Today’s smattering of verbal brilliance comes to you by way of unintended consequences resulting from the Bolshevik Revolution.

To be honest, it’s not so much “Bolshevik’ as it is something that sounds a lot like it.

With the 2016 Presidential election about 2 years in our rear view mirror, elements in this country are still reeling from the results. There’s a mindset that the outcome is indicative of our sexist ways because we just plain refuse to elect a woman to the office of POTUS. At least that’s what we’re made to believe.

The idea that this country decided to install the less eviler of the two candidates, regardless of gender, is completely out of scope for the conversation.

Since that day in November, 2016, we’ve experienced an increased focus on what I can only characterize as a gender war.

It should be noted that I’m of the belief that this is just one arm of a larger conflict around our culture.

Granted a lot of stuff was going on before the 2016 election. In previous elections, the phrase, “Stop the Republican war on women” was bandied about and hit its mark in framing a specific narrative. The battle went into overdrive during the summer of 2016 when footage of one of the candidates bragging about participating in sexist behavior became public. Although that statement should have killed his campaign, it didn’t.

After that came the woman’s march, hats resembling body parts that should be covered not necessarily with a hat became prominent. Shortly thereafter, the #metoo movement was born.

Since then we’ve been inundated ad nauseam with all sorts of tidbits, nuggets, factoids, and propaganda from our legislative bodies, our entertainment media, our news media, our employers, and other entities that the days of treating the sexes different in any way whatsoever are gone.

Basically, that means you could never reboot M*A*S*H using the same template that was used in the original series.

Ladies and gentlemen, it’s one of those stupid little tidbits, nuggets, factoids, and pieces of propaganda that inspires me to approach the front desk of the internet today so that I can appropriately call it out as a downstream impact of the Bolshevik Revolution.

Have you heard about the pay gap between the genders?

Apparently there is one, however the conclusions made about it don’t really match the statistics.

In recent weeks, some big company that employs a lot of people worldwide and generally caters to the mindset of one particular side of the culture war posted an article on its intranet site about the aforementioned pay gap. In the article, the company touted itself as not having such a gap.

Kudos to the big company for that.

“Woman, and racially and ethnically diverse associates receive compensation from [Big Company] that’s, on average, equal to that received by men, and non-diverse associates.”

Uuuuuuuummmmmmmm, what?

Excuse me while I commandeer the intercom and request a price check on non-diverse associates.

I don’t understand how an article designed to strengthen the community by announcing that pay is equal across the board achieves its goals by using terms like “diverse” and “non-diverse” when it comes to talking about associates.

For that matter, where is the distinction made between “diverse” and “non-diverse” associates?

Race?

Creed?

Orientation?

Political ideology?

Gender?

For what it’s worth, I reside in what I believe to be the “non-diverse” group of associates. Of course, that categorization is based on the fact that I’m Christian, openly straight, and white goes pretty far back in my blood line. When you check those boxes on your resume, you’ve pretty much joined a class of people who have been known to take the lead in some (not all) pretty oppressive behavior in the past.

Does that automatically make me non-diverse though? I would expect that if I were to spit in a test tube and send it off to some lab with a check for $99.95 in a self-addressed, stamped envelope, they would find my genetic roots to be scattered all over northwestern Europe. That’s opposed to some isolated region of five square miles where they eat nothing but saltines and pan blanco slathered excessively with Miracle Whip.

By the way, I hate mayonnaise and any derivative thereof. That being said, I doubt that I hail from there.

So you’ll need to step outside of the bubble at this point and give the following words a fair and impartial hearing. It’s a pretty radical suggestion that I’m putting forward, and I’m not looking for you to reject it off the cuff.

The premise of deliberately achieving diversity within our own little microcosms of society is about as productive as my dog Faith re-enacting a stock car race around the couch when it rains.

It doesn’t create a sense of calm.

It expels a bunch of energy.

There are a lot of left turns.

The rain still comes.

Diversity doesn’t really need to be based on differences among us as perceived by any of the aforementioned factors.

I know.

Shocking.

Diversity happens anyway, even when no one else is driving it.

Where’s the valid need to put it into overdrive?