Wednesday, May 30, 2012

The Juggling of the Genders

I never use "gender" to mean "sex," but I did this time for the sake of alliteration, a fine old Anglo-Saxon tradition. And I use "juggling" as a metaphor for the total confusion these days about what the two sexes are and ought to be. The Zeitgeist, an insistent fellow about so many things, insists that the differences between human males and females is at most trivial, and probably actually nonexistent.  When pressed, our shapers of opinion will concede that there are significant differences between male and female cattle, black widow spiders, hyenas, and hoptoads, though it's probably Whitey's fault, but of course human beings are exempt from biology and the rules don't apply to them, because alone in the Universe, the human species doesn't have heredity.  Well, homosexuality is hereditary, of course, but no other human mental oR emotional attribute is.  Just to make things clear, I'm having a sarcastic ramble there.

Anyhow, men and women are different, very profoundly different, emotionally, mentally, intellectually, and, as you may have noticed, physically.  We have evolved, just like kangaroos, field mice, and mosquitoes, to fit our environment, and in all of human history that we know anything about, men and women have differed pretty much like they do now, because Darwin required these differences for survival.  Some differences:

L. Neil Smith puts it this way — Women are detail-oriented, men are big picture-oriented. Other ways to say the same thing is that women are good at multitasking, men are good at sustained, single-minded concentration, or that women are good at internal, small-scale management, as within a family, while men are good at large-scale management, as in the relationship between families.  Yes, all this is a generalization.  If you don't know what a generalization is, go HERE.  I didn't say all women are anything, I said what they generally are.

An aside.  Politics.  There's a lot of talk right now about whether it's "fair" for Republicans to bring up Reverend Wright, or if it's "fair" for Obama to talk about how much money Romney has.  What the hell has fair got to do with it?  That's kindergarten, or kindergarten teacher talk.  We should ask if it's valid for either to bring these things up. Does all this public talk of "fairness" stem from the feminization of politics?  I think it does, in part. Women aren't into justice as much as they're into fairness.  That's how you bring little kids up, trying to be fair to them.  Justice is for later, when Daddy comes home.  Justice is a male concept, and while the wiser sort of woman can grasp it, the average one can't and doesn't want to.  Sorry, but that's how it is.  So when women started voting, they started leaning towards politicians because they were nice, or good-looking, or something irrelevant like that, when males, on the average, don't care too much about that sort of thing.  Men didn't vote for Bill Clinton because they felt maternal towards the cuddly old bear, but a lot of women did. That's not to say men can't be fooled by politicians, but it is to say that it's harder to do so.

Anyhow, the Zeitgeist says that little boys should be made more like girls, and vice-versa.  Being male myself, my knee-jerk reaction is to deplore this attempt to destroy masculine virtues and strengths, but, of course, it's also destroying feminine virtues and strengths.  It all goes together. So, it's not all male-bashing, as in the charming illustration, but also female-bashing. Metrosexual men like Obama are praised, of course, and homosexuals are practically deified, while normal, traditional men are denounced  as the source of all the evil in the world.  In like manner, traditional women with female virtues, like Ann Romney or Sarah Palin, are sneered at, while butchy bitches like Hillary and Hollywood sluts are held up as role models.

Speaking of bitches, Matt Forney has pointed out that both men and women can be called bitches, but for quite different reasons, though, in a way, for the same reason.  You have to read his explanation, in what may be the best rant I've ever read on this particular subject, HERE.

P. S.  Update.  Commenter "Quartermain" has alerted me to further incisive words on the same subject by Bob Wallace.  I recommend that you go HERE and read it.


  1. Here is Bob Wallace's take:

  2. I was wondering where all those hits were coming from. It was from your blog!