Mr. Moss is the owner of Zenyatta, a very large and special filly who beat the colts and geldings in the Breeder's Cup Classic this past weekend, an event promoted by the media as Zenyatta versus the boys. Rachel Alexandra, another special filly, beat the males in the Preakness and Woodward Stakes earlier this year. These events were very highly rated for a horse race. Moss is a wealthy, retired record executive who is friends with the rich and famous like Sting and Bill Gates. He named his horses, like Zenyatta and Tiago, off of Police album covers. So, Moss and his rich friends and the media can't help but use what went on in horse racing this year as a statement for the masses, right?
"Asked to address the social significance of what has turned out to be the Year of the Female in horse racing, Moss said:
“The social significance is apparent,” Moss said. “Women are as good as men. That's it. If not better on occasion. Go for it. Take it.” (NY Daily News, AP)
What follows is to Moss and anyone else who finds social lessons lurking in a horse race, from those like me who cringe when they hear such sweeping statements. It reaches far beyond horse racing, so even if you cannot stand the Sport of Kings, read on:
Great, the filly won. Can't we leave the human social engineering out of Zenyatta's victory?
And, typical of those in Moss's position, the mixed message: Z beating the males is a big deal, yet any girl is as good or better than a male and can beat them. Which is it? Obviously, Moss does not believe any girl can beat boys or Z would have taken on the boys a long time ago. Another rich white guy in the entertainment business who talks all progressive but acts another way entirely.
For those of you who wondered why the media and racing got behind Zenyatta and RA in such a fevorish pitch, the quote from Moss says it all.
Yeah women. Boo men. And, oh, let the good ol boys make tons of cash off of this because we are all fools.
And note in turf articles that RA and Zenyatta did not merely "win" their races or "beat" the boys; no, they "beat up" the boys, they "wiped the track" with them (actual quotes from the media). Why is that needed?
This sort of game is dangerously misinformed. The physical differences between men and women are more striking than between a filly and a colt. It is never ok to "beat up" the boys, or the girls. For the horseplayers and lovers of the sport, RA and Zenyatta were-and are great fillies who fought hard and beat the boys. For the rest of this bizarre society, it's another chance to show a woman beating up on inferior males. Why does it always have to be about that? Ask a tom girl who grew up being treated like one of the boys by her brothers if males and females are generally equal in competitive drama. Most will answer that the boys are much tougher, and they were toughened up by the boys.
Why can't we praise Z or RA without bashing the colts and geldings they beat, or males in general? I follow racing to escape the social engineering I know is going on in our society, a model designed to emasculate males while exalting women. Why do that? I suggest reading Machiavelli's "The Prince" to understand the importance of nuetering the males that one rules over. It's required reading for U.S. politicians.
A survey recently conducted by a U.S. Gov. funded company which questioned over 10,000 females aged 16-29 throughout this country, asked if them if men in that age group are as masculine, as male-like, as Gen-Xers (aged 30-48), 98 percent aswered "no", and that their aged male peers are more effeminate and are less likely to take charge in a dangerous situation. Twenty percent said they were physically superior to their boyfriends. And, of course, males (especially husbands) are portrayed on TV as bumbling boobs like Ray Ramono or Tim Allen on Home Improvement. Life imitates art.
So, excuse me Mr. Moss. The message that women are as good, if not better, than men has been drilled into everyone's head ad naseum. The message should be that Z is an exceptional filly that was better than any other horse regardless of gender.
If fillies were as good, if not better, at beating colts than any filly who raced colts would not need a weight break to level the playing field. If women were as good, if not better, than the men, then Serena Williams would be competitive against the best males (which she is not, just ask her). We would frown equally on domestic violence of any sort. But society does not, they villify men beating up women (as they should), but laud women who beat up men (who do not fight back).
Remember Lorraina Bobbit? She cut of her husband's you know what? It became a big joke. And then women wonder where all the good men have gone.
