Feminism for Idiots.......
Wednesday, 20. December 2006, 12:12:47
Feminism for Idiots
WELL-BEHAVED DOES NOT EQUAL INTELLIGENT
Another chestnut from The Australian newspaper.
On the 15th of January of 2001, I stumbled upon a piece of blatant sexism by Susan Mitchell in The Australian newspaper, titled, "Let's face it: women are decidedly brighter". She begins with, "It is perhaps time to admit something that has been staring us in the face. No one has been game enough to spell it out. Let's tell the truth and admit that women are more intelligent than men."
She continued with the predictable references to women's maturity, better behavior and superior performance at school. Whilst, from one perspective, my first impulse was to want to agree with her - after all, the gullible men of today are letting feminists get away with this sort of nonsense - my commonsense prevailed, and I penned the following reply for the "Letters to the editor" section. Again another masterpiece vanishing into cyberspace, only to reappear here for your reading pleasure:
INTELLIGENT FEMINISTS?
Susan Mitchell's recent contribution (The Australian, 15 January) raises questions about the nature of intelligence. Girls do indeed do better than boys in today's namby-pamby, touchy-feely curricula that discourage competition, to emphasize "facilitation" and cooperation. This is hardly a sign of intelligence. Indeed, one could argue that having a prefrontal lobotomy might be more conducive to the mind-numbing conformity required of what passes for curricula these days.
Conformity is not the same thing as intelligence.
And how does "maturity" relate to intelligence? If, by girls maturing earlier than boys we mean that girls are more inclined to conform to socially acceptable norms of behavior, well, once again, we would do well to ask what on earth proper behavior has to do with intelligence. People shielded from the expectations of saying or doing much of anything have little to be responsible for. Privileged, protected and provided for, they do not have to put themselves on the line, to risk revealing their more vulnerable sides. Without ever having to confront anything more challenging than having to decide between brands of hairspray, of course one is less likely to make mistakes and, ipso facto, appear more "mature". In this context, we might regard sheep as being more mature than either men or women.
Locking oneself out of hotel rooms? Again, similar argument - well-behaved conformists reveling in detail are less likely to lock themselves out of rooms, while absent-minded geniuses are more likely to do so. Far be it for me to suggest that managers are anything on a par with geniuses. But I'm sure we get the point.
Chivalrists have long succeeded in conning everyone as to the superiority of men over women, all the while protecting and providing for women at every turn (does anyone else see the contradiction?). Now it's feminists' turn. But as feminism is just chivalry demanded by feminists (rather than chivalry bestowed by men), it is similarly sexist, and it is now feminists who are trying to pull the same stunt. But instead of running to protect men and to provide for men, feminists are treating men rather more differently. On this point alone, I agree with Mitchell - for surely, is not men's willing complicity in their own oppression, as perpetrated by feminists, an indication of their own stupidity and gullibility?
WELL-BEHAVED DOES NOT EQUAL INTELLIGENT
Another chestnut from The Australian newspaper.
On the 15th of January of 2001, I stumbled upon a piece of blatant sexism by Susan Mitchell in The Australian newspaper, titled, "Let's face it: women are decidedly brighter". She begins with, "It is perhaps time to admit something that has been staring us in the face. No one has been game enough to spell it out. Let's tell the truth and admit that women are more intelligent than men."
She continued with the predictable references to women's maturity, better behavior and superior performance at school. Whilst, from one perspective, my first impulse was to want to agree with her - after all, the gullible men of today are letting feminists get away with this sort of nonsense - my commonsense prevailed, and I penned the following reply for the "Letters to the editor" section. Again another masterpiece vanishing into cyberspace, only to reappear here for your reading pleasure:
INTELLIGENT FEMINISTS?
Susan Mitchell's recent contribution (The Australian, 15 January) raises questions about the nature of intelligence. Girls do indeed do better than boys in today's namby-pamby, touchy-feely curricula that discourage competition, to emphasize "facilitation" and cooperation. This is hardly a sign of intelligence. Indeed, one could argue that having a prefrontal lobotomy might be more conducive to the mind-numbing conformity required of what passes for curricula these days.
Conformity is not the same thing as intelligence.
And how does "maturity" relate to intelligence? If, by girls maturing earlier than boys we mean that girls are more inclined to conform to socially acceptable norms of behavior, well, once again, we would do well to ask what on earth proper behavior has to do with intelligence. People shielded from the expectations of saying or doing much of anything have little to be responsible for. Privileged, protected and provided for, they do not have to put themselves on the line, to risk revealing their more vulnerable sides. Without ever having to confront anything more challenging than having to decide between brands of hairspray, of course one is less likely to make mistakes and, ipso facto, appear more "mature". In this context, we might regard sheep as being more mature than either men or women.
Locking oneself out of hotel rooms? Again, similar argument - well-behaved conformists reveling in detail are less likely to lock themselves out of rooms, while absent-minded geniuses are more likely to do so. Far be it for me to suggest that managers are anything on a par with geniuses. But I'm sure we get the point.
Chivalrists have long succeeded in conning everyone as to the superiority of men over women, all the while protecting and providing for women at every turn (does anyone else see the contradiction?). Now it's feminists' turn. But as feminism is just chivalry demanded by feminists (rather than chivalry bestowed by men), it is similarly sexist, and it is now feminists who are trying to pull the same stunt. But instead of running to protect men and to provide for men, feminists are treating men rather more differently. On this point alone, I agree with Mitchell - for surely, is not men's willing complicity in their own oppression, as perpetrated by feminists, an indication of their own stupidity and gullibility?
WIDGETIZE