“Women who desire to become equal with men become less valuable as women.”
- Xenocrates
I, the fat lady, do hereby declare that I have sung. Now where’s my lighter?
If all the women in the world were to be truly liberated, in the sense that they were all educated at the same level as their male counterparts, given truly equal opportunities to occupy all the same positions that men currently do, what do you think will happen to our capacity to continue our existence?
Woman, thou art loose
Super Femme, here to save the day from the... umm... uhh...
Clearly none of this will ever happen. We’d all die out as a race eventually. Feminists, I’m sure, would disagree. Women can do all that they’ll say, AND be a mommy too. Clearly, there is no place in the world for men. I find such ideology to be absolutely hilarious though, since many feminists are gay.
Concordantly, a world run by women would be slightly more dysfunctional; if not for the mere fact that an overabundance of over-ambitious females effectively cauterizes our capacity to continue to exist as a race, then for the fact that we’d start world war 3 just because someone had a bad hair day.
Wait, before you get incensed, I’m not belittling women or their capacity to do whatever. I’m actually belittling the idea that women can rule the world and change diapers at the same time. I have no doubts that they could. Certainly there are women in senior management positions who can mother.
They’re just not very good at it.
When I say “it”, I’m not talking about being a mother or being a top level manager. I’m talking about doing both of them at the same time and being very good at both. Such is the product of science fiction, and over indulgence in the fantasy world of Lifetime television. It’s a lot of silly titty-fiction.
Every woman who has been good at her career, either gave up something in her home life, or put the career on hold to push out babies first. There are no exceptions. The reverse is also true. You can be a great mother and a decent manager, or a great manager and a decent mother. Every woman can do that.
Being great at both requires more hours than there are in the day and more nerves than there are in the spine. So on some days, she will have to break a few promises to her household to get that report in on time. On others, she’ll tell her boss to take a hike (literally) and trip balls with the husband.
But I dare you to find me one woman (just one) who never had to make some serious sacrifices for her career and for her family. Why do women do this to themselves? Because we let them think that way. Such is the danger of the liberated western female; she is strong, invincible and about to see her period.
The Misogyny of The Blood Religions
Those chicks are SOOO hot!
Every religion out of the Middle East reduces women to second class citizens. Even God in the Bible appears to only appoint women when he can’t find a decent male to take up the job. However, the Christian Bible is as misogynistic as the Koran. Women are either forbidden to speak or to show their faces.
Islam, Judaism and Christianity are clear about female inferiority. It seems as if there is some sort of hidden agenda afoot. Extremist Islamic states even forbid their girls from being educated outright, some going as far as committing the brutal, inhumane act of female circumcision. (Ouch!)
It’s almost if ancient men had long perceived some danger in having women at the same level of intellect as the ruling class men. I think this issue goes far deeper than that of having one’s ego being threatened by a powerful woman. That’s not the case. In fact, many men crave such a fantasy.
In fact, if that wasn’t the case, we probably wouldn’t have created such iconic fictional characters from Wonder Woman (DC Comics) to every female character by Japanese manga artist, Masamune Shirow. Boys have fantasized about their female teachers, and men about their female bosses.
However, almost no such female characterizations exist in Eastern culture (with the exception of Japan and similars, obviously). So what is it about women that the east fears that the west does not? Why have they worked so hard to subdue women, while we have done the same to liberate them?
The Blood Religions provide us with a clue:
In the allegory of Eve’s temptation, the Bible says that her seed would be cursed, and subsequently redeemed by the coming of Christ. Throughout the Bible, the woman is demonised as a whore, the cause of man’s damnation, etc. Apparently, women are men’s kryptonite. So this misogyny goes back thousands of years.
But on a brighter note…
In the west however, not only have we liberated women, given them the right to vote, the right to speak out and to own stuff, but we have also given them the right to become as educated as much as men. We even now have women who are running for President of the United States.
But isn’t it interesting to note that ever since the feminist movement of the 1950’s, there’s been a correlational increase in divorce? But of course! Now that women are no longer under the shadow of their dominating, chauvinist husbands, they can put away a man and take his money too!
Gold diggers rejoice! Yay! Girl power! *cough*cough* 
Maybe this is what the Blood Religion subscribers feared. Lord knows them Jews are sitting on some serious money. Lucky for the wives of rich American Jews, they are not bound by laws of the Orthodoxy. So woman go get your shovel and get it on. 
Fornication is a farce
*giggles*tee-hee-hee-hee* …wait, are those ants?
The blood religions weren’t the first to keep women down. Women were regarded as assets to ancient societies. If you were a king of some ancient city, you could trade up your finest virgin daughter to the son of an invading king to appease the young tyrant, thus sparing your city the threat of certain annihilation.
This is why virgins were so valuable. A virgin is regarded in such cultures as an unpicked fruit – suitable for political trade agreements between families. This is the primary reason why Blood Religions put such a premium on a woman retaining her virginity for marriage even to this day.
Unfortunately, it’s been so long since a girl has been traded up to save a kingdom, that Islam and Christianity have long forgotten why fornication was a bad thing. So when they built religion around everything, they included nice little bits to justify this cultural approximation in religion.
Basically, where cultures came out of the ground revering women as child bearing vessels and the ultimate appeasement of any man’s desire, the value of her virginity evolved from [Insert cultural requirement here] to [Insert 'God' here] thereby fulfilling the cultural requirement.
However, long before girls were being traded as commodities in commerce and peace offerings during war, women were also regarded as the guardians of the domain of sex (sort of). Unless a man was homosexual, he would have to seek a woman to appease that powerful urge to procreate.
So let’s do the math: Can you imagine back in the day if a King’s daughter was so educated that she decided the invading king’s son was too dumb an ox to appease her? What blasphemy! The wanton and indiscriminate bloodshed that would ensue would last for… oh… about 2 seconds.
After cleaning her father’s spleen from his axe, and the end trails of her country men from his boots, she would have to join the harem as the newest addition to his ever expanding collection of girls acquired from exotic kingdoms. King Solomon so totally knows what I’m talking about. You naughty Jew.
The Price of Freedom
"What do you mean you're out of Huggies™? You're fired!"
While the Blood Religion subscribers preferred the idea of a patriarchal society, one that would not be threatened of the usurpation by the weaker sex, we went ahead and did the very opposite and let them all out of their boxes – leveling the playing field for both sexes.
This move had very positive results. Not only did we literally double the size of the working force, thus exponentially increasing the economy’s total yield, but it also tempered the obnoxious propensities of men in high positions. However, while all of this is a good thing, there is a catch:
Liberating women has inexorably set the bar almost impossibly higher for them. The creatures that were explicitly designed to nurture now aspire to become conquerors as well. Yet, when their high heels break their nails, we get to hear all this crap about “society’s ridiculous expectations of women“.
Really?! Give me a break.
Society expected women to do what women always did. In fact, if I were to say what women always did, I’d probably never hear the end of it. Now that they want to be just like men, they are getting better at what we always did, but are now getting worse at what they always were supposed to do.
It is women who have become ambitious and decided that there’s more to being female than popping out babies and washing dishes. Women hold themselves to these standards – not men. Personally, I have no issue with that. I say women should aspire to be just as great as they want to be.
However, this is not so cut and dry:
The Nanny Conundrum
Sho’ baby, I’ll be your mommy for the next 8 hours
So what does a woman do when she’s too busy to prepare a meal for the family, too busy to keep the house presentable, so busy that sex becomes something of a chore just to keep him from straying, or worse: too busy to realise her nanny knows her kids better than she does?
Why is it that in so many modern families, the raising of the children is left to the nanny? So many kids are better acclimated with their house maid than their own mothers. Some women today even go as far as to make it seem like only unambitious women look forward to having children.
This type of correlation is borne out of the fact that many educated women put off having kids until their mid to late 30’s – often to the detriment of their own health. On the other hand, it’s interesting that less educated women seem to value their maternal instinct more so than their ivy league counterparts.
In fact, today’s modern western cultures seem to have two separate breeds of women. The first are the standard females that desire to raise children and there are the career women who’re too busy being a man to raise (or even want) their own child. Women seem to be oblivious to this oddity.
It’s such a worrisome devaluation of the woman – and the woman has only herself to blame. Women who desire to become equal with men become less valuable as women. While some men don’t mind (they have their secretaries to fill that void) many women unanimously think this is a good thing.
I wonder how many people realise that something’s wrong here? Probably not many, and here’s why:
Securing the Gonads
Balls! On my desk! STAT!
Some women assert that men fear successful females. That’s not true. Most men in the west are attracted to successful females – so long as they retain their femininity. Men however, are not attracted to women who retain characteristics that are uncharacteristically female, like overt aggressiveness.
More specifically, there are women out there who feel the need to assert themselves by emasculating every male they come across. I find that many of these women are on a revenge streak, taking vengeance (albeit subconsciously) for some wrong that was done to them earlier in life by a man.
Then there are those women who genuinely have an overproduction of male hormones in their blood, who genuinely get a kick out of subduing men. Either way, most men like to keep their balls intact. Getting involved with a woman who would compete with him won’t sustain an erection… unless he was gay.
It’s the equivalent of a man trying to become sexually attracted to a pre-op transsexual. Men get all their competition from the company of other men. It’s called male bonding. This is why we watch the game together, guzzle beers by the canister and trade war stories. We don’t desire this from women.
When we meet an attractive woman, that left brain “male bonding” algorithm switches off, and we desire to have our emotional, sexual, right brain desires fulfilled. So when we encounter a sexy, sultry, attractive woman who wants to be aggressive like a man, we get confused and go flaccid.
Sure she looks hot in that short skirted business suit. But every time we decide to approach her as a man would instinctively approach a female, we expect her to take the female role during the courtship. When she inexplicably becomes masculine about it, our gaydar goes off and we walk.
Did I say walk? I’m sorry; we run.
Successful women and gender role confusion
The funny thing is I know so many women like this. All of them are over 30, single or divorced – even though they are very successful in their careers. All of them are complaining about exactly the same thing: “Why can’t I find a man?“. Some have even thought that their success is to blame.
As poetic as that sounds, it’s not true.
Men don’t mind successful women. We just don’t like women who are unusually masculine, irrespective of how successful they are. The trouble is, women who are successful become so because of their naturally aggressive, assertive characteristics. No woman becomes a CEO by being docile.
So a lot of the time, there is a very small, very slight amount of gender role confusion going on with a highly successful female who has a remarkable skill in gonad extraction surgery. She is so good at emasculation, that she doesn’t even realise when she’s doing it. And they wonder why they’re still single…
Highly successful career women have to learn how to bring down their “tough-guy” defenses when dealing with men. Men who do go after such women are trophy hunters – not prospective husbands. So the only thing such women will attract are jerks and lesbians. Pick your poison. Carefully.
Career vs. Role Play
Who’s your mommy? Say my name bitch!
So does this mean that a woman has to choose between her career and her love life? Not at all. She can have both – depending on the career path. It’s all about understanding gender roles. Unfortunately, very few career women think gender is still of any relevance, which is why they’re still inexplicably single.
So here’s a clue:
Women who are successful in business sometimes forget that they’re females. If they’re attracted to men, they have to remember to act the part. Most men in western cultures don’t mind if their woman is more successful than they are. So long as she retains the role of “Mrs.” when she gets home, it’s all good.
However, many successful women in business take home the same “boss” attitude to their husbands that they used to “boss” the other men (and women) around at work. They forget that what applies at work, does not apply at home. Women who do this are guaranteed to remain painfully single at 30.
