| « | From The Bit Bucket: Keeping Control |
»
|
|
Friday, September 16, 2005
Ms.
The esteemed Russell Wardlow appears to have drawn some feminist ire:
Whoa. Calm down there, kiddo. (See?? I was going to say "missy," but I used a unisex term instead to show how unsexist I am! CAN I BE YOUR STALKER NOW?)
But this is to be expected from one who would write this, or this. Such "feminists" have no tolerance for the differences between the sexes. In effect, they protest human nature itself. And, as your Curmudgeon has often noted, the universe is indifferent to our opinions of its laws.
To spare any gender-war types in the audience unnecessary additional suffering: please cease to read this tirade if you believe any of the following:
- The sexes are absolutely identical in their capacities, at least in aggregate, omitting the undeniable difference in their procreative roles.
- To ask whether there might be a difference between men and women, in aggregate, is itself intolerable; it should be vilified at the least, punished by law if possible.
- The historical predominance of male accomplishments is solely because of men's suppression of women's equal abilities; apart from that, every field of human endeavor would disclose at least as many female savants as male ones, at every level of achievement.
Your Curmudgeon hopes his audience has segregated itself by now, because to all of the above claims, he replies with a hearty:
The sexes differ in many ways. Just about the only macroscopic thing we have in common is our bipedal stance. Indeed, the differences are so dramatic that a Martian -- are you there, Marvin? Your perspective would be welcome, about now -- would assume that men and women are actually different species who somehow co-evolved to require one another as reproductive collaborators.
Let's have a quick rundown of the most significant measurable differences:
| MEN | WOMEN |
| High center of gravity; optimized for movement. | Low center of gravity; optimized for sitting. |
| Metabolism geared to sharp accelerations; superior peak strength, fleetness and quickness; fight-or-flight response biased toward fighting. | Metabolism geared to endurance under steady, protracted effort; superior fine-motor skills; fight-or-flight response biased toward fleeing. |
| Sexually aggressive; absent social constraints, will use violence to acquire or defend a mate. | Sexually passive-receptive. |
| Superior visual perception; prefers visually intense entertainment. | Superior auditory and olfactory perception; prefers narrative entertainment |
| Superior handling of abstractions and linear logic; weaker at organizing multiple concurrent undertakings. | Weaker handling of abstractions and linear logic; superior at organizing multiple concurrent undertakings. |
| Less risk-averse. | More risk-averse. |
| Less empathic; places more emphasis on individual achievement and status than on group acceptance. | More empathic; places more emphasis on group acceptance than on individual achievement or status. |
| Higher standard deviation in intelligence distribution. | Lower standard deviation in intelligence distribution. |
These are quantifiable, statistically unchallengeable differences. Individual women will occasionally outperform individual men at specific "men's" tasks, just as individual men will occasionally outperform individual women at specific "women's" tasks. As aggregates, men and women quite obviously differ very widely indeed.
The past forty years'worth of gender-war feminist cant has been an attempt to make men feel guilty about those differences, and to make well-adjusted women, who appreciate and celebrate those differences, feel guilty about that, too.
Were women historically discouraged from competing with men, even in those areas where women have greater ability? Yes, they were. There's no denying it. Too many women writers, for example, could only get their work published under masculine pseudonyms. But those practices are well behind us; in their place, we have a regime in which an army of intolerably strident, permanently angry harridans have nominated themselves the enforcers of the doctrine of absolute gender interchangeability. They act as arbiters of what individuals may and may not choose to do, how men and women may and may not choose to interrelate, and what modes of expression shall be permitted among us.
The capstone in their politically correct arch is the neologism "Ms."
"Ms," except in reference to a manuscript, means nothing. It was put forward solely as a "non-sexist" substitute for the older honorifics "Miss" and "Mrs." But the older honorifics carried great meaning; they reinforced the critical social conventions concerning romantic availability and celebrated the two statuses women have always prized:
- Youthful beauty and sexual attractiveness;
- Motherhood and the successful administration of a household.
Gender-war feminists have striven to persuade women that beauty is a masculine imposition, a form of oppression by expectation. They've striven to persuade women that women's desire for traditionally manly men is a betrayal of "female power." They've striven to persuade women that motherhood and homemaking are second-class occupations, that women should spurn in favor of commercial enterprise. They've striven to persuade women that they should emulate men's -- single men's -- sexual patterns, or abjure heterosex altogether. When they've been unable to persuade --i.e., almost always -- they've tried emotional intimidation of their own sex.
Their star is on the wane, and the slow but steady attenuation of the use of "Ms." is the best of all indicators.
The old Palace of Reason once had a Fiction Wing and a remarkable editor who went by the "desk name" of Pat D'Artagnan. Mrs. D'Artagnan and your Curmudgeon made one another's acquaintance over Aikido, a mutual interest. She was a sensei at a local dojo where your Curmudgeon studied. Just about the first exchange they had went about like this:
Your Curmudgeon:Good evening, Ms. D'Artagnan.
Pat: Don't call me that. "Mrs. D'Artagnan," please.Your Curmudgeon: Well, certainly. May I ask why?
Pat: Because it's demeaning. Sexist, in fact.Your Curmudgeon: Huh?
