logansrogue: (What? Fuck off!)
logansrogue ([personal profile] logansrogue) wrote2007-01-07 11:21 pm

There are some women you just want to smack upside the head with a fucking mallet.

Many of you that know me know that I am a feminist. I don't talk about it much but I'm a fierce believer in a woman's ability and her rights to be counted as an equal with men. It's been ingrained in my beliefs since I was a child from my mother, not from lecturing or giving me wise words, but by her unrelenting zeal in trying to not only better herself, but contribute to the community she lived in and to be the best mother she could so that the people she brought into this world would be an asset and not a liability.

Being bisexual and having a fair fifty-fifty ratio of male and female family members around me growing up, I learnt of the differences between male and female pretty quickly. The thing was, I didn't realise people assigned these things to different sexes specifically until I was older.

I'd listen to classic rock like Jimi Hendrix and Deep Purple when I was ten, and all I knew was that I felt that rebellious surge in my soul and I wanted to rock just as hard. I'd hang out with my big brother (much to his chagrin) when his friends were around and thoroughly enjoyed their faux-battle games in the garden, just as much as I'd love sitting with my sister or cousins and playing with my Barbie dolls. The whole scope of my upbringing was the reiteration, again and again through action instead of sermon that I could do or be anything I wanted. That nothing is gender specific. That we all have human nature but that it's our souls and minds that make us different from dumb animals, so we're never slaves of our physical make up.

So when women say shit like this, I start getting pretty pissed off. Helen Cronin bemoans the fact that feminists deny her 'scientific' evidence (which is merely statistical evidence based on a society that is still going through a state of flux as far as its sexual awakening goes - sexism is still strong and it swings both ways) and then goes on to cite these wonderful gems:


- If your aim is to get rich, don't try selling pornography to women or romantic novels to men; don't try selling 'Kill! Kill!' computer games to girls or 'people' games to boys. And, anyway, you can't simply generalise about how large the overlap is; it depends on the characteristic. There'll be almost no overlap if you pitch boys against girls in throwing missiles — the boys will win every time; and almost no overlap in fluency of speech — nine out of ten men will do worse than women.

- There's also a curious fact — it's one that's been uncovered by evolutionary biology — about the shapes of the distribution curves for most male-female differences. Darwin remarked on it and it holds robustly across other species, too. It's that males are far more variable than females — they are over-represented both at the top of the heap and at the bottom of the barrel. For some characteristics, people might not care. But what about this implication? Fewer women are likely to be dunces but also fewer will be geniuses.

- Being competitive, status-conscious, dedicated, single-minded, persevering — it can make all the difference to success. And these are qualities that a lot of men are far more likely to possess, often in alarming abundance.
(I guess all that competitive, status-conscious, dedicated single-minded and perservering shit I have going on with that music career thing is a figment of my imagination. Oh, and let us not forget all those OTHER women in the same boat as me!)

- I heard an American comedian the other day taking a swipe at 'creeping neo-Darwinism'. "I don't believe in the criminal gene", he said, "but, if there was one, I think they'd find it right next to the out-of-work one". All very politically correct. But dead wrong on the differential impact of unemployment on men and women. For a woman, unemployment means loss of a job; for a man, it means loss of status. And this difference combines with other sex differences to take women and men down very different pathways once the workplace door closes on them. (Yes, this is why my sister, an accomplished housewife, is depressed about not having a job and a nice house and the *status* that goes with it!)


To the woman's credit, she echoes something I said in the beginning of this rant: These gender-specific 'tendencies' are just that. They don't dictate our lives and it's our environments that can help us overcome our mammalian hard-wiring.

I'm not entirely convinced, though, that such tendencies can be divided so easily, especially after only recently gaining our steps forward in liberation. Plus the human brain is such a mystery to us, how can one pretend to understand it and our biology through statistics alone?

The worst thing about this woman is that she's the saviour of male-rights waving dick-smears like this guy (who happens to be a member of CSICOP and gets kicks out of debunking other people's experiences with the unknown). Don't get me wrong, I'm all for male rights. I'm a *feminist*. That's what it's all about - equality. For all.

All I can see on that page is that dude weeping over his precious patriarchy (which is not in any danger of being toppled, I must say) and the fact that women get more health-care than he does. With the bitch-hand we've been dealt with in the biology stakes? NO FUCKING SURPRISE, BUCKO! Raging hormones, periods, problems due to the closeness of our wee-hole to our baby-hole, gynaelogical problems, pregnancy, menopause - is it ANY FUCKING WONDER?! But why take my word for it? Here's his words (MSTed by me in between):

American women live, on average, seven years longer than men.