Even though some men deserve it, most men would never subject themselves to being coddled like a child by any woman who is not his mother. If a woman takes on this parent child relationship with her lover, you can bet the farm that he’s going to find another woman who assumes a more feminine role.
So if your guy has a really hot secretary, you might want to resist the itch to flip the bitch switch, which is being a witch in an emotional ditch which might not stitch the gaping hole in the whole of your soul that the mole of a secretary stole, performing the role of the sexy cajole – Got that? Excellent.
No matter how successful a woman becomes, she needs to remember that men aren’t looking to have sex with a woman that quacks, walks and acts like a man. We still prefer our females quite feminine 100% of the time. If you think that men should just “get over it”, then we’ll leave you to do the same.
On the other hand, there are a few men out there who prefer dominant females. It’s just that they take on the feminine role in the relationship. I’m not too certain many career females are into passive, non-assertive men. So that is irrelevant to this discussion. They have their own niche, however queer it is.
…no pun intended, obviously.
Career vs. Man
The Score is now 1-1
Of course, successful career women can’t just go out there and pick up any decent guy. Oh no. It’s not that simple anymore. You’re not just some secretary waiting for Joe Testosterone. Being on the same footing with men changes the formula altogether. Meeting your romantic requirements is now much harder.
For example, successful career women shouldn’t marry someone outside that field unless he can handle its demands on her. This is the reason why women in specialized fields tend to be more successful with men who are also in the field. They have a better appreciation for the demands (and rewards) of such jobs.
A lot of female surgeons face cheating husbands who weren’t prepared to deal with the long, irregular hours. CEO women who fall in love with men who can’t relate to MBA speak run the risk of having to deal with his insecurity when he can’t relate to her as well as her other more sophisticated male colleagues.
Doctors who marry doctors are usually more successful than doctors who marry mechanics. Grey’s Anatomy isn’t too far off the mark. This is the same reason why Hollywood types tend to stick with other Hollywood types. Their mates know the grueling demand of such careers and are not intimidated by it.
If you’re going to go after a guy who is outside of your field, at least have the good sense to procure a male interest that is more or less at the same intellectual level. The score is now 1 – 1. Women are no longer second class citizens. If he doesn’t match you cognitively, then you might want to reconsider.
Of course, there’s a catch. Most men prefer jobs that have a practical feel to it. So in any corporate environment, women will outnumber men by a ratio of 3:1. Most men who are in management didn’t go through the same ladders as their female counterparts. So the workforce is likely to be largely female.
What does this mean? Corporate women have a much, much thinner bracket of men to choose from if they’re looking to match like with like. If you add to that the few men out there who still believe women should stay at home, plus those who want children ASAP, your success quickly becomes a bottleneck.
Women from all other regular, non-intensive career streams usually don’t have a problem hooking up with an appropriate male – irrespective of his level of success. If however such women find themselves successful, very likable, over 30 and still single, then you may have another problem. Read this.
Career vs. Motherhood
Multitasking – the mythical pride of womankind – ‘myth’ being the operative word.
This one should be a no brainer – unfortunately it isn’t. Nothing is wrong with being an exclusively Career woman. However, if as a woman you have ever thought that you had to choose between your career and being a mother, then please, do us all a huge favour; choose career. We don’t need your DNA.
Am I being mean? Not at all. As far as being a motherly female is concerned, career women are often the worst kind. Why consider motherhood if you think your career is equally as important? Motherhood is considered by most women as a right of passage. If you think it’s a choice, then please; spare us your offspring.
The less of you there are, the better.
Hundreds of women in western civilization opt out of having children for all kinds of reasons. None of them need any validation since they are all based on preference. So I’m not even going to attempt to say whether or not they’re justified. Any woman who chooses not to have children is doing us all a favour.
Why do I say this? Because I would prefer to live in a world with well adjusted females than those who have been poisoned by their career moms who got “knocked up” unwillingly. There’s nothing worse in sexual politics than a female who genuinely believes that her gender role is mutable.
In fact, women who think like this should all should wear a sticker so that men can easily identify and avoid them. This way, we can weed them out of the gene pool and satisfy their ludicrous feminist aspirations at the same time. Feminists don’t realise that they’re actually working in our favour.
So… umm… thanks?
The Danger of Feminism
She that is faithful in little, is faithful in much
Feminism had an original objective: to liberate women from oppression and inequality. However, now that much has been achieved, its refusal to go out of existence has now given women even harder targets to set their sights on. They’re now under pressure to become something they’re not.
That’s the danger of educating women.
When Sarah Palin was selected to be Senator McCain’s running mate, her (count them) five children were of some concern to women’s groups all over the country. I’m pretty sure Governor Palin could foot the bill of juggling both. I would just feel bad for either her kids or the economy. I can’t decide which.
Men by comparison don’t run such a risk. While fatherhood is equally as important as motherhood, men don’t have to carry a child in gestation for 9 months or choose between fatherhood and a career. The world doesn’t need to pause for human continuity once every 28 days and we don’t need maternity leave.
This is why men exist alongside women. Can you see the harmonic symmetry of both sexes assuming their predesignated gender roles? So why do we need to fix it?
I’m not saying that women don’t deserve to be educated. The world is better off with educated women. Less of them tend to have unwanted pregnancies when educated. However, can you imagine the highly unrealistic expectations that have been heaped onto western women because of feminism?
As if women weren’t already under enough pressure to look unrealistically young and thin, as well as dealing with the emotional prospect of motherhood, now they have to compete with men, to be like men, to be equivalent to men in all matters to be considered a truly liberated female. Wow.
Well, good luck with that.
My point is this:
A graph showing negative population growth in Europe since the 20th century – coinciding with when women were liberated. Compare with China that has no comparable statute. Source: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
Irrespective of where women want to go and what liberties they would love to consume, there are still important roles for each gender to play. Humanity was designed around these precepts. So long as we don’t compromise these very basic tenets of humanity, we guarantee our continued existence.
Societies based on Middle-Eastern blood religions have addressed this problem by simply oppressing women into blind servitude and supplication. That kind of extreme isn’t necessary. Furthermore, most modern societies wouldn’t enjoy a robotic female devoid of any enchanting individuality.
So while it pains me to hear about the oppression of women in Afghanistan, I am not very less troubled by this increasing trend in the west where women have become so liberated that now they’re choosing to redefine traditional gender roles. Women should remain women. What’s wrong with that?
Where did this unhealthy obsession with deifying women come from? I think men are to blame for this run away train as well. We’re so caught up with being politically correct that we’ve unwittingly undone one of the most basic premises of life. This must have some serious implications on young girls.
We are now at a stage where many women in the west prefer to spend the first 30+ years of their life pursuing a career instead of a family. 40 year old mothers are common. The number is growing steadily. But in European states where education is heavily subsidized, there is a notable population shrinkage.
Curiously enough, this is not the case in less developed nations. With that said, I had a very interesting thought: Perhaps the best way to control the population explosion in developing countries like India and China, is to educate all the women to the same level that they are in Europe.
Never the less, I don’t mention this to suggest that we shouldn’t educate women – rather, it is to demonstrate that the counter-effect is very real. Either way, I think we must not forget the basics of life. Sophistication has a price. Everything has its place in the world. Some things don’t need rethinking. Once we start becoming so liberated that we begin to meddle with the basics of life, we effectively open up a cans of worms that can never be closed.
Breaking News: Palin Resigns!
Sarah Palin resigns. Rejoice. Now.
Just as I was about to hit the publish button on this piece, a news item popped up on my screen: Sarah Palin has decided to resign as Alaska Governor. While this does not necessarily mean that she is completely gone from politics, it does put a dent in her bid for 2012. According to the beleaguered governor:
Sarah Palin:
“I polled the most important people in my life, my kids, where the count was unanimous. Well, in response to asking, ‘Hey, you want me to make a positive difference and fight for all our children’s future from outside the governor’s office?‘ It was four yeses and one ‘Hell, yeah!” And the ‘Hell, yeah’ sealed it.”
When those kids are out the door, I suspect we’ll be hearing from her in 2024. If she only had like two kids, we would probably hear from her in maybe 2016 if the democrats lose in 2012. She’d still lose, but at least now she has her priorities in the right order. It appears there is hope for woman kind yet.
Adda gurl. 
32 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 7, 2009 at 11:53 am
Stewart
First of all, as usual another well thought out and interesting write up. However I am gonna disagree with some of your points… well mainly the one about Women in Islam. From the research I’ve done I’ve come to the realization that the treatment of women in modern Islamic societies is not in accordance with the teachings of Islam. Rather it is the result of Influences from outside societies unto Islamic societies. The Prophet Mohammed (The father of Islam) continuously spoke against the ill-treatment and subjugation of Islamic women and he himself was married to wives who were Independent Business women (His first wife Khadija) and Warriors (dont remember her name, she was his youngest wife It started with S…) and he allowed his wives to continue their lives.
The Koran itself also speaks against the ill-treatment of women and gives women the right to education, the right to work, the right to own property among other things, things which currently some “Islamic” counties do not allow. I would go further but instead of that I’ll just direct you to this blog post: http://izenjero.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/women-in-islam-myths-and-realities/ which goes into alot of what I would say.
Really and truly though with everything else though I completely agree, all the women who choose to become career women have had to give-up their home lives and they simply do not work together. The only women I know who have never had to do that are women who decided to focus on their careers when their children weren’t children anymore but became young adults/adults (16+)
July 8, 2009 at 3:00 am
xenlogic
True. However, some would also argue that some women were designed to be conquerors instead of nurturers. I find this fascinating, since there is an increasing number of cases where this is unequivocally true, yet they classify themselves with other women as well. This is certainly very odd. I guess there is a clear separation between the perception of gender roles and gender identity. I just wish those women would stick to just being career women instead of tasking themselves with something they apparently have little natural desire for.
The obvious exception of course, are those career moms who have to raise kids on their own. *sigh*
As far as the Muslim treatment of females is concerned, that is really down to cultural interpretation of Islam. In reality, they still largely make a big deal of denying women their rightful place in society. When you look at what’s actually happening in the world of Islam, you’ll quickly realise that the teachings and practice thereof are two wholly different things. I would have liked Ahmedinejad to have been deposed in Iran thereby bringing greater equal opportunities and rights to women. You see the same kind of problems in many Muslim states. Women are just not given the regard they should be and that’s really tragic for at least two reasons.
July 8, 2009 at 8:57 am
Christopher
Being a feminist has no bearing whatsoever on women’s desires to bear children. So you’re argument starts out flawed. Next the assumption that many feminists are gay strikes me as funny. While some may be gay there are many many more straight feminists. I also think you are forgetting that many men are feminists as well, myself included.
With respect to this whole notion that women can’t “have a career and change diapers”, can’t we men step it up a little bit and change some diapers? I see how fulfilled my wife is in her career and as a mother, and I only want to help her with these, as she does with me. Perhaps we can have our librarian and the mother of our children too, if we would just help out. It doesn’t have to be just “titty fiction.”
I dare you to find just one man who hasn’t had to make sacrifices in order to carry on a career. Also, my wife has made little to no time sacrifices with our son. He is in school and she gets off at 4. When he was a baby she took evening classes. These times only liberated her and made her a better mom. She would come home on fire after her classes, full of energy to give both me and our son. It was also good for me to spend alone time with my new baby. I don’t understand why the woman being away from home has to be looked at as a sacrifice, couldn’t it be a blessing?