Pat: What does "Ms." mean, Fran? Have you any idea? I don't. But I know what "Mrs." means, and what it connotes.Your Curmudgeon: I thought it was French for "the wife of."
Pat: It is. But it also connotes motherhood, the management of a household, and the stature in the community that mature women have always prized. "Miss" is always acceptable if you don't know a woman's marital status, but if you know that she's married, not to grant her the title of "Mrs." denigrates her position in her community and the special achievement that only mature women can aspire to. Men have always ruled the world. There's no argument about it. But women maintain the world. No "Ms." nonsense around me, please!
Inasmuch as Pat is a second-dan black belt, and even at seventy-five years of age is faster than a nasty rumor, your Curmudgeon wouldn't dream of ignoring or overriding her preferences. Ever since that conversation, he's adopted them for his own.
Time was, before the ascendancy of political correctness, we understood that "different" did not mean "deficient." Perhaps that recognition is returning. At any rate, one can hope.
UPDATE: Courtesy of the invaluable Ace Of Spades, we have a a stark example of the sort of social "thought" gender-war feminism has sought to promote. The promoters aren't necessarily feminists, but they are feminizers: persons who seek to denigrate and destroy the masculine. No one who accepts the sexes as they are, and who is cognizant of their historically established roles in protecting civilization and social order, could see this as anything but a willful refusal to accept those roles: a rejection of human nature. No one in his right mind, at any rate. Fairy-castle Utopias founded on dreams of remaking Man collapsed under the socialists. Even if men were to permit them to proceed with their schemes, they'd fail the feminizers, too.
Comments
I really didn’t feel like getting into the whole “men and women differ” aspect of the argument because it would’ve taken a much longer time than I was willing to spend to do the subject justice, but you’ve hot a lot of the points that I would’ve mentioned.
Just as an example, Ilyka mentioned she was peeved that guys seem to be disproportionately interested in what she looks like. This, to her, is sexist.
Um, no. It’s male. Guys are intensely visual regarding any specimen that’s within the class of potential mates. It might be a little crude, but sexist, it sure ain’t. If she was a gay male blogger with predominantly gay male readers, they’d be on her case to put up a picture as well.
If she doesn’t like it, she can complain, but using the “sexism” talisman is simply wrong. If she is really so opposed to les faits de la vie, I suggest she withdraw from the human race.
Posted by Russ on 09/16/2005 at 06:42 PMI adore my wife because of her differences. I adore women in general because of their differences. My wife’s no pushover. She can give as good as she can get. But she will defer to me many times in matters of strength and acidity in a verbal or physical confrontation. Why? Her words:
Your my husband. Your the man. Do what you do best.
And I do my thing. And she respects and loves me for it. I stare at my wife when she walks around in the short shorts and tank top. Yep, I’m looking at her body and yes you know what I’m thinking. And if I didn’t, she would think something is wrong with me.
Whether you believe in intelligent design, evolution, or both, we were hardwired many moons ago to have certain characteristics and tendancies. If you want to fight them then your ice skating uphill. Now I go back to staring at my wife. CHA-CHING!
Posted by T-Steel on 09/16/2005 at 09:01 PMDamn, I didn’t know adults could have penis envy. Nicely put, Mr P, as usual.
Posted by og on 09/16/2005 at 09:43 PMBut this is to be expected from one who would write this, or this. Such “feminists” have no tolerance for the differences between the sexes. In effect, they protest human nature itself.
Francis,
I’m kinda curious as to what the hell you’re talking about; you know, since Ilyka never said anything like that. Is it just that you’re an unfortunate outlier with respect to linear logic?
That’s gotta be one of the biggest freaking straw man arguments I’ve ever seen.
Posted by Hubris on 09/16/2005 at 11:50 PMSilly nit. “Ms” is not an abbreviation, and as such should not take a trailing period.
I love this exchange from Buffy the Vampire Slayer:
Anya: I know you’re interested in me; I’ve seen you looking at my breasts.
Xander: I hate to disappoint you, but when a guy does this (looks at her breasts) it’s because his eyes are open.
You’re familiar with my Law of Leftism. This gender-feminist meme demonstrates the “founded in ignorance” part—this relentless refusal to acknowledge or even recognize the essential nature of things.
And when you base your public policy prescriptions in denial, well… Do the arithmetic.
(Oh, and BTW: “gender” is an attribute of words. People are differentiated by sex.)
M
Posted by Mark Alger on 09/17/2005 at 12:51 PMHmmm. I disagree here:
“ fight-or-flight response biased toward fleeing.”Caveat: unless their children are endangered. In that, human women are like all the other female animals.
Posted by Kathy K on 09/18/2005 at 10:22 AMOoops - ‘female mammals’ mainly…
Posted by Kathy K on 09/18/2005 at 10:23 AMI’ve always wondered why feminists are so determined to turn women into men. They keep telling me I need a man’s job, I need a man’s aggressiveness, I need to chase after men like men chase after women, I demean myself by staying home and doing what women do (caring for my children and my home), and so on. Why do they hate being women so much?
Maybe Freud’s ideas about penis envy weren’t so far-fetched after all!
Posted by Kacie Landrum on 09/19/2005 at 03:01 PM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
