This is a response to an article called "Is There Anything Good About Men". I'm sure the author feels assured that most people will regard his title as amusing or intentionally provocative, and not ridiculous, or offensive, as it would be if it were "Is There Anything Good About Negroes?" or "Is There Anything Good About Women?". It's the kind of bullying, self-amused irony only allowed because men are positioned so comfortably in a privileged position, that no one could possibly regard it as threatening or really pejorative.
The article is linked in an article in the New York Times entitled "Why Men Need Women". which does more to convince me that the persistent lack of women geniuses is causing some desperation out there.
This is the kind of bullshit that nowadays passes for serious social theory:
We recognize the direct advantages that women as leaders bring to the table, which often include diverse perspectives, collaborative styles, dedication to mentoring and keen understanding of female employees and customers. But we’ve largely overlooked the beneficial effects that women have on the men around them. [NY Times, July 21, 2013]
Gosh, I'd like to meet those women! Now, I know that any generalized knowledge, especially from the social "science" sector, includes a hell of a lot of selectivity and redundancy, therefore providing a barn door's worth of anomalies, but even so, the idea that there are a lot of women managers out there selflessly promoting their colleagues and underlings and bringing "diverse perspectives" to management meetings is a bit of a stretch. The one area where women are more than the equal of men is self-interest, even if the the social sciences as a block generally refuse to recognize just how self-interested a lot of overtly "selfless" behavior is. Anyone who has ever forgotten to thank his mother or wife knows this. Any girl in school who hasn't made the correct gestures of gratitude and loyalty knows this.
2013-07-21 2013 Rants
So do it. Check out: the top ten inventions by women. They include liquid paper, a remedy for vaginal infections, and square-bottomed paper bags. And the circular saw.
Wow.
One thing that is not going to get mentioned very much in this debate: a certain definite percentage of human beings are born with ambiguous genitalia. We have no idea of how many men and women in history may actually have been hermaphrodites.
It shouldn't need to be said but will be: the belief in legal equality has nothing to do with belief in equal capability.
The evidence presents a seeming paradox, because the tests of creativity generally show men and women scoring about the same, yet through history some men have been much more creative than women. An explanation that fits this pattern is that men and women have the same creative ability but different motivations. [See web link in right column.]
Studies can prove whatever you pretty well want them to prove. I admire the way Mr. Roy Baumeister has tried to conceal his tracks here: "some men" is a clever alternative to saying that every major invention and design has originated with a man. By isolating "motivation" as a component separate from creativity-- as if such a thing were possible-- he claims that really, men and women are equally creative, but women just aren't as motivated as men to actually create. It's like saying that men eat more food then women but they are equally hungry. The problem is, we don't really care who is more hungry: we care about how much we eat.
But let's get to the bait and switch here. Who is "good"? What makes a gender "good" and another gender "bad"? Is this contest rigged? Do we have someone who examines the two genders, identifies a number of traits belonging to each, and then decides that one particular set of traits are "good", and the other bad. Surprise: women are better. Then he proceeds to argue that even though women are better then men, they are essentially the same. Women can do anything men can do, on their own, better.
Maybe there really isn't any point in arguing which gender is better because both genders are absolutely essential to life and culture and history and society. There is nothing you would have without both genders. It is quite arguable that if neither gender could create culture or society on it's own, than neither gender could be good or bad or better. They are essentially one being.
I remain unconvinced that women would ever have been capable of building a steam locomotive. To build a steam locomotive, or, rather, to embark on the path of theoretical development, and design, and development, and research and physical construction, necessary to end up with, say, a Soo Line Locomotive 2713, requires a lot of specific energies and aptitudes and inclinations, which I don't think are strong enough in women to succeed.
Some "research" claims to show that women are just as capable at math as men are but are less motivated to work towards advanced degrees. Oh, the lovely rationalizations! "Yeah, we could do that physics thing if we really wanted to, you know, but we just don't want to, so there!" But if there was ever a place for that kind of rationalization it would be in the lonely feminine assets: men could be more nurturing and supportive and collegial if they wanted to, but they don't. They don't because the drive to succeed, to get on top, to be the alpha dog, to make a lot of money, is part of what drives achievement. And locomotives.
Women are moving into business management. First, business culture in the western world had to expand it's inconsequential middle, the layer of people who don't produce any real objects or services but simply "manage", so that women had a class of professions to move into.