Yeah, look - we didn't choose that. That was biology.

They control 86 % of all personal wealth [PARADE Magazine, May 27, 1990], and make up 55% of current college graduates.

Well, wow. 1990 was a good year for women. What's it like these days? He does realise that human behaviour tends to swing back and forth over the decades?

Women cast 54% of the votes in Presidential elections, so they can hardly claim to be left out of the political decision-making process!

Well, gee-willikers, buddy! If I recall correctly, it's up to the MENS whether they go vote or not. More women vote? Cause they appreciate it, asshole! Yay for non-apathetic uterus-bearers!

They win almost automatically in child custody disputes.

I admit this is a problem - not enough men are getting custody of their kids. My brother-in-law is a prime example.

Women suffer only 6% of the work-related fatalities (the other 94% are suffered by men).

Yeah, well women don't tend to want to have jobs where they're lugging heavy metal objects or using heavy machinery or what-not. Cause it's hard work, it sucks, and it's so much nicer to sit in an office and sip coffee while databasing. That said - I got the best mark of my year in metalworking when I was in high school. So it's not like we can't do it.

Women are the victim of only about 35% of violent crimes, and only about 25% of all murders, yet because of our society's exaggerated concern and respect for them, special legislation has been passed to punish "violence against women" as if it were a more heinous crime than "violence against men". (Feminists claim to want "equality", and this is an example of what "equality" means to them, i.e., preferential treatment to address their concerns).

Woah! Wait on, buddy. Just what kind of violent crimes are you talking about? ALL violent crimes? Including drugs, mugging, bar fights, etc? Cause there's not a lot people can do about men beating up on each other because they're being macho fuckwits. But when women are being victimised in their own homes - you fucking bet they try to stop it. And do you know what? Here in Australia, the campaign to stop it was aimed at both the men AND the women. Their main aim? For the men DOING these violent crimes to SEEK HELP. Oh, and the reason people get all het up about women being murdered? Cause it always seems to be the strong preying on the weak. Some big dude picking on a lone teenager for sick kicks.

Two out of every three dollars spent on health care is spent on women, and even if you don't count pregnancy-related care, women still receive more medical care than men - yet feminists still holler that womens health is being "neglected", and far too many of us credulously believe them.

Hah. HA. I went over this above, about what we women go through just being *healthy* women. Never mind the breast cancer, cervical cancer, endometriosis (not as bad as the first two but definitely debilitating in some circumstances), and on and on.

And it's pretty well known that men tend to ignore the warning signs of a lot of their health problems. I know it's fucking impossible to get my Dad to see a doctor. Mum and I have to talk him into it every time. I mean, how many guys are busting to go to their GP and have a finger stuck up their arse and their balls prodded? Women have been used to that kind of thing for years, and it's socially acceptable for us to be talkative, sharing people. It's expected of us, we're encouraged. Particularly where I'm from, it's not so encouraged. So how is it *our* fault that men don't go to the doctor enough?

Or maybe they are, and maybe, due to having babies and so forth, women just need more health care?



I'm not an economic or sociology expert. I'm sure there are things I've said that are in glaring error (do correct me if this is the case). But pardon me if I don't take seriously the grumblings of a man who stamps his foot and says that there's "No such thing as Matriarchy" in the entirity of human history and that patriarchy rules supreme. (This might be so, but why get mad about a few wimmin groovin' to the idea of an ancient agrarian society worshipping a goddess and the poor woman slaving in the kitchen being the most important person in the household?)

Phew! That was a lot of ranting. Now, I'm going to take my domineering, alpha-hormone, Darwinian-buckling arse and go do something constructive. Like write my damned novel. That has romance and mermaids and environmental catastrophe. (Awww shuddup!).

[identity profile] roguewords.livejournal.com 2007-01-07 04:50 pm (UTC)(link)
Women suffer only 6% of the work-related fatalities (the other 94% are suffered by men).

And as my dad, a former construction worker, pointed out that women on the job are more careful of what they are doing. So of course they don't get hurt as often, THEY PAY ATTENTION!! *shock and surprise*

[identity profile] logansrogue.livejournal.com 2007-01-07 05:01 pm (UTC)(link)
Heh, really? I didn't know that about female construction workers. I'd be a bad construction worker - I daydream far too much. Makes for a good comic artist, though. LOL!

[identity profile] roguewords.livejournal.com 2007-01-07 05:19 pm (UTC)(link)
Yup. He says that women also make better wielders too, for that same reason. Plus smaller hands. More attention to detail.

Oh, I'd be horrible at it. Playing with kids, or sewing costumes all day long though? I do pretty good at those.

