It is my belief that feminists are a narrow minded hypocritical bunch of wingers. The philosophy that men and women are equal and should be treated as such, is a load of crap. Men physically stronger and more talented, and more agressive/determined than women, with a far greater capacity for solving problems/logic. This is why men are the dominant sex and will remain so until evolution takes a hand. Feminists think that men have been suppressing women and this is the reason they are behind in society. Though women have certain traits which make them in some ways the superior sex, men have the superior traits where it counts as far as dominating their surroundings, which is a definite male trait. In denying the fact that we are different, you defy the biology which is the result of millions of years of evolution.

The FACT is that men are in so many way different to women. Aside from the obvious physical differences, it is scientifically shown that men's brain structure and hormonal status is also entirely different so much that men and women may perceive the same world entirely differently. This is the feminists problem: they don't understand, or aren't willing to accept these differences.

Why do women earn less? Because their brains simply aren't equipped to handle the highly paid technical jobs which men monopolise. I'm not saying hat women are stupid, they simply think differently. Women's brains generally are more creatively orientated with more competence in fields of social interaction, relations and perception (reading between the lines).

I read the first two responses in the DISCUSSION FORUM and I tell you, though I'm sure you're already aware, that they are idiots. This first person, "dolores", Obviously spent a long time on a very short letter trying to make it just right with lots of long words just to show everyone how great she is. She really doesn't know what she's talking about and is quite ignorant, probably very arrogant, and as a narrow minded feminist felt the need to abuse you. You handled it well though. The second person is just plain wrong about everything he/she said. Beside the point, sorry.

The Revolutionary feminists have the right idea in that they see these biological differences. But though an attempt to overthrow men as the dominant gender is utterly futile, they don't see that it's these same differences that have put men on top. And this isn't necessarily a bad thing. What is bad is the suppression of women's rights, which in most first world countries really isn't an issue at all. Why are there more male architects? Because men have a more mathematically suited mind and ability to think 3 dimensionally. Statistics will show that there are more female english teachers and psychiatrists, because of their greater capacity for language and perception and can relate better to people.

Feminists that blame men for the problems of the world are indeed mostly right, of course. Men kill, steal, cheat and abuse. Why? simply because it is in their nature, as defined by evolution. It can't be helped. But to put things in to perspective, it is this same nature in men, the same drive, that is driving our civilisation. Is is my opinion that if not for men we would still be living in the stone age, in fact may not have even survived it. Almost all technological advancements are productions of men. And this isn't because "men have stereotyped and oppressed women out of scientific roles", but because most women simply aren't good at and aren't interested in math or science etc. Men built this civilisation and that is why we rule it.

Your statement that "women run the show" and "women have wielded power behind the curtain" is quite true. Though men would hate to admit it, and indeed not even realise it; women are very manipulative and cunning. They indeed wield power behind the curtain in discrete and subtle manipulations that most men simply don't have insight to notice. Though this is only really on a minor scale, my point stands that women do dominate in certain areas. If women had the determination of men to conquer and challenge, they could probably achieve some degree of power through manipulation. Indeed girls are nowdays doing better at school. How absolute is the male dominance.

It's interesting to consider that we evolved from apes. Apes like many other animal species live under patriarchy. These are our roots, this is what we were and still pretty much are. It is only in modern society that these characteristics in people have come into debate. The animals are perfectly fine with heir social heirarchy. The point made that "men are a sex whose gender characteristics should be eliminated" is in a certain respect a good one. Men should be less abusive, destructive and hostile, but it must be understood that men gender traits are what led to our civilisation. Men are the way they are because of the way they evolved. Why did men evolve in this way? because it was essential for the supremacy of our species. If men didn't have these traits, aggression need to dominate, we would have become extinct as a wimpy race of compassionate. Like the Dodo bird, whose weakness was it's lack of intellect. It's survival of the fittest and the human race achieves it's fitness mainly in the physical and mental strengths of it's men.

While I believe men and women deserve equal rights in all aspects of life, the fact must be recognised that we are different and should be treated according to these differences. Women have to embrace these differences. Instead of trying to beat men at their own game they should concentrate on their own biological strengths. They want equality, but don't see that men and women are not equal in many aspects of life. Men are aggressive, dominating and sexual animals by nature. Any attempt to change their biology is futile.

