Cathy Young wonders why "female values" or male stereotypes have any place at all in debate about terrorism and national security.
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
Larry Hastings | September 7, 2006, 3:53am | #
Long have I admired the strange consistency of the dialog in Rex Morgan M.D.! Every sentence ends with either a question mark or an exclaimation point! It is as if its writers have never heard of the period! It seems that Mary Worth also has this trait!larry
Chad | September 7, 2006, 6:46am | #
I would love to hear her define what this "balance" between diplomacy and military action she talks of is. Precisely how many DECADES do we need to yap about a hellhole like Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc before all the hot air can "balance" military action?It took TWELVE YEARS for the world to get around to ousting Saddam after he brazenly attacked a neighboring country. It shouldn't have been more than twelve days. Frankly, he shouldn't have been tolerated even up to that point.
Even in the case of Iraq, there was an enormous amount of diplomacy, which generally resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Kurds, Shiites, and "innocent Iraqi babies killed by the sanctions" which occured while the world blabbed on and on.
Ayn_Randian | September 7, 2006, 8:22am | #
Ron Hardin to the Reason Front Desk please...your time in blog history has come.Ron Hardin | September 7, 2006, 8:34am | #
Gender comes up because a minority, but a big minority (40%), of women are into soap opera analysis of everything.This happens because the interests of women, what holds their interest, differs from what holds the interest of men.
Either sex can do what the other does. They just tend not to. In this case of this 40%, it is an actual chosen disability.
The other 60% of women can think when required like most men, and are no problem. You don't want the other 40% voting, however ; a bad decision from long ago comes back to bite you. A big bloc that the news media and politicians pander to, and take over the national discussion of everything.
Jennifer | September 7, 2006, 8:47am | #
You don't want the other 40% voting, however ; a bad decision from long ago comes back to bite you. A big bloc that the news media and politicians pander to, and take over the national discussion of everything.Can we also disenfranchise the (at least) 40 percent of men who base their political decisions on stupid things like who Dale Earnhardt Jr. wants to vote for, which sports team a politician likes, or whether or not a politician has a firm and manly handshake?
Stupidity and short-sightedness aren't confined to gender, either.
thoreau | September 7, 2006, 8:54am | #
Jennifer, you sound like a real stick in the mud. You're definitely not the sort of person I'd want to have a beer with.Sorry, you won't be getting my vote. I'm voting for the frat boy instead.
Jennifer | September 7, 2006, 9:08am | #
I'm curious about this 60 percent of women who think like men. Is it in the sense of "I think I'll vote for this guy because YOWZA LOOKIT THE WATERMELONS ON THAT BABE" or is it more of a Gary Hart-ish "Well, if I'm running for President, surely there can't be any harm in allowing myself to be photographed with a not-my-wife hottie sitting on my lap" or, my own personal favorite from years past, "Anyone who refuses to have sex with me simply MUST be gay?" Or is it that these women are likely to invent comical nicknames for their sexual body parts, and refer to them thusly in public? "I hope my boss turns down the air conditioner today. Eisenhower and MacArthur are perky enough to cut diamonds."I'm going to buy myself a sticker of Calvin urinating on Jeff Gordon's sports car, and stick it on my own rear window. It's a rational, manly thing to do.
Jennifer | September 7, 2006, 9:12am | #
Oh, to hell with the male-female thing. Show me anyplace where at least 60 percent of the population--woman or man--thinks logically and rationally and I'll quit my job and move there right now. Except I fear this place does not exist--a lot of people of both sexes are simply the type to let prejudice and stupid personal opinions override more sensible ideas.But at least I'm honest enough to say it's both sexes, rather than believe the possession or lack of a Y chromosome marks the difference between rational and irrational.
I gotta say, Cathy, while I think I agree with your larger point, offering teenage girl cliquery cruelty as evidence that women are not caring is a little weak. Most relevant, teenagers wont be forming foreign policy. but, to address your point, teenage boys, via sports team hazing can be every bit as cruel, violent too.
John | September 7, 2006, 9:17am | #
The same people who claim pacifistic female values are going to save the world also claim that women should can do anything that men do and should be in Special Forces units. Which is it? If women are these natural peacemakers, they are the last people I would want pulling a trigger and responsible for killing people.Of course there is no such thing as female values. Women have participated in every war and genocide in human history. For every Joe Stalin there is a Catherine the Great or Catherine de medici.
It is also amazing how "feminists" like Robyn Blumner who claims to speak for the entire gender end up making women look like emotional feckless ninnies. I don't think the worst Victorian chauvinist pig could have found anything in Blumner’s opinions with which to disagree. It is not that women are into a soap opera analysis it is that liberals are into a soap opera analysis and liberal women claim to speak for all women. If women like the woman who wrote the article in question would stop trying to generalize about women and embarrassing the gender, people wouldn't look at women the way Ron Hardin does.
