"A Better World, Run by Women"

Article here. Excerpt:

'Research has found that women are superior to men in most ways that will count in the future, and it isn’t just a matter of culture or upbringing—although both play their roles. It is also biology and the aspects of thought and feeling shaped by biology. It is because of chromosomes, genes, hormones and brain circuits.

And no, by this I don’t mean what was meant by patronizing men who proclaimed the superiority of women in the benighted past—that women are lofty, spiritual creatures who must be left out of the bustle and fray of competitive life, business, politics and war, so that they can instill character in the next generation. I mean something like the opposite of that.

All wars are boyish. People point to Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi and Golda Meir as evidence that women, too, can be warlike. But these women were perched atop all-male hierarchies confronting other hypermasculine political pyramids, and they were masculinized as they fought their way to the top.

There is every reason to think that a future national hierarchy staffed and led by women who no longer have to imitate men, dealing with other nations similarly transformed, would be less likely to go to war. But that’s not all. Sex scandals, financial corruption and violence are all overwhelmingly male.
...
As women come to hold more power and public authority, will they become just like men? I don’t think so. Show me a male brain, and I will show you a bulging amygdala—the brain’s center of fear and violence—densely dotted with testosterone receptors. Women lack the biological tripwires that lead men to react to small threats with exaggerated violence and to sexual temptation with recklessness.
...
Women won’t make a perfect world, but it will be less flawed than the one that men have made and ruled these thousands of years. My grandson, I think, will be happy in the new world. It will be better for him because women will contribute so much more to running it.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

The comments being posted really let the author have it. Good for them. He has it coming. What a self-shaming bigoted fathead and pseudo-academic, exactly the kind most likely to get tenure (and recommend it for other faculty members, unfortunately, what's left of it, anyway) in today's sorry excuse for academia. Idiot.

Like0 Dislike0

Women wouldn't be interested in war? Hmm, lets see. About a hundred years ago, during World War I, men who didn't want to enlist were handed white feathers by women to shame them. Then feminists later blame these same men for being warlike, when they were just doing what they were compelled to do.

Like0 Dislike0

Seriously.... read the comments... near unanimous condemnation.

Articles like this is why the MRA is growing so explosively.

Like0 Dislike0

"If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts."

Like0 Dislike0

i recall reading that!

and... it's very likely the truth.

Like0 Dislike0

"Women wouldn't be interested in war? Hmm, lets see. About a hundred years ago, during World War I, men who didn't want to enlist were handed white feathers by women to shame them. Then feminists later blame these same men for being warlike, when they were just doing what they were compelled to do."

precisely ...damned if you do, damned if you don't.

not to mention the number of queens, empresses and other female leaders and royalty that sent men off to die in ghastly, blood soaked wars.

Thundercloud, who was Cherokee Indian, told me that among many American-Indian tribes it was the WOMEN who decided on whether there would be war or not!

these people need to get their bloody facts STRAIGHT!

Like0 Dislike0