Of course divorce rates went up when women began to realize the oppression they had faced for thousands if not millions of years. Give them a little time to adjust. Which is exactly what has happened. There was a short spike in divorce rates but as far as I have been informed they have been declining since the eighties.
“o what does a woman do when she’s too busy to prepare a meal for the family, too busy to keep the house presentable, so busy that sex becomes something of a chore just to keep him from straying, or worse: too busy to realise her nanny knows her kids better than she does?”
Why can’t the same be said for men. Why is it women’s responsibility to do these things. Really I think we can get past these traditional gender roles and just share the work load at home.
“career women who’re too busy being a man to raise (or even want) their own child.”
but by your very on words earlier humans have
“powerful urge to procreate.”
Which is it? Do we have a powerful biological urge or can educated women overcome this powerful urge?
“Women who desire to become equal with men become less valuable as women”
This is just hateful and wrong. As I have already mentioned, the women I know have only become more beautiful and self confident from having a career. I don’t see how this comment is justifiable at all.
“Men however, are not attracted to women who retain characteristics that are uncharacteristically female, like overt aggressiveness.”
How many people are attracted to overt aggressiveness in males?? Lets face it being aggressive is not attractive on anyone (if it is then someone has a real problem)
July 10, 2009 at 12:22 am
xenlogic
Hi Christopher,
First of all let me apologise for taking so long to respond. I had to fish your comments out of the spam bin and I only check it once in a blue moon for some comments that may be inadvertently pushed there. I could be wrong, but I’m guessing you’re not familiar with how these things work. So lemme help you out a bit:
There’s a spam blocker running in the background on most WordPress Blogs that watch out for things like length (for eg, if the post is too short), links, language and double-postings. So to avoid getting your comments inadvertently spammed, try to keep them all together and keep the language as clean and clear as possible. There are spam bots lurking out there on the internet that are getting better at mimicking human responses. Akismet is having some trouble telling the difference.
Anyway, thanks for writing in. I’ve taken the liberty to put your comments together as one contiguous post so that it’s easy to read and understand. I’ve also edited it for length and clarity (some sentences seemed to run into each other and I couldn’t make out what belonged where). You’ve made some interesting comments, even though I found that much of it seems to be borne out of misunderstanding. So let’s get into the thick of it, shall we?
I never said that feminism is defined as women no longer desiring children. Rather I said that the equal opportunity effect created by feminism also creates aspirations that can have a serious effect on society. It would seem as though you completely omitted the last two sections of the post that cleared this up.
Irrelevant. The women who are the strongest feminist supporters are either gay or bisexual. They are not the majority of the supporters, but they are certainly the loudest and chiefly responsible for the content of this post. This is why the strongest staunch of feminism has taken on a more ‘emasculative’ tone than it used to.
Feminism has a very positive and useful objective. Unfortunately, there are forces in the movement that have transformed it into something else altogether. It is potentially dangerous when one considers any necessity in redefining gender roles – something feminists who aren’t heterosexual would be largely interested in doing.
But it seems that you’re strangely oblivious to this reality. By virtue of being male, you’re basically being a feminine wagonist through cognitive dissonance as is obvious by this remark:
Fundamentally speaking, this is more an effect of personality rather than genuine affinity. For as far as men are concerned, you are in a stark minority. Never the less, I applaud your spirit. Women do need men to look out for them – that is part of our job after all. While joining a feminine fraternity (whether explicitly or implicitly) may not be the best way to do so in my opinion, it is probably worth an honorable mention.
However, don’t you think that instead of being a feminist, that we men would be better serving by not abdicating our gender roles, thus forcing women to take up the mantle? Women need men and vice versa. If we men become inert in our god given genetic imperative, doesn’t that mean women will be forced to assume the same? The inadequacy of men is partly to blame for this phenomenon and I’ve touched on this in the post:
I’ve written a separate post on Why Nice Guys Finish Last that speaks more fully to this subject matter. I’m all for female equality in social affairs, but I disagree wholeheartedly about redefining gender roles. That’s dangerous for all different kinds of reasons that I’ll let you postulate on in the furtherance of this discussion.
I actually agree with you. But I have no argument with that as that’s not the point of that paragraph (and I suspect you know this perfectly well – or maybe not). There are feminists who believe that men, like the drones in a bee-hive, are little more than sperm donors and that so long as there are positive male figures in the child’s life, the role of the man is effectively expendable. Please don’t tell me you’ve never heard of this…
Yet another straw man argument. I’ve clearly qualified the paragraph you’re quoting with the following:
Therefore your comment in this context is irrelevant.
LOL – “little to no…” <- I don't think you're helping your cause here, Chris.
Aren't you supposed to be disagreeing with me?
But OF COURSE it’s a blessing! It gives you some time to unwind after a rough day! What man wouldn’t love that? (I know I would – lol) But again, Chris (you mind me calling you Chris?), I think you misunderstood me there. The sacrifice isn’t about being away from home. The sacrifice comes in the form of not being as great at being either mommy or career girl because she’s trying to do both at the same time. I think you seriously underestimate how wickedly HARD that is to do my friend.
Any career woman out there who has kids would be lying if she said that doing both was a walk in the park (as you make it seem). They do it because it gives them a greater sense of fulfillment – but the counter effect is real, Chris. That’s what I’m getting at.
Thousands. Human civilization is just over 10,000 years old.
That’s because the rate of marriages has declined even more. If you do the math, then the “decrease” in divorce rate is actually deceptive. You can’t have divorce without marriage. If fewer people are getting married, then you should expect a corresponding “decline” in divorce as well. However, of all those marriages, an increase of up to 74% in some states shows that divorce rates are not getting any lower. So let me break this down all Fischer-Price for you:
1. Divorce rates are directly relational to Marriage rates.
2. If Marriage rates plummet, then so will divorce rates.
3. However, the percentage of marriages that end in divorce is still higher (averaging 60% over all, up from 50% in 2005), even though the number of divorces are lower (due to a lower number of marriages) in comparison to previous years.
You get it? It’s all about mathematical distribution. So here’s the real 64 million dollar question:
Why are marriage rates plummeting?
Answer that question correctly, and I will personally buy you a beer.
Again, I have no argument with this, largely because that was not the point of the discussion. While there is nothing wrong with sharing the work @ home, women are nurturers by design. You and I both know that there’s nothing like a woman’s touch in the home. It is an irreplaceable and invaluable asset. It’s one of the most appealing and invaluable features of having a woman in one’s life. Furthermore, according to US Census Bureau statistics, we men live longer when we’re married, largely because women have a natural instinct for taking care of their families.
Now while I wouldn’t suggest that a woman can’t do both, what degree of the former do you think will suffer because of more focus on the latter? One would have to be deluding themselves if they think there is no degree of decay.
Each gender has a very important role to play, Chris. No amount of social evolution will ever change that.
Again, you’ve misread me. I was referring to men – not women. Kindly re-read that paragraph:
I’m getting the distinct impression that you’ve completely misunderstood the objective of this post, Chris. I think we will have a better chance of furthering this discussion if you ask questions. I find interrogative responses to be more thought provoking.
It’s wrong to think that women should retain all of their natural appeal as women? You make it seem as if I’m against social equality for women. If that’s what you think, then you’ve clearly not read this post at all. Needless to say, I very strongly disagree. Everything has its place. We’re just too busy making life more complex than it needs to be.
You have clearly not met many women aside from the one you married. That’s ok. I find this kind of disparity in men with your opinions & personality as well. The only women who I’ve met who are not attracted to aggressive men were dykes. Of course, that’s just my personal experience and it has no bearing on the wider population of women worldwide or your personal experiences. So I’m providing room for exceptions – although I suspect those numbers are insignificant.
…but not necessarily better mothers.
I’m interested in reading your rebuttal. Oh, and try to keep all your responses together in one post. Double posts (especially if they’re short) will be misread as spam, cool? If any of your comments are missing from this, I’m still looking for them. I hope you don’t mind reposting them along with your rebuttal if they don’t turn up.
Cheers, mate.
July 11, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Christopher
I am beginning to think you aren’t from the States….which is fine, I just may have to modify my approach a bit. The cheers mate tipped me off as well as you saying I am in the minority…which is clearly untrue in the US. So where are you from? I think my rebuttal will be better if I have that background info. Oh and very funny about the earth being 10,000 years old……at least I am assuming you were joking. If not then I am very worried about your knowledge base. Ok Thanks for writing back.
July 12, 2009 at 1:55 pm
xenlogic
Hi Chris,
Ok, two things:
1. Apparently I had to not only fish the comments out, but I had to remove your IP from a blacklist. I had to turn that feature on because of some pornographic bots that kept (and still are) spamming the blog. You should be good now.
It think it blacklisted your IP because of all the one and two line comments that came in one right after another earlier this week. It saw it as a flood (common with spam bots) and automatically black lists the corresponding IP. Sorry about that. No software is perfect. I guess these spam bots have gotten to the point of being almost Turing-perfect.
…wow. That’s a scary thought…
Anyways:
2. I think we’re having a slight communication problem of sorts. I think this medium is partly to blame as for some reason I don’t think you’re reading entire sentences correctly. Maybe it’s my writing style? I dunno. For example:
Nah. The “Cheers mate” bit is a verbal tick I picked up from some Australian and Canadian friends. I always end my e-mails like that of late.
Secondly, you don’t need to modify your approach. So long as you keep the discussion civil, I think we can have a pretty good discourse on the issue.
In case you’re worried, I speak English and German (Ich spreche Deustches), and Spanish (Yo hablo Español) and French (je parle Français) and Japanese (nihongo ga wakarimasuka) and a number of others I won’t mention right now. I’ve got an obsession with language and culture and sometimes I pick up verbal ticks from all over – sometimes even from languages foreign to me.
In fact, I still find myself remarking “kawaii!” when I see a lovely woman walk by. It’s Japanese – but it’s become a habit now… Dave? Help?
People fascinate me, that’s all. Sometimes I just get so caught up in other cultures and languages that I am not consciously aware of the fact that I’m communicating with those idiosyncratic language patterns.
Forgive me if I inadvertently misled you.
Nah. I think your rebuttal will be just fine. If I don’t understand something, I’ll just ask for clarification.
LOL! No worries buddy.
I was referring to Human Civilization, not the earth.
Just to be abundantly clear, scientists generally agree that the earth is some 6 billion years old. However, according to the Human Genome Project (which is a separate science altogether, involving Anthropology and Genetics), humanity is about 2.3 million years old (National Geographic, August 2002, Article: “The Georgia Skull“) with the last form of human evolution rounding out about 70,000 years ago (when the first migration out of Africa after the last ice age was recorded) with the earliest record of human civilization being carbon dated to some 10,000 years ago.
Source: American Scientist, (July 2008); Article: “Mapping y-Chromosome migration patterns across Ancient Africa“.
I don’t know if there’s an online link. I’ve tried to scan the article, but it won’t come out well if I have to compress it to fit on this blog. I might have to use an off-site image host. It’s the cover page article. So if you can get a copy of that issue, it should be easy to find.
Anywho,
According to your earlier point, women were being mistreated for either millions or thousands of years. I said 10,000, since the first signs of coherent, intelligent societies date back to roughly around that time.
Although, now that I think about it, that’s probably irrelevant. We were still largely a base instinct driven people up until about 8,000 years ago when the ancient Sumerian scripts were first dated to. Egypt was probably one of the first early civilizations to hold women up to some degree of equality with men. There were probably earlier ones, but I’ll have to do some research on that.
No problem!
