Posts
Dr. Helen » Female Teachers give Boys Lower Marks:
This study hints at a larger point. Male teachers mark students on the basis of their performance; female teachers mark students on whether they like them or not. Constitutionally, women have been shaped by God or blind evolution to be fiercely partisan protectors of their young. They remain fiercely partisan by nature. This makes them ill-equipped to make objective, fair minded judgments. If they decide they like you, you can do no wrong. If they decide they do not like you, you can do no right.
This of course is the obvious explanation why women have not traditionally, in any known human society up to the present, been put in positions of authority over others.
Even feminists—especially feminists—now admit that men and women are not interchangeable but for the dangly bits. Women are better at some things, and men are better at some things.
Women are better at looking after children, because of their fiercely partisan instincts. This would also make them good nurses, for example, or, say, receptionists. They will protect their charge, even beyond what is reasonable. Men are better at leadership roles, because of their lack of partisan instincts. They will be fair, and, if necessary, judicious with scarce resources.
Beginning, then, actually, with leadership of the family. It follows immediately from this that the man is the natural choice in that role. Not to mention roles like judge, teacher, manager, police officer, and so forth. Individual women may excel here, but as a group, it is only to be expected that men will usually be better choices. If we have rough equality, let alone feminine dominance of such fields, we have a serious distortion, and probably a serious problem.
You may think it is demeaning to women to say they are best suited to the role of motherhood and looking after the children.
No; rather, to think that is demeaning to children. That is like saying only the present matters, not the future.
This study hints at a larger point. Male teachers mark students on the basis of their performance; female teachers mark students on whether they like them or not. Constitutionally, women have been shaped by God or blind evolution to be fiercely partisan protectors of their young. They remain fiercely partisan by nature. This makes them ill-equipped to make objective, fair minded judgments. If they decide they like you, you can do no wrong. If they decide they do not like you, you can do no right.
This of course is the obvious explanation why women have not traditionally, in any known human society up to the present, been put in positions of authority over others.
Even feminists—especially feminists—now admit that men and women are not interchangeable but for the dangly bits. Women are better at some things, and men are better at some things.
Women are better at looking after children, because of their fiercely partisan instincts. This would also make them good nurses, for example, or, say, receptionists. They will protect their charge, even beyond what is reasonable. Men are better at leadership roles, because of their lack of partisan instincts. They will be fair, and, if necessary, judicious with scarce resources.
Beginning, then, actually, with leadership of the family. It follows immediately from this that the man is the natural choice in that role. Not to mention roles like judge, teacher, manager, police officer, and so forth. Individual women may excel here, but as a group, it is only to be expected that men will usually be better choices. If we have rough equality, let alone feminine dominance of such fields, we have a serious distortion, and probably a serious problem.
You may think it is demeaning to women to say they are best suited to the role of motherhood and looking after the children.
No; rather, to think that is demeaning to children. That is like saying only the present matters, not the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment