Monday, January 17, 2005The President of Harvard has provoked feminazi outrage by saying that women lack "natural talent" in certain fields. His claim clashes with the female-supremacist world-view, in which women are enlightened super-beings capable of doing anything, and men are dumb, violent brutes who would be dispensable if it weren't for the sperm.
But let me ask you this: If society can accept that men are far more likely than women to go to prison due to their innate aggressive tendencies, then why can't society also accept that man's capacity for aggression makes him more likely to become, say, a CEO or an accomplished scientist? In other words, if society is willing to acknowledge what's bad about men, then why won't it also acknowledge the good?
Men are less likely to become teachers because they usually lack the nurtuing qualities that women have. Indeed, I've never heard a man blame the rarity of male teachers on a matriarchal regime controlling the school system. By the same token, women are less likely to become CEOs because they often lack the shrewdness to excel in the dog-eat-dog world of business, and because their career priorities frequently conflict with their desire to raise children.
Feminists like to attribute the dearth of female CEOs to a mythical patriarchy bent on suppressing women. But there's only a grain of truth in that old feminist canard. In fact, most gender disparities are the result of the basic biological differences that separate the sexes.
I'm going to ranckle a lot of nerves by saying this, but I'm going to say it anyway, because someone has to:
Women would have never put a woman on the moon. Women would have never stormed the beaches of Normandy. Women aren't any better or worse than men. But they ARE different, and thus, they are capable of different things.
That's reality. Get over it. And get me a beer.
Posted by Penn @ 5:42 PM | |