A funny thing happened to the "Day Without Women," the momentous, earth-shaking, world-changing event that was supposed to take place last Wednesday, when millions of women, incensed by the outcome of last year's election, were proposing to rise up en masse. But when the day came, almost nothing had happened (save some closed schools and some ludicrous protests), due to the good sense of most women in rejecting the feminist mantras, and seeing the world as it is. They know the world hasn't been set up to denigrate women, and that the feminists' view of injustice is highly selective. There are indeed some disparities in the way men and women are treated, but some of them work to advantage the women, to the discomfort and danger of males.

You may see fewer women than men in the Cabinet, in the Senate, as CEOs, or in corporate boardrooms. But there are more than there once were, and their numbers are rising. On the other hand, you see no women at all who plow roads in the snow, haul trash bags around in the dark in the cold, rainy mornings, shinny up poles to mend power lines in the midst of a blizzard, pour concrete, drive fuel trucks, or wash windows outside of very tall buildings. And you don't see many replanting the sod and cleaning up the trash the morning after your typical pro-choice-anti-war-anti-GOP-all-purpose-protest-and-freak-show has made a huge mess of the Mall.

You don't see young women being called on to fight and to die for their country. You see no pictures of eighteen-year-old girls wading ashore on Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944, though the eighteen-year-old boys who did so were just as loved, just as precious, and just as deserving of life. You won't find gender equity at Walter Reed either, where the men with grave wounds will outnumber the women. Or in Arlington National Cemetery for that matter, where the names on the markers are largely one gender. If the gender disparities here bother the feminists, they haven't said much about it. As Suzanne Venker wrote on this site recently, the really hard jobs that keep the world going rely on male power, and sane people know this. On the whole, men's work is harder, dirtier, more dangerous, and much more essential than women's. When women strike, people may be inconvenienced. When men go on strike, people die.

Of course people know this, which is why the strike fizzled. "In order to work, a general strike has to actually stop something from functioning," the New York Times quoted Todd Gitlin. "It plays to your inner audience, not your outer audience. ... anywhere it hasn't done that can't be counted as a success." If you count as your "outer audience" people who don't think a pink hat equals making an argument, the strike was a flop of colossal proportions; a success only at exposing the unpleasant reality that the things the feminists tell you are lies.

The world as it is isn't a plot against women, but a series of tradeoffs, in which people do the best that they can with the limitations they're given, making prudent adjustments according to circumstance. While no work is ideal, women's work is on the whole cleaner and safer than men's is. And while some men are beasts (and their numbers are legion) society on the whole acts to benefit women, for whom the world is made safer by men.

Noemie Emery, a Washington Examiner columnist, is a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard and author of "Great Expectations: The Troubled Lives of Political Families."