Oh, and one more thing: I saw two copies of the same comment. I just took the lengthier one. I hope that’s cool. Remember that when you submit, don’t re-submit or else the spam blocker will trap it! Also, avoid double-posting since it will trap that too.
Ok! Looking forward to
hearingreading your views.July 14, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Christopher
Don’t know whats up with all the multiple copy stuff……so are you going to tell me where you are from. It is not an issue with language it is only a cultural issue. Also when I look for facts I want them to be relevant to you and if you are not from the states then facts entirely from here probably won’t convince you much. Anyway, I see what you are saying about human civilization, however we don’t know much before written language and I wouldn’t doubt if even our monkey resembling ancestors weren’t repressing their female version…this is partially a joke, but you know it seems to have been happening forever.
Ok to begin…commenting on your post section by section but you keep saying you said certain things later so I will try to take it all in at once and comment accordingly.
Let’s get one thing clear first
“You and I both know that there’s nothing like a woman’s touch in the home.”
I would like to say I’m not sure we have much more in common than our reproductive organs, so don’t assume that you and I both know anything. I understand if you have nostalgic memories about your mother and grandmother doing things around the house, however if your father did any of those things I am sure you would have the same feelings about it. I have nostalgic feelings about my father’s fantastic spaghetti sauce, lentil soup, and potato salad. I loved the smell of cedar that he would put in his dresser drawer. I remember his bedtime stories and how he would put Epsom salts in my bath when I was sick. Anyway you get the drift…. I think it is just whatever you grow up with that becomes what you remember and love.
I will finish commenting on the post, then comment on your comments if there is time
“Now that they want to be just like men, they are getting better at what we always did, but are now getting worse at what they always were supposed to do.”
I know of no feminists who claim they want to be just like men. They want to have equal opportunities, this does not mean they want to watch boxing and scratch their crotches. Perhaps some of them do want to do this, I just have not met any of them. I have known three lesbian feminists and all of them acted quite girly, shaved, etc. The other feminists I have known are straight women and men. Also, who are we to say what anyone is supposed to do.
“This type of correlation is borne out of the fact that many educated women put off having kids until their mid to late 30’s – often to the detriment of their own health. On the other hand, it’s interesting that less educated women seem to value their maternal instinct more so than their ivy league counterparts.”
Here is an article explaining that the risks of having a baby at an older age have been exaggerated and what is most important is the health of the mother before conception. And there are no additional risks before 35. This gives a woman plenty of time to go to school and get her career set. My wife did it by age 23 and had our son shortly thereafter. You could say less educated women “value” their maternal instincts more or you could tell the truth of the matter. Less educated women are less educated on birth control methods. They are almost always at a lower socioeconomic status. This means they are less likely to have access of birth control methods. If they are uneducated they are likely to have less control over their situation at large. Less educated women are also less likely to think through the problems of the world, like overpopulation before having a child. I could go on and on, but you get the point that it is silly to blame such a large situation on only one small aspect of the larger picture.
“Then there are those women who genuinely have an overproduction of male hormones in their blood, who genuinely get a kick out of subduing men.”
The hormonal issue and a woman getting a kick out of subduing men would be two very different things. I’m not sure where the connection is here. Plus I’ve already made my point that a woman being successful shows she is competent and has good genes. I’m not sure what you have a problem with here. I believe you are speaking generally when it is only your personal preference that women not be competitive. Perhaps it is just my personal preference that I want my offspring to be smart and competitive therefore it is attractive that my wife will pass on these genes….but it is hard for me to see why this wouldn’t be attractive to most men.
“She is so good at emasculation, that she doesn’t even realise when she’s doing it. And they wonder why they’re still single…”
Sounds to me you are just talking about bitchy women, not successful women. The only emasculating women I have ever met were unintelligent and/or hurt badly by a man in the past.
“On the other hand, there are a few men out there who prefer dominant females. It’s just that they take on the feminine role in the relationship. I’m not too certain many career females are into passive, non-assertive men.”
Why does it have to be labeled “feminine” or “masculine?” Do you mean the woman takes on the bulk of the decision making and the man takes on more housework? Or what is it that is exactly feminine or masculine. Or is the female role submissiveness? *sigh * This mentality is tiresome. In my house we make joint decisions about everything and we do the chores we like to do. My wife likes to work outside so she does the mowing and landscaping. I’m highly allergic to bees so yard work isn’t exactly appealing. Wet food makes her want to puke and I don’t mind doing dishes, so I do a lot of the dishes. This is not to say we are set in these chores, sometimes I mow the yard and she does a lot of dishes. Or perhaps it is not about chores to you, maybe it is about submissiveness…if so, as I already said…. * sigh *
“For example, successful career women shouldn’t marry someone outside that field unless he can handle its demands on her. This is the reason why women in specialized fields tend to be more successful with men who are also in the field. They have a better appreciation for the demands (and rewards) of such jobs.”
Ok this is simple chemistry. People with a certain interest are drawn to others with that interest. Also this is who they are around all the time….who else are they going to ask out except for people they are around.
“A lot of female surgeons face cheating husbands who weren’t prepared to deal with the long, irregular hours.”
I don’t know where your facts are for this however, I think this is certainly true the opposite way. Many women have become fed up with their men for working too much and go around cheating.
“Of course, there’s a catch. Most men prefer jobs that have a practical feel to it. So in any corporate environment, women will outnumber men by a ratio of 3:1. Most men who are in management didn’t go through the same ladders as their female counterparts. So the workforce is likely to be largely female.”
Really are you just spouting at the mouth? Where are you getting this fact 3:1? Everyone knows the corporate world is still dominated by males. In executive positions there are 10 males to every one females. Once they are able to break through the glass ceiling they then earn less than men in the same position with the same qualifications.
“However, if as a woman you have ever thought that you had to choose between your career and being a mother, then please, do us all a huge favour; choose career. We don’t need your DNA.”
Once again I could not disagree more. This is insanity to not want the smartest and the best to be the mothers of our children. Apparently you want some dumb kids.
“They’re now under pressure to become something they’re not.”
They are not under pressure for this, they merely want to feel the confidence and competence that comes from working. And it isn’t something they’re not it is something they have not be allowed to do in the past. Can you honestly put yourself in a woman’s shoes for one second. How would you like to be told that you have to choose between either having children, one of our major biological urges, or having a career. Would you like that very much? I didn’t think so.
“Men by comparison don’t run such a risk. While fatherhood is equally as important as motherhood, men don’t have to carry a child in gestation for 9 months or choose between fatherhood and a career. The world doesn’t need to pause for human continuity once every 28 days and we don’t need maternity leave.”
News flash, a woman can work the entire 9 months she is pregnant. The world does not pause for a woman’s cycle. Not to be too blunt but we have such wonderful technologies as pads and tampons and my wife has NEVER missed work because of her period. Sure a woman may need a few weeks to recover from having a baby, but most everyone takes off this amount of time for vacation every year, and how often does a woman have a baby? The average in the states is two times. So big deal she takes her paid vacation leave to recover from having a baby two times during her career.
“As if women weren’t already under enough pressure to look unrealistically”
This is a flat out cultural problem. Are you saying it would be better to leave women to worry about their looks instead of bettering themselves through education and a career?
Now to address your chart. Again you are trying to make a huge issue into one simple issue. You are saying that in China the women are not liberated and therefore their population is on the rise (much to the detriment of the country but that is beside the point.) China’s total fertility rate is 1.7, which means that, on average, each woman gives birth to 1.7 children throughout her life. The necessary total fertility rate for a stable population is 2.1; China’s population is expected to grow over the next few decades. This can be attributed to immigration and a decrease in infant mortality and a decrease in death rate as national health improves.
Europe already had good health care, so their population has remained fairly stable.
As you will see on this map. http://www.pregnantpause.org/numbers/fertility.htm
China and Europe are included in a declining population. I couldn’t’ find an overall fertility rate for Europe, however it ranges from 1.3 in Eastern Europe to 2.07 in Iceland. As you can see this is the range of fertility in which China also lies. Again proving that women’s rights have no bearing on their desires for children, only their ability to prevent unwanted, multiple pregnancies.
“in European states where education is heavily subsidized, there is a notable population shrinkage”
There has been no shrinkage yet, these are only estimates which could be off, there has been steady growth albeit slow. Couldn’t you find a more current chart then from nearly 15 years ago?
Here they have lumped developed and less developed countries together. As you can see, developed countries have had a stable population where as less developed countries are reproducing at a ridiculous rate. If everyone were doing this we would use up our resources before you could blink.
The main point is that 2.1 is the needed number to sustain a population and the average Chinese woman only has 1.7 kids. China is only expected to grow due to better health care and more immigration. Your chart is misleading. Additionally, China knows this is a very real problem. This is unlike your imagined problem of the human race dying out, the real issue is overpopulation. It is such a real problem they actually have to limit, by law, people’s family size.
Ok now back to the comments you wrote to me.
“It is potentially dangerous when one considers any necessity in redefining gender roles – something feminists who aren’t heterosexual would be largely interested in doing. But it seems that you’re strangely oblivious to this reality.”
I am not oblivious to much of anything. I only see no danger. I am in support of this redefining. It will be a mix of positive and negative changes as we move towards more equality and fairness. People will need time to adjust to a new way of thinking, there is no doubt about that, however I will not back down on the fact that traditional gender roles should be redefined. They are unfair for all parties including men. Many men do want to be stay at home Dads but there is too big of a stigma. In fact in this opinion poll 31% of Dads would stay at home with the Kids if their spouse made enough. That is even down from 2005 from 49% because of the recession (no one wants to give up a job right now because there is a good chance their spouse may lose theirs as well.) Anyway the point is that mentalities are changing on the matter of gender roles and fathers are stepping up and doing more than just being an income for the family….they are actually nurturing
* gasp * a woman’s job!?
You believe a man can have more than one job according to this because you say this is only part of our job. However you can demean a women to creatures that were explicitly designed to nurture.
Who is to say they were explicitly designed to nurture. If this were true then women would never have had anything to be liberated from. If they were only designed to nurture then they would only desire to nurture. How would you like it if someone said men were designed to do one and only one thing. Or maybe you do believe this…. If so I find it minimalizes humans as a whole. To say that we are designed only for this or that when we now know the brain is extremely plastic and malleable. It was designed this way so that humans can adapt and use their brains in the most appropriate way for their current environment. Here is an interesting article on the brain and some gender issues.
Also, please tell me this, if they were only designed for nurturing why would God have given them the complex ability to reason. Why can they figure out just as difficult of science or math problem as a man? Why can they write poetry and novels? The only logical answer is they were too designed for more than one purpose.
Here is an article about some gender issues and brain plasticity
The overarching message is that while men and women may differ in certain areas, there is much more variety within groups than between groups. Additionally, the reasons for some of these differences are likely due to differences in environment. Women may seem more nurturing, but how often is a young boy encouraged to play with dolls or to take care of his younger siblings. Not often, but if boys were encouraged to be nurturing, then their brains would develop accordingly. As the article puts it “the brain is always inextricably both the cause and the result of behaviour.” Therefore it is impossible to say how someone should inherently be based solely on one’s gender.
This is all the time I have to comment now, I know I haven’t gotten to all your responses but I am very busy. Hope to hear a response and I’ll write back more when I can. Hopefully this is all one post.
July 16, 2009 at 4:07 am
dave
Yup Kawaii is just about right but its normally the Japanese females who use it often
and Stewart is much better at Japanese than I am. I have never studied it seriously…
I totally agree with your post though. A lady who is top notch in a company should be able to understand herself when she get home to the kids and the husband. If a lady can balance both of them and do exceptionally well at both, then she is probably super woman.