[identity profile] asweetdownfall.livejournal.com 2007-01-07 06:10 pm (UTC)(link)
Can I just say that I love your tags? :D

[identity profile] leopardeternal.livejournal.com 2007-01-07 06:56 pm (UTC)(link)
In the voting process those who show up are the ones who get to vote, guys can't complain about that if they're unwilling to show up.

And your absolutely right: Women are more likely to go to the doctor when the slightest thing is wrong, whereas Men have a tendancy to ignore problems in the hope they'll just go away. This leads to worse conditions later, which leads to poorer health later in life... its no wonder Women live longer, they take care of themselves. Studies have been done, now if I could remember where I saw them...

[identity profile] brentdax.livejournal.com 2007-01-07 07:17 pm (UTC)(link)
The vast majority of what that woman says is basically "that's the way it has to be because that's the way it was", which I'm pretty sure is a logical fallacy, although I'm too lazy to look it up. There's one nugget of truth buried in that mountain of idiocy—the point about womens' IQ being less variable than men. Even so, one of my best female friends has an IQ around my (ridiculously high) level; they aren't big variations. (And IQ is 80% hereditary by adulthood, so I'd expect it to show gender variability if that's the norm.)

Individual variation between humans is huge, largely because we've eliminated most selective pressures in the developed world. These statistics are interesting, but only an idiot would let them guide daily interactions with individuals.

Sadly, the world is full of idiots. Though apparently the male idiots are a tad dumber.

[identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/lothar_/ 2007-01-07 07:18 pm (UTC)(link)
Why must these people give quantitative research a bad name? Parade magazine? From 1990?! WTF?! I'd be crucified if I cited that as evidence for anything.

[identity profile] dclore.livejournal.com 2007-01-07 07:42 pm (UTC)(link)
Weirdly the porn vs. erotic novels debate is something going on in my journal at the mo! Go and contribute!

Jx

[identity profile] berenicepotter.livejournal.com 2007-01-07 08:44 pm (UTC)(link)
I just have to say...WELL SAID, MY FRIEND. When women themselves are that stupid I wish they could just shut the fuck up.

[identity profile] morganskye.livejournal.com 2007-01-07 10:26 pm (UTC)(link)
I told Barry about the Women's Healthcare. He immediatly said (before I read your responce) that of course women go more! We're trained from our mid-teens to go to the doctor, and we have to go through a hell of a lot more (pap smear anyone?). He commented that at least 2/3rds of the people checked in at the hospital he works at are women. *rolls eyes*
I would really love to get my hands on this guy and beat him to a pulp. "How's that for violent crimes involving women tough guy?!? Grr!!"

[identity profile] xedra.livejournal.com 2007-01-07 10:30 pm (UTC)(link)
I love your feminist ranting! It makes my day. :D

[identity profile] mexicanjewlizrd.livejournal.com 2007-01-08 12:32 am (UTC)(link)
I don't entirely /get/ your rant (against the article). It looks like a series of statistics... and? I mean, they all seem accurate enough. I presume you want more research done on nature vs nurture (or sex vs gender); but it seems that the raw data still stands, if not its origins.

They control 86 % of all personal wealth that is probably just as true, (still) thanks to two things: the joys of marriage and joint bank accounts.

For a woman, unemployment means loss of a job; for a man, it means loss of status. And this difference combines with other sex differences to take women and men down very different pathways once the workplace door closes on them. (Yes, this is why my sister, an accomplished housewife, is depressed about not having a job and a nice house and the *status* that goes with it!) Sounds reasonable. I mean, I know more women who want to not work and have their partner take care of them than the other way around. Granted, it is HIGHLY likely that that strongly affected by societial pressures. Man without a job = bum. Woman without a job = woman. Personally, I like to believe its because being a mum/housewife/etc is a job unto itself and not because of lower expectations - but THAT is sexist-ism - the statistic is not.

And enjoy these gems:
http://www.machall.com/index.php?strip_id=304
Image

[identity profile] mexicanjewlizrd.livejournal.com 2007-01-08 12:33 am (UTC)(link)
http://photos.staticfree.info/~katiebear/LoveIsHell.jpg

[identity profile] tangofiction.livejournal.com 2007-01-08 12:37 am (UTC)(link)
All very true! Also, women living longer than men could well be due to them going to the doctor more, and not strictly biology.

I'm sure some differences in brain development do exist, but - so what? If you watch large numbers of little kids playing, boys do appear to spontaneously engage in rough-and-tumble play even as toddlers, for example, whereas fewer girls do. But while it's interesting to speculate about how this may be connected with the evolution of sexual selection (mate comptetition), the only reasonable place where this information could be used is the development of child care programs. That is, when children are taught to curb violent tendencies, more effort will have to go into teaching this to boys than to girls. Just because something is "natural" doesn't mean that it ought to be that way.

