Many of us know of the phrase about men being from Mars and women from Venus, and ‘get’ the basic message that the sexes are a bit different, don’t we?
However, many ignorant or discriminatory others take it a bit further than that – or to be more accurate they take the differences between men and women to ridiculous extremes, don’t they?
Well, the American author of the book [written by a male, bought by males, and promulgated by males, perhaps?], which titled that, has made an absolute killing for a quarter decade or more by peddling around the world his supposedly intellectual knowledge about differences between us men and women, when it is actually just dreamed-up drivel without any basis in fact at all. It is all OK if one views it as simply a bit of fun or toilet humour, otherwise one would have to have doubts about the bloke’s mental normality, wouldn’t one?
You see, he asserts that men and women [one might notice that men seem to be labelled first here – is being the more prominent clearly significant?] are so different that they can be thought-of as having had even different origins.
While he not only claims that each sex is isolated and conditioned just to its own society and customs, so is not in any way attuned to those of the other, he also demonstrated abject stupidity by asserting that when it comes to problems men are only interested in ‘solving’ them but women are not, and just want to endlessly ‘talk’ about them – if that isn’t male chauvinism at its most bizarre, whence such ideas have become a part of popular culture, what the hell is eh?
[According to a report, the book was the “highest ranked work of non-fiction” of the 1990s – that MUST be a gross misnomer because it IS most DEFINITELY a work of FICTION]
This guy inexplicably invents the scenario that in male and female couple relationships, each partner not only judges the other on ‘loving’ behaviour but they keep a points ‘score’ to ensure that equality of endeavour is attained – otherwise their loving interaction is heading for the rocks, it seems? But when it comes to the book’s proponent’s hidden attitude, the devil is in the detail, isn’t it? Yep, his crystal ball apparently shows that women can ONLY work on the basis of single points allocations [because females are intellectually simplistic one must assume?], but men however are much more progressive, so their scoring method allows them the ability to assess and indeed measure the ‘true value’ of all devotion type actions, so they can accurately allot an appropriate number of points to each perceived event [because males are intellectually complex one must assume?]. How does all that drivel grab you, eh?
While we might all readily agree in the principle of free speech, it is quite possible that hawking such preposterous ideas around the globe, could be dangerous, not least as it reinforces historic widespread prejudices and a significant discrimination against women, that still exist not only in a number of counties around the world, but indeed is still clearly prevalent in multiple religions, and it also still persists within bigoted communities here in the UK, doesn’t it?
[Main discriminators: COUNTRIES – Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Malaysia, India, Iran, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Indonesia
RELIGIONS – Islam, Judaism, Christianity (Roman Catholic, Protestant Southern Baptists), Mormonism, Hinduism and Buddhism]
There can be no pretence by anyone that women are not different from men, which results basically because they are the biological gender of the species that is physically designed and mentally programmed to conceive, carry, give birth to children, and to care for them, whereas men are merely physically designed and mentally programmed to deliver sperm to create a child and to incessantly want to have the sex that achieves that outcome for the essential reproduction of the human race – very much as demonstrated in the rest of the animal kingdom as well, eh?
Neither can there be any pretence by anyone, that from the start of time that woman have not been treated as equals by men but instead have most decidedly been relegated to a subservient second-class status in all societies. It has been universally deemed throughout history that women are a quite inadequate gender, as demonstrated by them having inferior intellectual capability and significantly less abilities than men – that of course being on top of the obvious fact that in general men are physically stronger [because men have higher bone density, greater body mass, and larger muscles], while the design of the female body is significantly related to the role it plays in reproduction [women are built for carrying and birthing children, so must have wider hips and keep extra fat available for potential pregnancy, with that fat stored in breasts, hips, buttocks, and subcutaneous fat in the bottom layer of skin], that in conjunction with ongoing associated hormone production differences between the two genders, isn’t it?
It is quite disturbing nowadays to think about the great loss the world has suffered by mankind’s ignorant sidelining of the countless ‘doubtless brilliant women’, who were around but were denied any opportunity to perform an invaluable role in their societies throughout the ages, isn’t it?