I read a book which I found very stimulating which relates to much being discussed here by Alan and Barbara Pease called "why men are blind and women can't read road maps". It explains the biological differences between men and women and how to deal with these differences. I think this would be a very interesting read for any feminists. Especially Germaine Greer. Such ignorance. Note it is written by a couple and so will not be biased to either gender.

I would say I'm a true feminist, by your definition as you say all men are. I believe in equal rights for women. And I found your points on extreme feminism to be very realistic. But my theory is that extreme feminism is doomed to failure: Any woman with a resentment for men is less likely to marry, therefore less likely to reproduce and carry on her feminist traits. How many feminists are married? Take that Anne Summers who believes women should not marry for an example. They will become extinct as the narrow-minded inevitably eliminate themselves. And if your a male feminist you're ither gay or stupid. To all the extreme feminists: men are king and there's nothing you can do about it. So shut up. Ha!

I hope you found my discussion stimulating, while unbiased and realistic, as I strive to be.

Skip to next archive (May) or continue with my reply.
Thanks for your comment. Your polemic provides a fairly cohesive view of a fundamental difference between men and women, based alternately on physical, biological, social and individual psychological grounds. However I have to dispute many of the claims as either indeterminate or arguably false. It is the very fact that you have covered a vast space that tends to mystify these areas of dispute. Take for example the following claim:

"Men physically stronger and more talented, and more aggressive/determined than women, with a far greater capacity for solving problems/logic. This is why men are the dominant sex and will remain so until evolution takes a hand."

All these claims are either generalisations, taking into account the sum total of the sex rather than the complexities, or they fail to explain what logic, strength and dominance are.

I have known women who were stronger than men physically because I am one of those men that is very lightly built. I have known very aggressive women, more violent than me. I have known women who are far better swimmers than me. I know that some men are the fastest swimmers in the world, but that doesn't make me a faster swimmer than women, just by virtue of masculinity.

Talent is another disputable area. These days men and women's careers and work activities have a larger crossover but traditionally many men had a career and women became mothers full-time for a significant part of their life. Where is the superior talent for either of these people. I could argue that today women are both having careers in greater numbers while at the same time retaining their domestic skills. That might suggest greater talent. Moving along this same point, I have met a number of females over the last few years that were both highly talented and motivated to pursue interests and careers. In the context of the favourable view employers now have of female ambition they have been guaranteed to achieve some success: to get good jobs. Meanwhile, many men I have seen lack focus and ambition and direction. Some men need to be told what to do and it has often been said that behind a successful man is a woman. This phrase reflects the fact that many women in the past have been the real (ambitious) driving force behind their husband's achievements.

Are men better at solving problems. Again it depends on which men you mean and what the problem is. Some argue that women are better at communication issues and the problems associated with that. I am skeptical but at times there is some relevance to the claim. Logic is a tricky subject because a person can be both logical and wrong. A man or woman can use logical argument and still not be right. Feminist ideology aspires to logic and yet remains pervasively misleading. But so can the contrary argument.

What I am pointing to is subtleties and complexities of sexual characteristics. These need to be acknowledged because the western world has changed quite significantly in terms of what many women at least aspire to. Whereas your comment might have once appeared to have some relevance it would seem in this age to be more like resistance than analysis. For every new woman who becomes an architect, your argument that the female brain is inadequate to technical "male-style" thinking becomes increasingly illogical. The notion that millions of years of evolutionary development have fitted men only for skilled careers becomes increasingly reactionary.

Having said the above I do not mean to completely undermine the argument. To say that men have dominated the world of politics is certainly true to a large extent and we cannot deny that men have been the political leaders of most societies. However they don't necessarily rule AS men. It is only when you assume a constant sex war, as feminism has done, that you start to see politicians as necessarily sexed and ruling in the interests of their own sex. Furthermore in the US there are now several very prominent women including the trade representative Barshevsky and the foreign secretary (name escapes me). In a more bizarre sense Monika Lewinsky and the coterie of women "wronged" by Bill Clinton also dominated politics for months, not only in the US but throughout the world.

Whose Next??

Skip to next archive (May)