bluntly stated, sexism and racism are alive and well in America. It’s just that any prejudice against men and white people (including Asian people) is laundered as “social justice” or some other euphemism.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Liberal ideology holds until reality forces it to yield. This can happen with individuals when they confront reality, which is why some feminists already are turning against the current fad for transgendered males. (Incidentally, there was a recent incident involving a female-who-thinks-she’s-male who won a women’s wrestling competition. The others complained because, in order to further her delusion, she takes male sex hormones — i.e., steroids.)

          But the Inner Party as a group will never admit their folly, and there will always be plenty of Outer Party fools to believe them. If Muslim invaders indulge themselves in enough rapes to force them to confront the issue they might finally admit their error (and if not, they probably would find no one to believe them anymore). But by then it will probably be too late.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Speaking of the inner party, it’s funny because no one, and I mean no one of significance, is taking them on. Most of the politics is on the second level, dealing with people who already absorbed the re-marked, re-packed rotgut ideology of the hardcore poison-people. This makes adoption of the re-packaged rotgut a ratchet-by-ratchet affair. Today Bruce Jenner pees in the woman’s room of Trump tower. Tomorrow what will the agenda be? But it’s pretty sure that those not engaging the inner party will be no means be setting that agenda. They will just be reacting to it, and absorbing much of it out of pragmatism.

            I think it’s already too late for Europe in regards to Muslim invaders (err…”refugees”). The ideology of multiculturalism trumps reality. The only thing that can save Europe is a benevolent Hitler, one who recognizes that (this time) there really is a people amongst them who are an existential danger and who will deport (instead of incinerate). But what are the chances of reason ever triumphing in Europe?

            • Timothy Lane says:

              As a matter of fact, initially the Nazis were content merely to discriminate against Jews and seek to get them to emigrate (forcing them to leave most of their fortunes behind, conveniently). They got rid of about half their Jews that way. But then they realized that those emigrants were an anti-Nazi force wherever they went, and they also acquired large numbers of Jews in their eastern conquests.

  5. Stuart Whitman Stuart Whitman says:

    i believe archeologists discovered a transgender cave as well. Pretty sure it was near present day Paris. Or was it Berlin?

  6. Rosalys says:

    Who knew? In the beginning was the Left; and all it took to set mankind on the Right path was free wheeling the jawbone of an ass! Great one Jon. I had a good laugh all the way up to the last four paragraphs, which then turned serious. So it appears that the solution, though not easy, is simple.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Horrible letterspacing. Other than that, what”s not to like? Men were the very first welfare state for women. They should at least be acknowledged historically for that especially now that so many “men” are being purposefully turned into eunuchs by feminism. If we can have black history month, why not a day, if not a billboard, remembering men’s vital role as a provider?

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Note that it doesn’t say that women don’t help provide for themselves, so it’s not actually explicitly anti-female equality. But it praises men, and liberals see men as the overdogs, and those two facts activate their reflexive outrage.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I think the message is suitable provocative. It is a defense of men as providers. All women like that, in practice, if not in name. Who doesn’t want to be provided for? The calculus has been changed via feminism in that it is thought it is wrong for women to be provided for (by men, but by the state is okay) because that puts them under the power of men who have been branded as historic oppressors.

        This billboard is a shot across the bow of that notion therefore it is “sexist” by definition because it does not cater to the superiority of women, let alone the notion that “equality” means that any notion of differing sex roles is verboten. The only PC message on that billboard would be one of two things:

        WOMEN DON’T NEED MEN

        WOMEN ARE BETTER THAN MEN.

        Neither of those ideas would be in the least controversial in Marxist/Progressive/politically-correct culture.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *