"The End of Male Supremacy"

Submitted by Mastodon on Mon, 2015-03-30 17:46

Article here. Excerpt:

'Women are not equal to men; they are superior in many ways, and in most ways that will count in the future. It is not just a matter of culture or upbringing. It is a matter of chromosomes, genes, hormones, and nerve circuits. It is not mainly because of how experience shapes women, but because of intrinsic differences in the body and the brain.

Do these differences account for all the ways women and men differ? No. Are all men one way and all women another? Also no. But none of those considerations seriously impede my argument or deflect its key conclusion: Women are superior in most ways that matter now.

And no, I do not mean what was meant by patronizing men who said this in the past — that women are lofty, tender, spiritual creatures. I mean something like the opposite of that. I mean that women are fundamentally pragmatic as well as caring, cooperative as well as competitive, skilled in getting their own egos out of the way, deft in managing people without putting them on the defensive, builders not destroyers. Above all, I mean that women can carry on the business of a complex world in ways that are more focused, efficient, deliberate, and constructive than men’s because women are not frequently distracted by impulses and moods that, sometimes indirectly, lead to sex and violence. Women are more reluctant participants in both. And if they are drawn into wars, these will be wars of necessity, not of choice, founded on rational considerations, not on a clash of egos escalating out of control.'

---
Read about him here.

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Clashes of egos out of control -- you mean like the egos of Siddhartha Gautama (aka the Buddha) and Yeshua bar Yosef (aka Jesus Christ)? Yeah, those guys were nothing but egotistical clashers out of control, boy!

It's one thing to read this kind of self-hating drivel from the average man. It's another to get it from one supposedly well-educated. As a scientist, he ought to know that the word "superior" is both fraught with moral implications as well as temporal transience. Let's say for a second that categorically speaking, "masculine attributes" were not much needed in the world but that "feminine attributes" were now in demand and that was only going to increase. Now let's say that for some kind of wild and crazy reason (for example, a half-mile-wide asteroid slamming into the Pacific - that'd do it), "masculine attributes" such as, well, being able to do anything that requires getting the least bit dirty, or such as actually building or moving something, or better yet, inventing something really useful, suddenly come back into vogue. Now I wonder, will Dr. Dingleberry here suddenly decide that "masculine traits" are now "superior" to "feminine traits"?

Phool.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Tue, 2015-03-31 06:15

"women are not frequently distracted by impulses and moods that, sometimes indirectly, lead to sex and violence."

Then why are men the victims of domestic violence and sexual assault as often as women (according to psychological studies done on domestic violence, and the US DOJ statistics)?

I'd like to see him try to explain his way out of that one.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by xtrnl on Tue, 2015-03-31 19:15