Prometheus 6

Let the guys win one.....yeah, those poor babies, if we don't let them win one they're gonna get depressed, or something. If Tierney's married, I wonder if his wife falls for that kind of pouty bullshit. 

Tierney's just dressing it up in fancy rationalizations. But all the big words in the world don't change the discrimination at the heart of it.  

Prior to the Fench Revolution in the late 1700s, women in France had remarkable social, professional and economic freedoms. The leaders of the French Revolution, wanting to invoke their perception of the ancient cultures of Greece and Rome, where women were pretty much chattel, decreed that in the new France a woman's place was in the home, making lots of little French babies. The men couldn't succeed unless women stepped down.

In WWII Germany, Hitler declared the same thing. and actually made a state policy of where women belonged - Kinder, Kirchen, Kuchen - Children, Church, Kitchen. Women who had lots of little Nazi babies got commemorative Mother's medals. Popping out the babies was their contribution to the Reich. The men couldn't succeed unless women stayed home.

They did the same thing here after WWII. They needed women in the workplace during the war, but as soon as it was over all the power of popular culture and even law was used to get women back in the kitchen. The men couldn't succeed unless the women went back home.

Generations of law still hasn't given women in this country pay equity. Women are still being denied promotions and/or raises because, "He needed it, he has a family to support." The largest class-action suit in this country is going on right now against Wal-Mart for that very reason. Wal-Mart's rationalization is that the men need the advantage, they can't succeed unless the women are held back.    

We've even learned in the last few decades that when Jesus assembled his followers, women were among them as equals. After the death of Jesus women were relegated to a place of submission and shame by church leaders and sent back home and told to shut up - literally, Paul commands women to "be silent in the house of the Lord". God wants women held down, really, he told the men that. Ever notice that no woman prophet got that message? No black prophet ever got the message that slavery is His will? But men sure seem to get lots of prophecies justifying their right to dominate - for God, of course. God can't succeed unless men do and men can't succeed unless, well, you get the idea.....

Take a look at today's Evangelical movement in this country and it's all there again. Man has to be the head of the household - the High Priest of the home (I'm not kidding, some are actually calling it that) and any woman who loves Jesus is supposed to joyfully submit to their husband's will. The church has to be run by men only and can't succeed unless women stay home and shut up. God says so.

Polygamist Mormans are just an extension of this: the man cannot succeed into Heaven unless lots of women are in submission to him.

Tierney's article is just a lame rehash of the same arguement. Women are somehow cheating poor men. There is some sort of unfair advantage against the poor dears if women, denied an equal place ever since the first boats landed here, are given any kind of a boost, even just for games.

It's right there in his opening paragraph, we've already taken over debate and the yearbook, what more do we want? Men can't succeed unless women stop being so greedy.

The darker side of this is the male belief that any man who cannot control his woman is not really a man. We've all seen where that leads.

You'd think we would learn from looking at what we have seen in other parts of the world in the last few years.

In Africa women have their clitorises mutilated in a sick attempt to ensure marital fidelity. The theory being that any woman will cheat on her husband if she can enjoy sex, so the women have their genitals mutilated. The man can't succeed in his marriage unless the woman is mutilated.  

(Maybe I should be grateful. No promotion, but, hey, the snatch is intact.)

In the Muslim world the entire family can't succeed unless the woman is covered, controlled, and dominated in every facet of her life. The theory here is that the women will be out there screwing everything in sight and ruining the family honor if they are not completely controlled. Because, get this, the women, not the men, are weak and cannot control themselves. The success of everything depends on the complete submission and enslavement of the woman. Allah says so - well, he actually doesn't, but since the vast majority of Muslim women in the Arab world are illiterate, they've been taking the men's word for it. 

To put it in the hypothetical terms Tierney used, the Betas can't succeed unless they have artificially sustained advantages over the Alphas. Once you let those Alphas have any chance, they'll take everything. Because, according to Tierney, those Alphas are getting "better grades and are more likely to graduate...dominate the school newspaper and yearbook, the band and the choir, the debate team and the drama club — virtually all extracurricular activities except for sports."  Tierney conveniently fails to mention that this advantage disappears when the Alphas enter the workplace where the Betas still retain the artificial advantage.  

Goodness, if those pushy Alphas are doing that well when this is only the second or third generation they have achieved anything close to the access to education that the Betas have always enjoyed, then how will the Betas ever continue to succeed? Unless they hold the Alphas down again.  

The Betas cannot succeed if the Alphas are given an equal place? Men cannot succeed unless women are kept down?

Amen, and amen again. I don't think that men really understand how personally oppressive, dysfunctional and pressure-filled these sort of asymmetrical relationships with women are. There are men and women who are eager to have these kinds of arrangements with each other but speaking personally I have never been interested in women who wanted to be subservient to me. It's crazy making. 

I'll co-sign PT's comment, with one exception. I find the following quote somewhat problematic:

"In Africa women have their clitorises mutilated in a sick attempt to ensure marital fidelity. The theory being that any woman will cheat on her husband if she can enjoy sex, so the women have their genitals mutilated. The man can't succeed in his marriage unless the woman is mutilated."

While I share your abhorrence of this custom, I think you have oversimplified its origin and purpose. Contrary to modern misconceptions, the roots of these practices are connected to ancient concepts of gender identity. Generally speaking, you would not find female circumcision practiced without its complement: male circumcison. These customs evolved and were grounded in conceptions of man-making and woman-making that exist only as a dim memory from our distant past. To make a female a woman required the removal of the "male" element symbolized by the female clitoris. Man-making meant the removal of the "female" component symbolized by the foreskin. These beliefs probably arose in human societies during the transition from hunting-gathering modes of production to agricultural production. Given this timeline, they pre-date Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

The male chauvinist issues you point out (insuring paternity via marital fidelity, a challenging task regardless of the technique) were appended later.

Is this a site like Slashdot related to human behavior??? :)))

That's an interesting idea.

More like human misbehavior, in my case.

Oops, I corrected a typo and the post jumped out of order. My bad ...

No biggie. I do need to work that out, though.