July 16, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Alamanach
The only civilization older than Egypt (that history records, anyway) is Mesopotamia. For some insights into what they believed, read the Enuma Elish.
While you guys are at it, maybe you could be persuaded to read The Secret History of the Mongols, read about the founding of Portugal, read the last chapter of Proverbs, and read perhaps William Buck’s condensed version of the Ramayana. (Or, for a quirky version of the Ramayana, just start here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfS2p1vFics ) The systematic “opression” of women over the centuries is greatly exaggerated. Even Ghengis Khan had to shut up and listen to his mother.
Read better books. Ooh rah.
July 17, 2009 at 8:26 am
xenlogic
Will do!
July 18, 2009 at 11:36 am
xenlogic
Hey Chris,
Please note that expletives are not tolerated on this blog. If you can’t disagree without being disagreeable, then I won’t do you the honour of a debate. Your comment was automatically spammed because of the language contained in it. This is the reason why I didn’t see it. If you hadn’t mentioned to me that you had commented, I would never have seen it and it would have been deleted without being read.
Let this be a warning to you. I won’t tolerate troglodytes. Never the less, out of the abundance of my forgiving nature, I’ve edited your post in the interest of the debate. Unfortunately, this has coloured my opinion of you and now I won’t be able to respond to you in a completely objective manner. So you will forgive me if I handle you a bit rough in my rebuttal:
Because you keep posting again even after you’ve already hit submit. That’s part of the reason why your earlier comments were spammed. I feel like I’m repeating myself. I’m getting slightly annoyed.
No. Why? Because it’s irrelevant. Read this.
We understand each other culturally and that’s all that really matters. Therefore there’s nothing else of relevance to talk about here. So get to the point already.
Haw. Haw. Moving right along…
I’m not even sure we have that much in common. I think you’re posing as your husband to make a point. Don’t worry though, your secret is safe with me.
My father didn’t need to. Mommy was far better at it. There was no need to reinvent the wheel. Next!
So your dad added the warm homely feel to your childhood home? While I concur with your deduction, it is a pointless argument that relies on a vastly insignificant minority proportion to establish an irrelevant point. The point is that chicks are better nurturers than men are. Their very bodies were designed with that purpose in mind.
Dude, why do you think women have: breasts? Right brain dependency? more fat in the midsection? 1.618 ratio of hips to waist? distinctively more docile & emotional propensities? less interest in physicality and more interest in cognitive maturity? Chicks were practically built to do the lovin’ dude. What’s wrong with that?
Well, if they’re anything like you, I would like to hope not. Aside from that, you probably need to meet more feminists. I’ve met some seriously mean ones, lemme tell ya. Or maybe it’s just the feminists in Florida, California and New York that have sand in their vagina. Maybe it’s just the ones that appear on TV.
Or maybe it’s just your cognitive dissonance. Yeah – I think that’s it.
So that’s what men do? And you say that I’m demeaning women? LOL! Dude, if women could build a dildo that fixed stuff around the house, change their tires and did all the heavy lifting, we men would’ve been wiped out a long time ago.
I appreciate your honesty.
Shaved? You actually checked? LOL! Man, I keeled over laughing when I read this. LOL!!! Anyways dude, you need to meet you some Dykes. When Dykes become feminists, they eat men like you for breakfast – not that they can actually do that (with them being female and all).
Not who. It’s “What” and it’s called Deoxyribonucleic Acid – or DNA for the layman. Look it up.
Silly wabbit. When you quote articles out of context, you make yourself look silly. For example, quoting from the very same article, we also read that:
…which validates my point. :p Moving right along:
I agree. I have no argument with that – especially since that was never the point of that paragraph. The trouble comes when women like surgeons spend their entire youth going to school (medicine is NOT a simple four year degree!) only to finish everything at an age that makes it more risky for them to have children. Women who make similar career choices in other fields run the same risk. Allow me to demonstrate:
In a non medical field, assuming that a woman does both her Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees before she decides to have kids and one right after another, she’ll spend a total of no less than six (6) years pursuing tertiary education. Assuming that there are no breaks in her education track, if she starts collage at 18, this leaves her at age 24 – perfect for having kids.
If however, there is a break in the track (which is more likely) – say she goes to work immediately after school paying off her school debt – this complicates things exponentially. Standard college tuition takes about 3 – 5 years to pay off. If she doesn’t decide to do a Master’s, then that leaves her in the clear to have kids and what not by the time she’s 23. If she’s determined to do her masters and not to have kids to complicate the picture, we’re looking at her doing her Masters at age 26/27. That’s another two years, which throws her closer to age 30 than she’d ideally like.
If she was doing medicine, she needs to have a 4 year first degree, then another 4 year Medical degree then a 3 year internship. Assuming there are no breaks in her education track, if she started college at 18, then we’re looking at 11 years worth of tertiary schooling. That puts her at age 29 before she becomes a resident surgeon or doctor. There are a number of other fields like medicine which are almost equally as grueling – like certain branches of law for example.
Can you imagine if there are any breaks in her education track? That puts her at 30+ easily. You can do the rest of the math…
Do you see the point I’m making Chris? If a woman truly wants it all, she runs the risk of having her biological clock run out before she’s gotten it all. If a woman wants to have kids, she needs to do it while her internals are still firm. Outside of that bracket is increases health risks for all kinds of medical reasons I’ll let your wife’s personal doctor share with you.
LOL – thanks for proving my point.
Again, thanks for proving my point. LOL! My God, this is getting ridiculous.
You’re absolutely right! LOL!
They’re called “Tomboys” Chris. I don’t understand how you seem to have so little interaction with the outside world and the many permutations of people out there.
Competence and having good genes are mutually exclusive. An ugly chick with horns growing out of her forehead sitting in the CEO seat is obviously competent just by being there. Any other ideas?
Again, you’ve clearly misunderstood and misquoted me – AGAIN. I have no qualms with generally competitive women. Did you not read the paragraph where I said:
You’re getting me annoyed, Chris. You have clearly quoted me out of context (like you did that article earlier). Why don’t you ask questions first instead of jumping to ludicrous conclusions? Please, read this. It might prevent this from happening again.
[Cont'd]
July 18, 2009 at 11:38 am
xenlogic
Well, at least you’re honest. It really does appear that you haven’t met many women at all. Secondly, it’s every woman’s God given right to bitch out every once in a while – EVERY ONE OF THEM (your wife included). So there’s no need to make a distinction. Furthermore, there are corporate women out there who are just outright obnoxious as well as there are corporate women out there (like my boss) who are the sweetest things DNA has ever made.
The latter category is more rare than the former.
A woman doesn’t need to be a bitch to be a boss – but she definitely needs to be aggressive and assertive. The point of the surrounding paragraphs is that many corporate women can’t seem to separate being a corporate boss from being a wife and mother. Women who fail to make this separation (and there are MANY), will not attract many men.
I’m not talking about women who are playful and witty (like my fiancé). I’m talking about women who talk down to their men as though they were children. I’m talking about women who bark at their men as though they were dogs. I’m talking about women who love to push people around, including the man who they married. THOSE women, Chris, are the ones I’m referring to.
THAT is what I meant, and you were WELL aware of it. You’d think my choice of images were pretty clear.
Do you honestly think you could do the things your wife did for your kids?
…and yet, here you are. LOL!
That’s nice. Guess what? I don’t care. You know why? Because that has absolute nothing to do with the point I raised earlier. How does that make you feel Chris? Try to read with understanding next time.
Oh, and by the way? I cook for my lady when she gets home from the hospital (she’s a doctor). So if you’re trying to say that we men should help out at home, I do, I know, and I get it – but clearly, that’s not the point that I’m trying to raise here, is it? I mean, why would I raise a point counter to something I already do at home, Chris? C’mon. Neither of us is that stupid (well, I can only speak for myself).
So here’s a clue:
If you happen raise a point that seems to be counter-intuitive (it appears you realised this earlier when you thought I did not like competitive women), then dear Chris, it probably IS. M’kay?
You’d be surprised where people go to find love. Have you ever heard of singles bars, church functions, parties, youth clubs, and *gasp* mail order brides and internet dating? Get out some more, Chris.
I’m glad you mentioned this. I’m going to hot link to this comment in a future post. Some people seem to think women don’t cheat nearly as much as men do. Thanks, Chris!
Yes, Chris, in EXECUTIVE positions. The corporate world doesn’t include only executive positions now, does it? However, this is not to say that there aren’t women in executive positions. They’re just a minority and there’s a very good reason for that:
DNA.
While we all agree that gender preference in career choice appears to have a strong social engineering contingent, even when women are exposed to these other male dominated careers, we still have a large majority of those positions being occupied by men. Why do you think this is?
Take the career tracks involving Engineering and Technology for example. They are both very math intensive careers. We all know that women generally hate math (something men, by comparison seem to prefer). Now even though women consistently outperform men academically, out scoring men even in some math oriented courses, we still find that these positions are populated primarily by men and women still gravitate towards their female dominated streams. This has even been validated by a study published by Linda Miller and Rowena Hayward in the UK. (You have to pay to read the study and I only have a hard copy – so read the abstract).
Why is this, Chris?
The playing field has already been leveled. There is no glass ceiling stopping women from getting to the top. If they were meant for it, they’ll get to it and nothing can stop them. This is especially true for women who are genetically inclined to lean more towards the left (the same kinds of women who get into science, technology, engineering, etc.). Some women were just built that way genetically.
The other women by comparison were not.
Chris, it is now obvious to me that you completely lack a genuine sense of understanding. It only means that I’m going to have to be especially patient with you:
That paragraph is referring to women who think they have to deliberate between having a career and having children. It should never be something she has to deliberate about. If it is, then her motherly instinct obviously isn’t strong enough to properly raise those kids. Otherwise, they’ll grow up to be maligned (like many feminists are) and have obvious misrepresentations in their minds about the roles of men and women in society…
…like you do concordantly. Interesting… Well that explains your opinion then. It’s interesting that you’re married. LOL! Lucky guy.
Since you obviously haven’t met many feminists, I can understand why you made this comment. So let me break this down for you: There are women out there Chris who deride others for wanting to have children instead of wanting a career. These career women look down at those kid-toting women with disdain, as though they have failed somehow to capitalize on what they really are.
You don’t know about those women because you are clearly blind to what is going on out there. I’m starting to think you are intentionally blind to these things and rationalize them away using some warped sense of cognitive dissonance. Wake up Chris. There are evil women out there who discriminate against women like your wife. They hate children and think that marriage is a form of male bondage. They are enemies of the status quo and are anti-family because they think families propagate “out-dated gender role ideology” to quote one of them. They use the benchmark of feminism to forward their ludicrous agenda under far tamer premises.
So when you run around calling yourself a feminist, you have absolutely no idea of the sheer extent of some of these people’s agenda. Beware my friend.
No, Chris. I cannot. The mere fact that you suggest this disturbs me, quite frankly. Those high heeled boots look like murder. Furthermore, drag is not my style. Yes, I’m being cynical. Your argument is moot because I don’t need to be in “women’s shoes”. I can understand the plight of oppressed women – but feminism is not what it used to be and you need to wake up and realise that very quickly.
LOL!!! If you had any idea of how incredibly stupid this remark is, you wouldn’t have made it. I’m still laughing myself to tears, man. LOL!!!!
Anyway Chris, this argument is irrelevant as I’ve already established points earlier. Thanks for the laugh though.