Unfortunately the one thing that IMO would be very difficult to change is that men on average have greater muscle strength (although not endurance). This is an unfortunate consequence of human muscle development, and is evident whenever you watch highly fit men and women compete together (for instance, the serves in mixed doubles tennis). This is a real problem for women worldwide, because it is relatively easy for an average man to overpower an average woman, and that can create all sorts of problems in society -- including self-perception in men and women. This is why self-defence courses for women focus on other ways to disable an opponent -- brute strength is just not likely to work. Those are not available to women in the third world, though.

[identity profile] logansrogue.livejournal.com 2007-01-08 12:49 am (UTC)(link)
Ha! I'm glad my ranting is amusing! I'd hate it if I just sounded stupid or something.

[identity profile] logansrogue.livejournal.com 2007-01-08 12:54 am (UTC)(link)
I can tell you that any single woman is looked down upon if she doesn't have her own set of status symbols. Any wife (like my sister) feels the pressure to have the house and this and that. *I* feel like a bum for not having a job, and I'm sure people think me one because I don't have a job. And I'm a woman! I feel just as much pressure as any man to be successful and to make something of myself, but maybe I'm odd like that.

I'm not arguing the raw data - I'm arguing the logicless interpretation of that data. If this says this then it means that - life is far more complicated than that and these people totally seem to drop the ball. Guh - it's just bad logic, damn it!

[identity profile] logansrogue.livejournal.com 2007-01-08 12:57 am (UTC)(link)
Oh, I'm not arguing physical differences and the nature of play in young children. Maybe I was unusual, but I *did* get into the rough and tumble with my big brother. And I didn't have a huge number of boys around me - there were more girls than boys in my childhood circumstance! It was my favourite game to play - beat up on brother Paul! But anyway, I'm probably an anomaly, and I get your point entirely.

[identity profile] logansrogue.livejournal.com 2007-01-08 12:58 am (UTC)(link)
LOL. Tags are fun. LOL.

[identity profile] logansrogue.livejournal.com 2007-01-08 12:59 am (UTC)(link)
My point exactly. Women are urged to get shit check up. Men aren't. It's an effect of society, not an indication of any inherent sexism against men.

[identity profile] logansrogue.livejournal.com 2007-01-08 12:59 am (UTC)(link)
Thank you, my darling.

[identity profile] logansrogue.livejournal.com 2007-01-08 12:59 am (UTC)(link)
Ooh, fantastic!

[identity profile] logansrogue.livejournal.com 2007-01-08 01:00 am (UTC)(link)
I know, man, I KNOW! They're just - GAH! SO STUPID!

[identity profile] logansrogue.livejournal.com 2007-01-08 01:02 am (UTC)(link)
See, that's the problem: she's suggesting we let them guide the way we deal with people! Special maths programmes so girls get maths better? Fuck that! All the girls in my class were totally competent in maths. I was okay when I paid attention, but I really fucking hate maths. LOL.

They are. *sigh* Bloody jerks.

[identity profile] tangofiction.livejournal.com 2007-01-08 01:50 am (UTC)(link)
I used to fight quite a bit with my sister -- but in anger, not in play. That's probably more a question of impulse control than true rough-and-tumble play, though.

Having read the article, I agree with her that some sex differences are indeed innate and should be taken into account in policy making -- but as you say, what those differences are may not be quite so clear-cut. She talks about women not being as ambitious or competitive, but that's rubbish -- even in raging "patriarchal" societies, look at the way women guard their favourite cake recipe and the way they eye each other's dresses and figures at parties. Women are every bit as ambitious, competitive and even ruthless in getting what they want. And that's the key -- success is not "being a CEO" necessarily, it's getting what you want. Admittedly, her point is that fewer women appear to want those high-pressure, high-risk jobs at the top, and that may be true. There is nothing wrong with that, except that sadly, if fewer women *want* those jobs, then there are fewer of them showing the men that women can do it.

[identity profile] tangofiction.livejournal.com 2007-01-08 01:57 am (UTC)(link)
What's wrong with changing maths programs so some girls get it better, if that's indeed going to help them? I personally never noticed any sex differences in the people who did advanced maths at my school, so I am 99% certain this is not going to work -- but let's say it did? I'm for it. I mean, it's just an application of the whole principle of tailoring education methods to the needs of the particular student. My only demand would be that it's not advertised as a "girls' maths program", but given some non-gender specific name so that it doesn't mess up the social factors surrounding this discrepancy.

Page 1 of 3