Kathleen Parker commentary: Let's encourage men to behave better, not women to be worse

Submitted by Mastodon on Wed, 2013-07-24 21:20

Article here. Excerpt:

Redemption is in the air, we keep hearing. Americans don’t care about a person’s sex life because, well, they have one, too, and, hey, we all have weeds in our garden.
...
Our available data on the double standard is limited in part because fewer women than men are in public office. But also, in the main, women don’t behave as men do. The male libido is simply greater, which accounts for both the Sistine Chapel and Attila the Hun.

Popular culture seems determined to change this timeless truth by encouraging girls to be more like boys, and vice versa. The stakes are clear: If girls can be portrayed as just as bad as boys, then males have no obligation to mitigate their natural dominant, exploitive inclinations.

There has been some measureable success in this regard. Recent reports indicate that college-age girls are increasingly promoting casual sex these days. Even so, no woman in public office thus far has texted her Very Own Self to strangers, as Anthony Weiner did.
...
There is never, ever “only” sex, especially for women, who are, indeed, different than men. We can argue otherwise until all the little dissertations cry “ oui, oui, oui” all the way home. But the fact that the double standard persists in the human psyche, not to mention nature, demonstrates this unfair truth. This is why we have laws to level the playing field.

Perhaps the next step in this evolutionary process is not to make women more like men to neutralize the double standard but to place more women in public office, the better to demonstrate the behaviors necessary to maintaining a civil society.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

It seems Kathleen Parker has started shifting toward a more "traditional" view of both men and women. She seems to have all but forgotten that on the whole, women are as likely to be unfaithful as men-- they're just a lot less likely to get caught. Why are they more careful, possibly more afraid of getting caught? Frankly I think it's because their husbands are much more likely to leave them upon finding out, regardless of whether they are rich/powerful women. Women on the other hand (yet even ones such as Hillary Clinton) are much more likely not to leave their husbands-- provided he is an "alpha male", such as for example POTUS, or a determined, charismatic, success-proven guy like Anthony Weiner.

Basically, men are a lot less likely to put up w/ the embarassment and bullsh*t from a cheating spouse regardless of her status in society. Women on the other hand seem a lot more inclined to put up with unfaithful mates as long as they can enjoy the status they get from being married to them.

What KP ought to be talking about indeed should include the wrongness of non-consensual marital infidelity. Fine. But maybe she also ought to be importuning women like Hillary Clinton, et al., to grow a spine via-a-vis their no-goodnick cheating husbands and leave the bastards regardless of what office they hold or how much money or other benefits (e.g.: political access, riding the sleaze-bag's coattails to her own political office instead of duking her way there herself, etc.) they can get from them.

Oh yeah, and another thing: I doubt women have had much to do with "channeling" male sexual urges into "more constructive" things like building suspension bridges. Apparently, she's never actually had to work manually at anything her entire life. If so, she'd know there's hardly anything erotic about busting your back to actually get some work done. I rather think male ingenuity and inventiveness supported by a solid work ethic (a male one, of course) has a lot more to do with it-- things a woman who's spent her life in air conditioned, central-heared comfort wearing clean, fashionable clothes wouldn't know much about.

By and large, I used to like Kathleen Parker. I don't anymore.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2013-07-25 02:18