NEWSFLASH: It’s REEEEEALLY hard to do. You can talk because you can’t get pregnant (or so you claim). Like I said in my post:
Y’know what’d be really fun? A corporate CEO nursing a kid while on the breast in a board room meeting. That would be the ultimate Kodak™ moment. LOL!
I can see the caption now: “Women finally attain equality in the boardroom”.
[Cont'd]
July 18, 2009 at 11:39 am
xenlogic
Do me a favour; first read this, and when you’re done with that, read this and then this. Now while most women won’t get it that bad, the average woman does experience a great deal of discomfort with the menses. They’ve just decided to tough it out, because they want what we’ve got, even though we didn’t have to deal with any of those biological issues to get what we got.
Now don’t you DARE suggest that women wouldn’t prefer not to deal with this. Sure drugs like Drospirenone Ethinyl Estradiol (aka ‘Yaz’) are out there to help – but it doesn’t make it go away forever. We men by comparison do not need any drugs to rule the world. Heck, we did it while going to the bathroom at the same time.
That’s straw. You’re talking about ONE woman. The workforce is almost 50% female. What do you think is going to happen when their periods sync up in the same work place? You do the math, professori.
LOL!
FINALLY! YOU ASKED A QUESTION (Without launching off on a stupid assumption). To answer your question:
NO, that’s not what I’m saying. Go back and read the entire paragraph this time and don’t make me reach into this internet box thingy and smack you!
STOP right there. It’s not my chart. See the links under the chart to see where I got the info.
*yawn*
Chris, you disappoint me. You’re very good at copy & paste, but you are completely useless at the understanding and extrapolation of data. Since you basically copied this whole paragraph verbatim, I’ll just counter with this: China has a ONE child per couple policy. That kills this argument of yours dead in the water:
…because you have obviously failed to note that China also has one of the world’s worst human rights records, being the source of the large majority of unwanted pregnancies and subsequent adoptions in the United States alone.
Next time you hot link a site, do yourself a favour and read it thoroughly first. *shakes head*
What the hell? You think I didn’t already know this? Again, you’ve demonstrated Chris that YOU DON’T READ. Here’s what I wrote:
Are you seriously telling me with a straight face that you DIDN’T see that? C’mon man. You’re starting to become annoying now.
Again, it’s not my chart, but your entire commentary is misleading. It has now become abundantly clear to me that you know absolutely nothing about population metrics. Math clearly isn’t your strong suite. Fair enough. So then tell me, Chris:
Have you factored into consideration the number of children each woman has individually in the attempts to have a male child (thus accounting for the high adoption rates), versus the child she actually keeps (thus counting towards the census figure you quoted)?
Nope. It’s obvious you didn’t.
…hence the high adoption rates of Asian children in the US. Do you know anything about the effects of Legislation on Social Development Policy? I guess not. Do yourself a favour and read any of those United Nations white papers on the subject. Check their website. Happy reading.
You know what? Forget it. Based on your responses here, it’s quite obvious you’re not going to read them anyway.
…because you’re blissfully oblivious to the reality. Denial is the most predictable of all human responses.
And neither will I on the position of sustaining gender roles. The world wasn’t exactly broken with them. Therefore we don’t need to fix it. Well I guess that settles it Chris, neither of us is willing to accept the other’s position. Thus, this debate is effectively pointless.
You like the idea of being a stay at home dad, don’t you? If so, then you’ve just validated my earlier point about your membership in a feminist movement being a function of your personality. Most men aren’t so inclined. You are a minority – and yes, I’m referring to men in the United States of America. Therefore, your earlier comment about you male feminists not being a minority is clearly inaccurate.
You’re just terrified of this stigma against stay at home dads because it threatens your masculinity. This whole post is based on your preconceived opinion. You have no interest in the facts – only in your opinion. Again, this debate is pointless.
Rubbish. How does saying that a creature born with a womb and a vagina was born to nurture, equivalent to being demeaning? This is the single most moronic thing you’ve written so far. Do you think women were born with a vagina to conquor the world? C’mon man. Don’t gimme that feminist crap.
Not who, what. It’s called …wait, I’ve said this before. Never mind. *banging head against the wall*
Nonsense. Woman liberation and gender roles are mutually exclusive. It’s only that there are some liberated women taking the liberty to redefine gender roles. You’re so gung ho about chicks and sticks that you’ve blindly drunk the Kool-Aid without precondition. Gender roles don’t need to be redefined for a woman to be liberated. That’s like saying that parenting roles need to be redefined for a man to be a father.
It’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
Nonsense. Genetic complexity provides room for enough permutations of life such that people like yourself and your kin are inexorably a part (albeit a negligible percentage of) the equation. Thankfully, your tiny numbers pose no threat to humanity.
So?
Humans have a remarkably overvalued sense of entitlement to this universe. We are a near meaningless animated forms of star dust, whose entire lifetime from start to (yet unrealized) finish will constitute an indistinguishable speck in the cosmic space / time continuum. Two thousand years from now, nobody will remember this conversation and even fewer still will remember our names. If you can wrap your head around that, then try if you dare, to grasp the profundity of this simple epiphany:
Your concerns about the reduction of the significance of humanity is as profoundly irrelevant as it is inconsequentially misplaced. Our Sun could nova tomorrow for no reason and any passing alien civilization would have no record of our existence. Your bones and your front yard would be indistinguishable from each other in a cloud of super hot gases in deep space. Humanity couldn’t be any less significant in the grand scheme of things.
Stick to being pre-occupied with the feminists you seem so eager to defend.
I would not be concerned about someone saying men were designed for one thing, because that would constitute just as much nonsense as I have been wading through here. Here’s why:
Do you know how DNA works? Only the permutations of life that it produces that can continue to live in a given environment will continue to survive, unless of course the environment changes to favour another permutation. In every permutation, the large majority of the survivors will carry a specific configuration. The minority will be a mish mash of other permutations (like gays, transsexuals, feminists, etc).
Apropos, this environment does not exactly favour minorities of that sort. Gays will always number in the minority because they are not inclined to reproduce, even though, unfortunately, some of them do. That aside, others who fall into the gray areas like yourself are bound to continue to reproduce, but you won’t get much support because the infrastructure does not support your thinking.
Thankfully, most women do not like docile men, which is why nice guys tend to have a very hard time finding a lover. You just got lucky. Either way, this is how nature keeps “gray area” men like you out of the Darwinian reproductive gene pool. This is why stay at Home dads and feminist men are still a minority. Hot chicks are keeping your sperm out of the system. It would seem that the very women you seek to defend are working against your male feminist kin.
YOU GO GURLS! *holla!*
Unfortunately, because of cognitive dissonance (which again, thankfully, only affects a minority of any given population), only a few of you will get married and thus reproduce the problem in your offspring. But not to worry. Nature always finds a way. Your DNA probably only has 3 generations left in the system. Paris Hilton seems to know what’s best for humanity after all.
[Cont'd]
July 18, 2009 at 11:39 am
xenlogic
Rubbish. This idea was proposed by German Scientist Sigrid Schmitz in a desperate attempt to tie neuron adaptability to theories of gender neutrality. She has failed to establish however, why there is still a corresponding drift of females away from the Scientific, Technological, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM for short) careers if both brains from male and female were substantially capable of the same feats of cognitive spatialism.
The hard cold truth is that they’re not.
Don’t get your panties in a knot about brain plasticity just yet. You need to learn how to ride a bicycle before you can fly a Boeing 747 and you clearly have very little appreciation for this subject matter: The brain is flesh. It is a product of DNA which (technically) is like a mathematical fractal equation (to quote a friend) in which the environment is one of the many factors. Life is permutation that is highly contingent on the supplied variables.
DNA produces enough variations of life in any environment such that at least ONE of those variations will survive. Humans have male and female because it maximizes the chance of survivability of the entire race. Nature did this – and it has worked out pretty well so far. There’s nothing here we need to fix aside from the way society unfairly treats women. Now that we’ve fixed that, there’s nothing more to add to this equation.
The rest is scientific quackery.
Nonsense. Humans don’t adapt. DNA adapts. Only the fittest survive. Human adaptation is an illusion. If many humans walk into a forest, only those of them whose DNA allows them to survive in the forest will continue to live. The rest will die. Those who live on will continue to propagate the DNA of humans that can survive in the forest. If those humans move into a cold, icy land, only those whose DNA that will allow them to survive will live. The rest will die. Read up on Darwin’s theory of Evolution. I don’t feel like lecturing today.
Link missing.
Two things:
1. God didn’t do that. DNA did.
2. DNA didn’t do that to all of them. Only a few of them have this gift.
Women are primarily right brain creatures. That’s why they’re more emotive than men. Men, by comparison are left brain creatures. We’re the ones that were gifted with the ability to work the math, physics, etc. That’s why we rule the world and why your kind is complaining.
Rubbish. There is strong evidence to suggest that most women are not mathematically inclined as is suggested by this 2004 article. Even if they do well in math in school, they still prefer other less cognitively intense fields. Here’s a quote:
Mutually inclusive functions aside, women’s brains were largely designed for another purpose. Read more at the link above.
Because that’s a largely right brain function. The right brain is what facilitates creativity. This is concordantly why men are not as creative as women in most cases. That’s the woman’s touch I was referring to earlier. But alas, most of my points seem to fly right over your head.
Tell me Chris, remember that Sigrid Schmitz I told you about earlier? She wrote this. Don’t you find it interesting that:
1. The article was written by a woman?
2. She only references work by other women?
3. She fails to explain how “brain plasticity” doesn’t account for why women naturally incline away from cognitively intensive tasks that men naturally incline to?
It was a fun read. But next time, try to find something that is peer reviewed, balanced and that doesn’t obviously appear to be forwarding an agenda, m’kay? LOL!
Irrelevant. This does not explain why women are largely not cognitively inclined towards STEM oriented careers.
Rubbish. Social engineering did not come out of thin air, Chris. There’s a reason why it emerged that way. Read this article about the biological differences between baby boys and girls and you will see why social engineering developed in the way it did.
Chris, I have a few words of advice:
1. Lay off the language. Your post will be spammed.
2. Embrace hyperlinks in <a href=”http://www.website.com”>URL Tags<\. Posting more than one hyperlink in it’s exposed http://website format will cause your comments to be spammed.
3. Lay off the ad hominem remarks. I need to respect you to continue the debate.
4. Read your reference links THOROUGHLY. Ensure that they validate your points before you post them.
5. You might want to read this page in entirety.
If your comments get spammed again, I’m not going to fish it out of the rubbish bin. I’d love to say that I’m looking forward to your rebuttal, but then I’d be lying. Stick to the debate and leave the needless side show nonsense out of it. Kool?
Cheers,
Xen
July 19, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Christopher
[Xenocrates: I've reformatted your post so that it is readable]
I just do not see how. I have known 2 stay at home dads and they were great nurturers and their kids are successful.
You have apparently never met many women from here at all. I work at a major university and the women I know are not docile. Additionally, the girls I know (I obviously have not met the women you are describing) love being physical. All I am saying is it is unfair to make broad sweeping statements when everyone is so different.
Let’s get this straight, I work at Purdue university and my wife (no this is not my wife) and her best friend are very involved in the feminist movement there. I have met my fair share of feminists and I am here to tell you they aren’t these staunch manly women that you are describing. I have also taken a women’s psychology class and it really should have been titled feminism 101. Needless to say, there were a lot of feminists in that class. I just wanted to learn how to pick up chicks, but instead it dispelled a lot of the negative stereotypes about women that some people still hold onto. I have to tell you it is interesting to me that what I am saying would be offensive, since I thought your post was purposely being offensive when I read it. Now I know we aren’t from the same country and I can see that you probably weren’t trying to be purposely offensive although it would be taken that way by nearly all Americans.