Underground. Fact: In all but the rarest of situations, women are not as fast as men, as strong as men, and that gap is NOT closing Mr. Moss. Women are equal or better than men in reasoning and brainpower (IMO). But Z beat the boys physically, not with her brains...but, the real reason the rich like women to control the men is that women are (generally) much more submissive to authority than men. So, if you are engineering a society...you target, flatter and empower the female base. Then you control the men they rule.
Some little girl will hear what Moss and others say, will want to play football or fight against the boys, and then will be in for the shock of her life when a boy truly hits her like she is one of the boys. Then she will run home crying, the mother will sue, the boy who hit her will be villified and possibly prosecuted. But, then again, the next generation coming may be so emasculated that they will just roll over...
It's a horse race. There should be no "social message". But once you make one, be prepared for rebuttal.
This ain't the "greatest generation" of your grandfather, baby. Or, like the Russian guy I work with loves to say, "Most American men are wimps and afraid of everything, especially women. And they are stupid, believe everything their government tells them".
He tells me this because he knows I am not the average, dumbed down white male and he respects me. He laughs daily when he sees propaganda that implies women are superior to men mentally and physically in our media. We, on the other hand, are brainwashed that such statements have merit. The poor guy thought he was moving to rugged individualistic America. That was years ago. Now we are like a flock of scared birds, being led around by those who animate this society.
Z beating the boys was special. A SPECIAL girl can compete and sometimes beat the boys. Not girls generally.
IT IS SPECIAL. So, Mr. Moss, treat it that way. Spare those of us here in the horseracing world your political agenda. We get enough of that garbage outside of here. Stop blurring the lines for the young people out there. And you know as well as I do that in the animal kingdom the male of 99 percent of all creatures, and ALL mammals, is physically superior to the female. That is why running with the bulls in Spain is a daredevil sport for fools and drunks while running with the cows is, well, a joke.
So, congrats on the special filly. But leave the social engineering at the door, ok?
It's a horse race, for crying out loud. Not a social statement for the PR guys to exploit the masses over, ok?
End of open letter.
Moss is a globalist and a liberal. No big deal, except when you make social statements tied to racing a horse. What makes Z's victory so special is BECAUSE she beat the boys...NOT because women are as good or better than men. Because even assuming there is some link between horses and humans, if beating the boys was so routine:
...then why is Z beating the boys such a big deal?
See the hypocrisy of that statement? And silly me, I thought Z's victory meant she was a very special horse, regardless of gender. How nice we have those like Moss to remind that this is all about the gender wars and them lining their pockets off the fevor pitch it produces, and the false hope it gives many young girls who want to beat the very best of the boys in football or basketball, or boxing. And it may surprise you to learn that many female athletes and feminists do not approve of this kind of women can beat men marketing. Its exploitive.
And, btw, I have lived around animals of all kind all of my life. In the animal kingdom, the females still want a male stronger and more fierce than they are to breed with them. It's for survival, get it? That is why most animals fight or physically challenge each other before they mate. If the male backs down, he is history.
Then, of course, there is the black widow spider. Is that where next generation is heading? I apologize for going off on this, but I truly resent such statements being made to the general public under the auspices of horseracing. It makes you think that the race, like American society, was itself engineered.
A great horse trainer several decades ago said that the difference in speed between the colts and fillies is minimal, but that even the most enormous of fillies or mares is no match physically for even an average male thoroughbred. Of course, any scientist could tell you that. Yet, to hear those idiots on TV talking, if a mare is bigger than the boys, she can beat them up and outrun them as well.
A filly beating grade 1 males is very special and RARE. Let's treat it that way and keep the social engineering out of it. Zenyatta won. She did not "beat up" any colts, nor did she send any social message. Its a horse race, for crying out loud!
In the new world order, sporting events and even horse races will be making social statements. And the mindless masses will fall for it hook, line and sinker. And the elite will laugh all the way to the bank.