|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I didn't find Ms. Goodman to be gloating in this article (although perhaps I wish I could accuse her of it, as many of her gender-themed columns have made my blood boil), since she basically snickers at the obvious conclusion that women's brains are "twice as good" as men's and goes on to cite how other studies have contradicted the theory. This could almost be a Cathy Young article, really. Except that I suspect the motive may be far different than it would have been if Ms. Young had written the piece.
At best, this may only be an example of how feminists know they sometimes have to practice what they preach. That is, Goodman probably realizes that if she accepted the findings of this study as proof that women's brains were superior, she would be in the same league as those male chauvanists of old who based male superiority on our larger brains.
Also, too, there's a very infuriating manner in which feminists - and women in general - tend to respond to any new "scientific evidence" which would appear to denigrate men by assuming that men will merely use this as an excuse to misbehave. Note, Ms. Goodman uses the (insulting) example of the caveman and the screaming baby. One of the ways it seems feminists try to keep society from acknowledging the pedestal women are actually on is to paint that pedestal as something that imprisons women - to make it look like women are completely burdened by whatever we think is uniquely good (and bad) about them, whereas men are always somehow privileged or "let off the hook" by both the positive and negative things we believe about the male nature.
It may be that Goodman was writing primarily with the intent to let the boys know that we are not "off the hook". She's a gender feminist, to be sure - but I've never really seen evidence in her columns of her being a female chauvanist.
Still, it's telling the way she couldn't resist commenting on the study. So maybe her m.o. was to discreetly gloat about it even as she was claiming to scoff. If she had truly believed the study and the conclusions were ridiculous, she might - as a respectable journalist - have chosen not to dignify it with a column at all.
Makes you wonder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I tend to agree with you, Hawth. The only thing about that column which really ran afoul of me was the caveman thing. Yeah, male cavemen were just drawing on walls while babies cried... yeah... they didn't invent tools, the wheel, kill animals for food and clothing... nah, all they did was draw on walls, like little children with crayons.
I think she IS a bigot, but I other than the caveman bit I don't think this particular column was especially anti-male.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, if you look at this as a matter of efficiency, then we could say that men accomplish almost as much as women in the listening department with only half their brains switched on. If we could find a way to turn on the other half, then we'd REALLY kick some ass :-)
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