I was only trying to make a point. They don’t want to act manly. I believe you are demeaning men by saying we could be replaced by some machine. I’m sure most women would not agree with you on this. Does it scare you that women can do things on their own? I’m honestly trying to understand your mentality.
Yea I asked. Why is this weird? My wife’s aunt is a dyke with a capital D. Those type of Lesbians are kind of dying out. Lipstick lesbians are all I ever hear about these days. Anyway my wife’s aunt is not disrespectful to men at all. In fact she isn’t even a feminist, at least not an outspoken one as I have never heard her talk about feminist issues. Her other aunt on the other hand is the hugest feminist I have ever met and she is completely straight and the dean of students at a university in Minnesota. I think you are the one who needs to meet more feminists.
Ahhh the old nature is destiny argument again. I thought people had stopped using this tired argument as it so clearly has so many flaws. I will not start up this old philosophical debate, it would take too long.
But my argument stands that most women can and do have children before this age. And that many more women do not have problems then do. You said it was devastating to their health and I believe this article does disprove what you are saying. They are saying there are some risks but they have been exaggerated. And yes some degrees take longer, my wife is continuing her education as well as working and being a wonderful mom. There is no reason for me not to help her make her dreams happen. Also it is a very very rare person period who actually does this much schooling. That being said, I known many mothers, mine included who have had that much education and still had kids before 35.
Good LORD could you have more stereotypes. I am saying a hormonal imbalance has nothing to do with a woman bashing a man. These are very separate issues. Also I do not see how any of what I am saying is proving YOUR point. I am saying your point is ridiculous. Women should think about overpopulation before having children. The earth is in no risk at all of being wiped out, we have the opposite problem. That was the point of my whole paragraph that you took one tiny section out. There were several good points in there that you are just glossing over….hmmm must be your cognitive dissonance.
Now you are the one annoying me by quoting me out of context. Additionally if most of what you were saying wasn’t just outright offensive, then I would not feel the need to jump to conclusions. Why didn’t you just state what you were saying here:
And leave out all the offensive junk.
No it is not clear as I have just said, most of it is very offensive. You are actually suggesting that there is a danger in teaching women! Give me a break if you do not think someone would get upset about something like that.
Are the only genes that matter to you looks? Intelligence is strongly genetic. We know this from twin studies.
How could this possibly be anyone’s right???
HOLY CRAP YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING!!!!! I guess you guys aren’t planning on having kids, either that or you are planning on making her quit her job. Wow I can’t believe she would put up with this type of mentality.
You are totally ignoring my point that people who work together obviously have some shared interests. Again, it is called chemistry.
Yea I definitely never said that. People cheat….fact of life.
The DNA argument is your real argument not that it will wipe out the human race or anything silly like what you said in your post. Perhaps if you would have represented your views the way that you wanted them to be expressed then I could have responded more effectively.
What are you talking about? Of course the corporate world includes executives. I have no clue what you are talking about here.
You have no argument against my nurture argument. If boys were brought up to be nurturers, they would be nurturers and vice versa.
Ideally nothing would stop them, however too many men in high power hold similar stereotypes that you hold. Also your argument said women can not be good at a career and being a mom, not about what jobs they prefer.
It was a poll done in the US. You are clearly wrong.
I think we are from different planets. In fact I did not even read all of your posts. This is taking too much of my time when obviously our life experiences have taught us different things. I am definitely done putting my time into this when you are not even taking a word I have said into consideration. At least consider this, we do not know what all is nature and what is nurture so neither of us will know if they are right and that is the bottom line. You can argue and say you know you are right until you are blue in the face, but the fact is you can not know and neither can anyone else, because we can’t separate nature and nurture. You should at least consider also that I have known many women who were truly successful at being a career woman and being a mother. I am sorry you have not met any of these wonderful women. You continually demean my intelligence which shows how scared you are that you are wrong.
July 20, 2009 at 8:17 am
Christopher
For some reason I had to see what you said about your chart.
It doesn’t make any sense to say that a good way to control the population in China is through birth control if their population growth is due to IMMIGRATION and BETTER HEALTH CARE. That is why I said your chart was not proving the point you wanted it to.
Oh and all this is a load of rubbish. Some of the smartest engineers at Purdue are women…..
And the point stands that even at 22% that means you are alienating nearly 1/4 of the female population who work in the math and sciences by your comment. Again it is unfair to make broad sweeping statements about large groups of people.
If my first comment got filtered, I don’t know why. I didn’t curse in it.
July 21, 2009 at 6:53 am
Emily
Hi,
As a woman I am put off by this article. However, I was reading some of the comments and I had to at least leave this little tid bit. I am a Behavioral Neurobiologist and I have to tell you that the brain is highly plastic and adaptable. Every day your brain lays down new pathways or enforces old neural connections. This is how the brain adapts. You are correct that DNA adapts as well, however we are now 100% sure that the brain also adapts. Here is a link that introduces the idea of nueroplasticity. http://www.memoryzine.com/neuroplasticity.htm
I know I am in the minority to be in the Sciences as a woman, but I was lucky enough not to have people push me away from it because of my gender, and I know many other women are not so lucky. I am not one who thinks they can change the world just by commenting in a blog, however I thought you may want to know that while minor differences have been found in the male and female brains, much or most of this is likely due to environment, human adaptability, and brain plasticity.
July 21, 2009 at 8:09 pm
xenlogic
Hi Chris,
First of all, I said nothing about controlling populations by Birth Control. I believe that was your point. MY point was that EDUCATING WOMEN would achieve that objective. Go back and read it again. That is what the chart was ultimately used as a reference for.
Irrelevant. While women number among the smartest individuals in the world, they are still a minority. This is the result of DNA. That was, still is, and continues to be my point. That’s why I included the point about women outperforming men in school.
No I’m not. All I’m doing here is shamelessly regurgitating facts to validate my opinion. Facts are facts, buddy. But please, don’t take my word for it. The statistics don’t lie. The research doesn’t lie. Do your own objective evaluation. I’ve posted links. Have at it.
I’ve already borne that into consideration. I’m not the insensitive jerk you think me to be. That’s why I wrote this, in anticipation of a comment like this.
Actually you did. I just edited it out.
Look, I know these debates can get pretty antsy and we all loose self control every once in a while. It happens to me too. However, I still think you’re a great guy. We’re all human after all. That’s why I forgave the slip, edited it out, and engaged in discourse anyway. Let’s leave emotion out of it as best as humanly possible, and we’ll both have a very informative discussion.
We may not agree, but at the very least, we can disagree without being disagreeable.
July 21, 2009 at 8:27 pm
xenlogic
Hi Emily,
What’s really going to bake your noodles, Em, is that the idea for this post came from a suggestion by a woman. Curious, isn’t it? She was commenting how educated women pose a threat to the family unit – perhaps not the best choice of words, but after some discussion I got her understanding of it. The truth Emily is that there is a positive and a negative side to this coin. I explore both. Either way, there’s nothing here to be put off about. I suspect that you’re more irked by the tone than anything else.
I am not contending brain adaptability. That was a straw man argument by Chris in an attempt to make the point that any woman can be just as integral in STEM careers. I do not doubt that women could be just as integral, but they still instead incline away from these careers – EVEN when they are exposed to them during college! How do we explain this?
We can no longer say that it’s because of how we’re socializing our women. That’s obviously no longer the issue as women are outperforming men in college right around the world in all fields. So it can’t be that women are not being educated enough. Something else is at work here.
This is part of the reason why the British Government has undertaken a very expensive exercise to eliminate this gender prejudice against STEM careers both by women and by institutions that may still practice this. The research work of Linda Miller and Rowena Hayward is key to understanding this phenomenon.
I however, suspect that much of this effort may be an effort in vain.
July 28, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Joshua
THE DANGER IS IN NOT EDUCATING WOMEN
Educated women get divorced LESS often in Australia and The US
(partly due to education, partly due to marrying later)
1. More educated women means less divorce
2. Same as above
3. Divorce rates falling as couples marry later
4. Divorce Rates Demographics
Although educated women have fewer children, the one’s they do have are more likely to survive. They are more educated about immunizations and what to do if their child is ill. They have a higher socioeconomic status which contributes to child survivability They are also less likely to die themselves in child birth.
1. Women’s education, child welfare and survival
2. The Link between child survival and empowerment
3. Mother’s education and child welfare: Is there a nurturing effect?
4. Why does mother’s schooling raise child welfare in developing countries?
And:
1. Where socioeconomic status is low maternal mortality is high.
2. A mother’s education is closely linked with the financial welfare of herself and the whole family.
3. A mother’s education affects a child’s readiness in school as well as behavior
4. Educated mother’s raise more successful children.
5. Higher education correlates significantly with a longer life expectancy (on average 7 years)
Also:
1. Better educated live longer
I could go on and on. However, I hope this is enough for you to, at the very least, change the title of your article.
July 29, 2009 at 10:47 am
Joshua
These are some reasons I believe our divorce rate has gone up.
1. The hippie movement—monogamy begins being viewed as no longer cool, beneficial, or even normal.
2. Disney movies—I know this sounds hilarious, but I have met sooo many girls who think that they are going to find their Prince Charming and live “happily ever after.” We no longer teach our children the long term benefits of being in a marriage. Kids (especially girls) are brought up believing that love is this ooey gooey feeling instead of hard work with deep long lasting advantages and blessings.
3. The Economy and our culture– Financial strain is one of the biggest reasons people have problems in their relationships. Our economy is nothing like it used to be and in many families it is actually a necessity for mom to work. Additionally, our culture and the media teach us we need more, more, more, so it seems like we always need to be earning more money when in fact many actually don’t.
4. Divorce is easier now—Since divorce is looked on much more lightly and since most women make their own income, it is much easier to get a divorce now. This means that women who may have stayed with abusive, neglectful, and even cheating husbands in the past now feel they have the right/freedom to leave them.
These are just some of my own ideas, so I have no sources to site.
August 3, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Aanu
Sarah Palin didn’t quit the office to spend more time with her kids. She only asked them if she should have a “positive influence and fight for all our children’s futures from outside the governor’s office.”
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1908669,00.html
She is very likely positioning herself for a higher office. You are taking her comments out of context.
August 3, 2009 at 3:48 pm
xenlogic
Sure, just like how we took her comments out of context during that interview with Katie Couric.
August 14, 2009 at 5:38 pm
xenlogic
Hello Joshua,
Thanks for the reading material! Here’s a word of advice though: When posting links, don’t post it in its exposed form as http://website.com/page. Instead, post it like this:
“The point I’m trying to make is that <a href=”http://website.com/page”>evidence exists that suggests otherwise</a>.”
This way, the blog won’t misinterpret your post as spam. Also, where you post several links, try to number them so that they are easy to read and differentiate as I have done with your post. Sorry I took so long to respond. I had to find your post in the spam bin and reformat so that it would show up here. Anyway, on to the beef:
Right off the bat, this ALL CAPS line is indicative of the fact that it appears you’ve misread my post. So allow me to correct your misunderstanding:
About Divorce Rates and educated women
This is a no brainer. Divorce rates will plummet if more women are opting not to get married – especially when they’re educated (thus validating the title of the post). Divorce rates are plummeting because of a corresponding plummet of marriage rates. Either way, the percentage of marriages that end up in divorce remain relatively the same (About 50 – 60%).
