Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Obama's Distaff Support
This article must be read to be believed. The author says that
What do you think?
I can't help it, but reading about such episodes of screaming, gushing and swooning [over Obama - my edit] makes me wonder whether women -- I should say, "we women," of course -- aren't the weaker sex after all. Or even the stupid sex, our brains permanently occluded by random emotions, psychosomatic flailings and distraction by the superficial. Women "are only children of a larger growth," wrote the 18th-century Earl of Chesterfield. Could he have been right?and concludes
The theory that women are the dumber sex -- or at least the sex that gets into more car accidents -- is amply supported by neurological and standardized-testing evidence. Men's and women's brains not only look different, but men's brains are bigger than women's (even adjusting for men's generally bigger body size). The important difference is in the parietal cortex, which is associated with space perception. Visuospatial skills, the capacity to rotate three-dimensional objects in the mind, at which men tend to excel over women, are in turn related to a capacity for abstract thinking and reasoning, the grounding for mathematics, science and philosophy. . . .This article proposes that there is an actual class difference between women who stiol support Clinton and the women who are now supporting Obama.
So I don't understand why more women don't relax, enjoy the innate abilities most of us possess (as well as the ones fewer of us possess) and revel in the things most important to life at which nearly all of us excel: tenderness toward children and men and the weak and the ability to make a house a home. (Even I, who inherited my interior-decorating skills from my Bronx Irish paternal grandmother, whose idea of upgrading the living-room sofa was to throw a blanket over it, can make a house a home.) Then we could shriek and swoon and gossip and read chick lit to our hearts' content and not mind the fact that way down deep, we are . . . kind of dim.
What do you think?
Comments
At the risk of sounding regressive, I understand and appreciate the fact that most men and women are very different in their method of handling emotions, and I believe that trying to say that there is no difference between the two will only exacerbate miscommunication and frustration between the sexes.
The only apparent beneficiary is the republican party as this general bashing of the democractics and their supporters could potentially boost Clinton or Obama supporters and could potentially further prolong outcome of the Democratic primaries.
RAGING
Seriously, the woman who wrote this is of the same ilk as a Jewish Neo-nazi...in order to write such things, her self loathing must be immense. As a firm believer in the use of scientific knowledge in the observation of the world, I will not argue with the fact that there are unavoidable physical differences between the biological sexes. I am sometimes frustrated when I can't run as fast or throw as far as some of my male comrades, and hormonal-chemical balances of the body do influence behavior to some extent. To what extent our behavior is biologically controlled versus a product of cultural influences is still being hotly debated. I tend to be a bit more in the "nurture" over "nature" camp, but with both biologists and anthropologists among my circle of friends, I understand the importance of both. However, to suggest that women are weaker intellectually is absolute flipping crap on a shingle. That this so called journalist's "chicks are dumb" theory is "is amply supported by neurological and standardized-testing evidence." is ridiculous. There have been other studies that said that women are just as good at maths and science as men, but actually by a margin more skilled with creative, artistic, and metaphorical thinking. (Rym says I have a good fusiform gyrus, which shows that he is a good boyfriend.) Sure, slightly different, but aren't all humans? Race and Sex are both controlled by DNA, which controls slight differences in physical make up and bodily structure, but only the most heinous KKK asshat would even suggest that these factors make humans superior or inferior to each other. I cannot wait for the day when society becomes truly color-blind and gender-blind. That will be a good day. Until then, we must go all Twisty on the jerks that perpetuate the cycle of bigotry.
Is that acting against their self interest, or is it acting selfishly and selling out their gender?
As for the article, aside from commenting on what a poor satire writer the author is (if it was even meant as satire at all,) I can't really say any more than what Emily already did. The author is fucking bonkers.
Also, mad props for the phrase "flipping crap on a shingle."
All I see here is one woman trying to justify her own shallowness and intellectual laziness.
One of the responses to her article: It just makes me wonder at the woman who not only suggests that she herself is a fool, but feels it necessary to lump the rest of humanity in there with her. Speak for yourself, ye idjit. Maybe its just that misery (or stupidity) loves company.
While it's true that most of humanity falls into one of two, uh, camps in either regard, the line has historically been wider and fuzzier than you might suspect.