Women are better than men socially. They read social cues better than men, are more attentive to the strengths and weaknesses of others, are better at managing relationships, and better at caring for people’s needs. It is impossible to imagine human society without women’s contributions to the private sphere.
Women’s attention to relationships means that women tend to avoid saying or doing things that might cause awkwardness or offense. (On the other hand, women are also capable of much greater cruelty than men, as most of us learned in elementary school.) An implication of this is that women tend not to care very much whether something is true or right. What they care about is how how people will feel if someone says or does it.
This is the source of much inter-gender misunderstanding, but, in itself, it’s neither good nor bad. In public life, however, it’s mainly a problem. For example, the observation that not everyone is capable of the same level of accomplishment since half of people have an IQ under 100, though an obvious and incontrovertible truth, is shocking to a woman’s conscience. Women are constitutionally incapable of giving up on people in that way. That someone is ineducable is for them a motive to invest more time in their teaching. This is exactly the approach you want your wife to take with your children, but applied to public policy it entails all manner of disastrous misallocation of resources: in education, immigration, hiring practices, and so on and on. And women’s participation in public life also degrades the quality of men’s participation. When women are a large part of the public discussion, many men seek to appeal to women, and become less honest themselves.
How ought men really to respond? Let’s consider an example. Last week here on In Mala Fide, Simon Grey dismantled a Feministing post which claimed that all women are equally beautiful. Grey’s argument was perfectly sound, but in a sense his engagement with Feministing is pointless. The author of the original post is a woman. Of course she’s going to say absurd things in an attempt to make sure no one feels bad. We should accept that. Often we ought to praise women for their sensitivities while ignoring their so-called arguments.
Cross posted at Johann Happolati.
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
This is true. The masculine and the feminine are complimentary forces. They are both powerful in their own ways, and should be focused accordingly. Sure, there are women that are leaders, but they forsake their feminine essence by mimicking masculine ones.
Nature does not lie. nature does not care. Nature *is*. Let men lead, and women nurture.
Sound observations.
FYI, I’ve followed this up with another post on my own blog here: http://jhappolati.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/more-on-women-in-public-life/
Ouroboros
It’s complEmentary; complimentary is something else.
Like lien is not line and a waiver is not a waiver and to is not also.
Thiis wisdom is as old as the world- except that now, the obvious is flatly denied by the “progressives”. The results speak for themselves.
Women’s thoughts function at an emotional level, not mostly on reasoning since it is a woman who cares for a born child they are hardwired to function at that manner and that is perfectly normal.And that is the same reason why you approach girls in an emotional level when you do game. When you reason out with a woman you lose because they are at a very different playing field. Doing that is like shooting a basketball at the opponent’s ring.
That my friend is the explanation behind your observations.
@ Wizard Corpse: I think the social (including familial) thing actually more explains the emotional thing (ie emotional sensitivity helps in maintaining social harmony), but in practice I take the two things to be basically equivalent.
Somehow I had expected my claim that women’s opinions don’t matter to be more controversial, but evidently I’m preaching to the choir here.
@ J. Happolati
nah, it is controversial, but controversial here with people like us is just common sense, if it can be proven by logic. Try to post that on a bulletin boarn or in cosmopolitan or have that on youtube, but you are here because people here are likeminded individuals and there is a great chance that readers who comment (which is rare) in this blog are thinking men just like you.
“It’s complEmentary; complimentary is something else.
Like lien is not line and a waiver is not a waiver and to is not also.”
It was a typo. Not a big deal.
@Ouroboros
, okay, thanks for clearing that out, that has got me thinking a while ago. .
I never heard this joke until I was in the U.S. Army? Most male soldiers laughed when they heard it. Here it goes below.
Question: What is the biggest and sickest joke to be played on individual liberty, democracy and the USA’s Constitutional Republic?
Answer: Giving women the right to vote is the answer!!!
I laughed too, but afterwards said I was probably going to burn in hell for laughing. In all seriousness, I think if women had the same responsibilities as men for example like being forced to register for the draft(Selective Service), it would improve their behavior to some degree. The problem is that women of all races vote for the more Progressive(Pro-Socialism, Pro-expanding government power, Pro-spending money we don’t have, Pro-debt, Pro Tax increase, Anti-individual liberty, Anti-Tax, Anti-responsible budget, Anti-limited government and Anti-Capitalism) candidates and policies than men do. Anti-Progressive forces often create their own messes, but they are better than Progressive forces. Progressivism will lead to the fall for economic reasons. The USA thus far is on a kinder gentler trajectory of falling apart just like the USSR, and who knows how ugly this will get. I hope not too ugly, but I don’t know. You can discountgood principles to live by, morality and even the U.S. Constitution, but you can not discount economics. Who will pay for it all is the problem we face?
“half of people have an IQ under 100”
False.
Women are constitutionally incapable of giving up on people in that way.
((((((((((((((
What are you talking about? Women give up on people all of the time. They kill their own children, or they abandon newborns in a dumpster because the laws are lenient towards women. Abortion, abandonment, child killing, these are all LEGAL options for women to escape their responsibilities. You need to scrutinize your content more and ask yourself, does each and every sentence you write apply to the real world?
Well done. Thank you.
I agree that arguing with a feminist is pointless as far as changing their mind goes, but I also believe that rebuttals are very important for the men here because many, including myself, can find themselves swayed by emotional thinking from time to time. Part of this is an innate desire to see “good” triumph in the end and part of it is a learned societal response to natural inequalities, like Pavlov’s dogs drooling when the bell rings. Getting a good dose of logic is like a cold shower which helps a man return to his senses in a hurry.
@doclove: you’re probably right about responsibilities, but for myself I’d like to just let women be women and men be men.
@Trevor Blake: Is that not definitional?
@Timmy: “in that way.”
@Craig Himself: Cheers!
@White Raven: Fair point—I know I lose sight of these gender-differences myself (and after all, men and women aren’t completely alien to each other). But if I’m right, it probably doesn’t need to be done in so much detail. Sometimes we jsut need to be reminded that women often aren’t talking about the thing they seem to be talking about, and we can leave it at that.
“Is that not definitional?”
The IQ, of a specific group, is defined as the mean (add up the IQs and divide by the number of individuals).
The median is the value at the middle position, when the IQs are lined up from lowest to highest.
The mean can be affected significantly by extremely low or high values, in contrast to the median.
This can be confusing, since they are both called the “average”.
{ 1 trackback }