There’s a thing in mathematics called a “Statistical Correlation”. It doesn’t prove anything. It only shows that numbers correspond to changes of variables in a formula. For example, I could publish a study that showed that Men who brush their teeth live longer than men that don’t. However, men who brush their teeth are likely to be married and thus more likely to be motivated to be well taken care of – thus living longer.
It has absolutely nothing to do with brushing their teeth.
Can you see the logical fallacy that correlations can foster? This is how people use statistics to prove whatever nonsense they want, thus forwarding a personal, sensationalist agenda. Allow me to demonstrate further:
About survival rates of children of educated mothers
Irrelevant. Why? Because these studies catered primarily (but not only) to:
1. Single mothers
2. Women in developed countries (who are often single mothers)
3. Disadvantaged women who had children not of their own will (who are statistically more likely to be single mothers) (please check the quoted references, sir).
…all of which are at a higher risk of contributing infant mortality than other women. That’s why the studies were so concerned about infant survival rates and betterment with an educated mother – not to forward any feminist agenda.
The only thing I will concede here, Josh is that as a woman has a natural nurturing instinct, you can bet her kids will benefit from her being more educated. However, I never once made any contention against this fact in my post, so your point seems a bit orphaned here.
That’s a nice try Joshua – trying to skew a study to prove a precariously placed point.
Educated women tend to opt out of having children in the first place (or at a later stage in life) thus automatically excluding them from most of these studies. My point is that educated women are not likely to have children in the first place – thus (again) validating the title of the post.
About survival rates correlating to education
Well, duh. An educated women is less likely to have kids anyway – thus increasing her chances of survival (especially if she spends the large portion of her youth going to school). So you are unfortunately only (implicitly) validating my point, Josh.
Are you kidding me? It wasn’t even enough to change my mind.
Try again?
Cheers,
Xen
August 14, 2009 at 7:08 pm
xenlogic
Hello Chris,
This seems to be the end of the matter. So let’s get to it. Since we’re going around in circles, I’ll keep responses to-the-point:
Dads are not moms, thus my point still stands.
Actually, I have. Plenty. They inspired this post.
I’m talking about physicality in the way men are inclined to be. Additionally, read this.
We’re not different enough. Humans tend to overvalue their existence. This is why you think this is unfair. Denial is the most predictable of all human responses – especially denial of the obvious obscurity of individuality. I understand how you feel and in a way I sympathize with you – but not really.
Irrelevant. Meet more. It proves this point I made earlier.
That was most unfortunate for two reasons:
1. Those kinds of classes are what they call “post-nurture social engineering”, aka “brainwashing”
2. You don’t need to take classes to pick up chicks.
Never the less, you’re happily married, and so I’m happy for you. Way to go, Chris. You worked it out.
I LOL’d. Why? You’d be surprised how many Americans disagree with you – myself included. LOL…
You realise I predicted this very same response before you even said it, right?
Are you kidding me? That’s the most awesomest thing, ever. Have you ever seen a hot chick in a short skirt trying to change her own tyres or hovering over a car engine with grease all over her?
HOTTEST. THING. EVER….
And you know I’m right about that one.
..but seeing as this was never the point of this post, moving on…
Because it’s kind of gay. I know it’s not, but they’re dykes man. I mean C’mon. LOL!
Read this.
Nah. I’ve seen enough. It’s nauseating now. Straight chicks for the win!
I concede that nurture is a major contributor to cognitive development. However, it is nature that is the enabler.
No, it repeats what I was saying, almost verbatim.
PLENTY.
That’s an EXCELLENT to forward a debate, Chris. So in the spirit of faeces flinging, right back atcha.
Pot vs. kettle – now you realise why I’ve stopped taking you too seriously.
Please look up what the expression means before you use it. LOL!
Actually, nobody needed to jump to conclusions. We can ask for clarification. Since you didn’t, it automatically invalidates all of your responses, including this one. You rendered the debate utterly meaningless by your second response saying in essence that you have a closed mind to the issue.
I know better than to argue with someone with a closed mind. So now, I’m just doing this for the sheer, diabolical fun of it.
Again, Pot vs. Kettle. Why didn’t you just ask questions and leave out all of this nonsense? Hmm?
I tell you what, since you said quite clearly in your comment that you didn’t read the post through, don’t make an ass of yourself by misconstruing the entire post by the title. You can always opt to ignore this blog and go elsewhere. You’re only coming back here to defend your ego and your honour – the latter of which it doesn’t appear you have much left of.
I talk about many other genetic traits on here. But since you only picked out the ones that mattered to you the most, I can safely ignore this…
…and yet, you said that my “nature” argument is “old” and “tired”. Kindly make up your mind, sir.
How could it not? Should women only be expected to be docile? Wait a minute, this was YOUR point, wasn’t it? LOL!
NOPE! I’m TOTALLY SERIOUS! And kids? Absolutely! How?! Because we’ve decided to make it work. Does it contradict what I wrote about? Nope! Because she already knows what the deal is. She doesn’t let her career desire invalidate her desire to raise a family. Why did I mention this? To prove to you that my points weren’t one sided. You only picked the ones you could argue against and ignored the others.
No I’m not. I’m showing you that that’s not the only way that Chemistry (your point) can be instigated.
Finally, we agree on something.
Actually, I DID represent them the way I wanted to express them. I think what you meant to say is that I should have expressed them the way YOU wanted me to express them. We can always agree to disagree.
The point is that your link doesn’t prove that what I was saying was wrong. It only talks about executive positions, not ALL corporate positions. The debate is probably too long and protracted at this point for you to remember what we were even talking about anymore.
The argument is simply that even when socialization is cross applied to the genders, men still turn out to behave like traditional men and women like traditional women. Men who are more nurturing tend to carry an extra X-chromosome in the base pairs. Depending on its placement, it can affect behaviour in a number of different ways, not excluding sexual orientation… but I’m not getting into that here.
Irrelevant. Men are there because of how nature designed men. Whether they are stereotypical or not, men will always outnumber women at the top because of natural design. Stereotyping has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Right, because clearly, I’m only referring to men in the United States…
I doubt that. We both speak English. I probably live next door to you. What a riot that would be. LOL!
That’s ok. If you could, you would. Since you can’t, I won’t level any unfairly high expectations of you.
You have finally been enlightened. Congrats.
…so far as it is testable – yes, I actually agree with you.
I don’t think I’m unreservedly right. I am just unconvinced. So convince me.
Irrelevant. Read this (that must be the third or fourth time I’ve posted that link!)
Nonsense! I’m marrying one of them! I think you simply misunderstand me and are using your misinterpretations of my personality to colour my arguments. Did you know that when a debate gets heated, people tend to care less about what was said and more about who said it?
This is a psychological fact!
I’m not scared of being wrong. I’m scared of getting involved in pointless debates – that’s why I’ve demeaned your intelligence, and it only began when you first responded using foul language.
I’m not the least bit frightened of you Chris. People who use foul language in ANY debate automatically loose my respect. I’ve made that abundantly clear from the outset. So please don’t try to play the victim. You’re as transparent as water on concrete. You don’t fool me sir. You don’t fool me one bit.
In any event, I think we should agree to disagree and move on. Who knows, we may meet in person and laugh about this one day.
Cheers,
Xen
August 15, 2009 at 12:25 am
Alamanach
“I’m scared of getting involved in pointless debates ”
Man, I know what you mean. Last night I had a nightmare that I had to travel from Kandahar to Kabul alone and on foot. All I had with me was my go bag. Fortunately I had a sheath knife on the bag, and that was a big relief. Aside from wild dogs and Taliban, I was terrified of running into a pointless debate! Yikes!
(What’s a go bag? It is a backback, suitcase, or similar small article pre-packed with food, water, a change of clothing, money, basic first aid items, and any other gear that one might need in a crisis. It is kept always ready in case of an unforseen emergency evacuation.)
October 22, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Joshua
I didn’t say the divorce rates were falling because women weren’t getting married, I said educated women were getting divorced less (the one’s who are already married).
Oh and I wasn’t saying I was trying to change your mind which I was sure I couldn’t just change your title. There is a danger in not educating women. If these make my point mute about child survivability having to do only with (and I am assuming when you wrote developed you meant underdeveloped)
1.Single mothers
2. Women in developed countries (who are often single mothers)
3. Disadvantaged women who had children not of their own
Then you should have titled it the danger of educating married mothers who live in developed countries and are not disadvantaged. Because really the title in itself is just plain wrong. I’m not a total feminist like Chris but your chart is totally lame and has nothing to do with the argument since he is right that their population increase has nothing to do with the women being educated or not,. As he stated it is due to immigration and better health care and thus has nothing to do with the conversation. I just think you should change your title man.
October 25, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Spoonman
You should at least get your “facts” straight. You are really dumbing down what sides of the brain do what. Music comprehension processed in the right right side. Music production is on the left. Just look up the case of Maurice Ravel. Also women use both sides of their brain in most things…the whole brain more and men use the left side more…true story dude. Just got out of a neursci class.
October 25, 2009 at 8:10 pm
xenlogic
I’m not sure we necessarily disagree with each other Spooner.
October 26, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Spoonman
We do disagree you are saying women can do music and poetry because they are right brained. Music requires both sides of the brain and Language is dominantly a Left brained activity. So this does not make sense with what you are saying. Also you said women were mostly right brained when in fact they use both sides more often.
October 28, 2009 at 3:08 pm
xenlogic
I think you misunderstood me. I said that women are primarily right brained. I never insinuated that they don’t use their left at all. We all use both sides. Men prefer their left and women their right. That’s all I’m saying. I never insinuated that either sex is incapable of using both sides.
October 28, 2009 at 4:12 pm
xenlogic
I know you didn’t say that. But, my point was if fewer educated women were getting married in the first place, then that would naturally predicate the scenario in your point. That fewer educated women get divorced is only a mathematical correlation (I elaborated on this extensively) that has no intrinsic significance in and of itself.
Josh, I agree with you that there is a danger in NOT educating women. In fact, there is an even greater danger in not educating ANYONE. However, the angle of this post is not to state the obvious. It is to identify a trend that is far more subtle yet potentially as dangerous. If you’ve read other posts on this site, you’ll notice that I don’t go around stating the obvious, unless it’s abundantly necessary. That is why the rest of your comment, particularly this line:
…is completely irrelevant. If I wanted to write about something that is so plainly obvious (that lack of education was a bad thing), I would never have narrowed it down to just women. That would render such a post completely irrelevant and I would concordantly have no interest in writing it. Think about it.
Neither you nor Chris have been able to grasp the understanding of what this post was about – and neither of you have been able to determine that the chart was not created by me (despite my quoting the original source! I mean, WOW!). It speaks to the kind of mind you both have – feminist or not.
While that is irrelevant to the discussion, the chart however, is not. But since neither of you understand the premise of the post (unlike one woman who wrote in), then I’m just going to continue to ignore you guys.
There’s only so many times I can say the same thing over and over again before I lose interest in the discussion. Again, the point of this post is not to state the obvious. If you bothered to read it at all, you’d have come to that understanding. You only glossed it over at best. So now I have a new rule:
If it is obvious that someone hasn’t read the post, I simply won’t bother to dignify your comment with a response. Read the post again. Ask questions for clarification. Also, lay off the ad hominem remarks (I removed them from your comment). They add nothing useful to the discussion. So let’s keep this civil, or I’ll just blacklist your ip.
Cool? Good man.
Cheers.