Nonetheless, all that inferiority tosh has been turned on its head as societies have steadfastly progressed into the 21st Century, hasn’t it? Yep, that has come about not only because us more enlightened men have come to our senses and realised that women are just as capable as us, and can make an equal contribution to society, but because many mentally strong women have stridently asserted their right to equality, have demanded release from kitchen-sink drudgery and childcare, have fought tooth and nail for female education, and have aggressively sought-out opportunities to shine in every field of endeavour
Nevertheless, despite the monumental change in gender perception, even in the so-called ‘advanced’ society of Great Britain, fully equality for women has at present fallen short in some aspects – like pay and prospects to name a couple? However, in the wider context, women, amongst other things, have triumphed and been elected heads of national governments on six continents, women have been thrust into space and fulfilled equal tasks there such as spacewalks, women have performed at the most senior levels in the armed forces, flown attack aircraft and served in elite combat units, women have become CEOs of major listed companies, women have piloted the jumbo jets and other aircraft of major airlines, women gave scaled the highest mountains or researched the deepest seas, and moreover women have won every single category of Nobel Prize, which just shows the diversity of their ability across the whole spectrum of human contribution to human life.
On the other hand, there has been an enthusiastic search over centuries by idiots for proof that women are ‘different’ [by that, many many actually mean ‘inferior’?] to men, and disturbingly that is still ongoing, but the reasons for that hunt bamboozles many of us – what blooded difference would it make anyway to mankind if each sex was a completely different species, do you think? As some would say it is simply P..ing in the wind, isn’t it?
It appears that our cousins over the pond have researched the development of the brains of babies in the latter stages of the foetuses in the womb and have recently concluded that female and male brain brains are differently ‘hardwired’ – so to the delight of sex-difference theory advocates there is ‘definitive evidence’ at last that men and women are innately different, eh?
Perhaps not, it would seem? An eminent neuroscientist and professor of cognitive neuroimaging has poured scorn on the conclusions drawn on what she admits is important research, as she says that there are glaring holes in some aspects of the data obtained. You see, considering the alternatives, it has been a long recognised fact amongst the thinking classes that there is a complex relationship between nature and nurture when it comes to an individual’s development.
Various studies DO show differences in gender performance in various tasks, but conclusions on the reasons for that are not always clear-cut nor obvious, but unenlightened men immediately jump to the one being that females and males must be ‘born different’ – they do so without recognising just what brain ‘conditioning’ occurred in the years after birth, do they? Young or adult people performing tasks do so with brains that have been utterly socialised and conditioned by their environments, particularly when at a very young age, so specific brain pathways are particularly strengthened – that can completely account for female and males differing task performance abilities
In the recent past, after centuries of patriarchy, we had the situation in the UK where major professions like say medicine, and law were the sole domain and bastion of males, yet within just the last fifty years or so, the medical schools are now predominately full of female trainee doctors, while senior lawyer positions have increasingly been captured by women. The belief used to be widespread that women’s intellectual capabilities differed and were inferior to men’s, whereas we see nowadays, despite the fact that prejudices continue to hamper girls, that they do better than boys both in school and at university [Indeed, it is said that in the US their elite colleges are widely having to admit male applicants with much lower grades just to try to even up the numbers].
The fundamental reason that girls and boys end up ‘different’ and with contrasting skills, is that in most countries there is a hidden bias of assiduous stereotyping in the way they are brought-up, whence they are nurtured in dissimilar ways and exposed to diverging environments – and all of that of course means that their brains develop in a way that favours the things that they have already been strengthened, doesn’t it?
Boys are expected to be noisy, climb trees, enjoy violent video games, read comics about unlikely zombies or imaginary sport heroes, play with guns and toy motor vehicles, and kick footballs, while girls are expected to be sweet, skip well, enjoy helping Mum in the kitchen, read storybooks about unlikely princesses or imaginary animals, play with dolls and toy prams, and chalk-up hopscotch.
Is it any wonder then that girls better boys in literacy, and so many women in the past had low expectations so saw their role as wives, homemakers, and mothers, or at best primary school teachers, rather than professional sports players or rocket scientists, or computer experts, or whatever, which are seen as male strongholds, eh?
Or that boys shine in mathematics and science, and so many men in the past had exaggerated expectations of male superiority, so saw their role as head of the family, breadwinners, and leaders, rather than professional harp players or acting performers, or junior school teachers, or whatever, which are seen as female domains, eh?
So it is basic upbringing prejudices that legitimises institutional sexism, which then result in boys being put-off getting involved in (sissy) things that girls tend to favour and dominate, like singing, drama and music and are more likely to follow interests in what might be regarded as cocky pursuits that promote masculinity, and equally that girls are put-off getting involved in (macho) things that boys tend to favour and dominate, like physics, chemistry and engineering and are more likely to follow interests in what might be regarded as girlie pursuits that promote femininity
[While undoubtedly the direction of travel for our British society, and indeed many others, is towards gender irrelevance in all aspects of life, there is still a long way to go, and resistance from those luddites who are wedded to past inequality and so persist in trying to retain some form of a male dominant society will unforgivingly prolong the task]