OMG | September 7, 2006, 9:20am | #
But at least I'm honest enough to say it's both sexes, rather than believe the possession or lack of a Y chromosome marks the difference between rational and irrational.Considering the way you're going on this morning, you aren't doing much to help your case.
Now, now, OMG. If you can't appreciate the rational beauty of male behavior, you're clearly too erratic to be trusted with the awesome responsibility of voting. Just go make yourself pretty and let me worry about matters of national security now, y'hear?
John | September 7, 2006, 9:31am | #
"I would love to hear her define what this "balance" between diplomacy and military action she talks of is."For Blumner, "balance" means asking our enemies nicely to stop what they are doing. For people like Blumner the 1930s really were the high point of civilization. The rest of the world rather than standing up and doing something to stop Hitler, were realistic and balanced force with diplomacy in a real international effort to engage and contain Hitler.
Ron Hardin | September 7, 2006, 9:31am | #
If women like the woman who wrote the article in question would stop trying to generalize about women and embarrassing the gender, people wouldn't look at women the way Ron Hardin does.There's a feminism that actually has some possibilities ; Vicki Hearne pointed it out, having found it in Thurber.
My own interest is more a ``cut out the crap'' interest in getting the sexual difference right, a poetic interest, or a writer's interest in finding the right words for something, in a language that's gone out of order.
Vicki Hearne at home.att.net/~rhhardine/vickihearne.feminism.txt
Her musings on why you don't find women in math, given that they seem to be good at it, home.att.net/~rhhardin9/vickihearne.womenmath.txt
that for me brought up the interest thing.
Arguments don't seem to take place along these lines, though ; instead everybody's all defensive, as if such an arrangement would be unacceptable.
I'm passing on her analysis as seeming right to me ; she's dead now so can't pass them along herself.
David | September 7, 2006, 9:34am | #
The other 60% of women can think when required like most men, and are no problem. You don't want the other 40% voting, however ; a bad decision from long ago comes back to bite you. A big bloc that the news media and politicians pander to, and take over the national discussion of everything.I'm sure you can provide statistics to support these numbers, Ron. They don't sound made up or anything.
David | September 7, 2006, 9:38am | #
For people like Blumner the 1930s really were the high point of civilization. The rest of the world rather than standing up and doing something to stop Hitler, were realistic and balanced force with diplomacy in a real international effort to engage and contain Hitler.Isn't that kind of a lot to discern from one comment about balance? Maybe not for a guy who assumes that all liberals are guity of soap-opera analysis(What is soap opera analysis?) when considering foreign policy.
Ron Hardin | September 7, 2006, 9:39am | #
I'm sure you can provide statistics to support these numbers, Ron.They're inferred from a WaPo article on the audience of news magazine shows, in the late 90s, from the last time somebody wanted to know how I knew women and men were different.
I think the line was something line ``20% of the population, mostly women.'' From which I got 40% of women.
What do you think the figure should be?
Ayn_Randian | September 7, 2006, 9:39am | #
"I think I'll vote for this guy because YOWZA LOOKIT THE WATERMELONS ON THAT BABE"Or is it that these women are likely to invent comical nicknames for their sexual body parts, and refer to them thusly in public
I'm going to buy myself a sticker of Calvin urinating on Jeff Gordon's sports car, and stick it on my own rear window.
Yes, Jennifer, I sense no irrational stereotyping in your posts either. And you could just have refuted Mr. Hardin by saying "well, Mr. Hardin, it's unfortunate you view almost a quarter of the earth the way you do, because discrimination based on birth characteristics is the lowest form of tribalism".
But hey, man-bashing works too. Ms. Pot, Meet Mr. Kettle.
David | September 7, 2006, 9:45am | #
They're inferred from a WaPo article on the audience of news magazine shows, in the late 90s, from the last time somebody wanted to know how I knew women and men were different.I see, a rough guess based on a single news article about news magazine shows at least seven years old. Very cutting edge.
Ron Hardin | September 7, 2006, 9:50am | #
``Soap Opera analysis'' favors inner struggle, soul-searching and everlasting frustration.Abstractly, it favors irresolution and inner connectedness of complex situations, favoring by finding them interesting.
It's comfortable with unresolved questions.
You need this kind of talent, but not if it takes over all the terrain.
The (male) analytic technique is to abstract away a single aspect and solve it; then move on to the next and solve it, and so forth.
This renders males incapable of doing all sorts of things, Vicki Hearne points out, like riding horses, in her example.
But it's probably how to deal with Islamonutballism.
1. Make it impossible for big groups to form through constant financial hasslement and subversive detection.
2. Encourage social organization that will not favor the growth of such organization in the first place.
The soap opera analysis is why do they hate us and can we make them like us etc.
Jennifer | September 7, 2006, 9:51am | #
But hey, man-bashing works too. Ms. Pot, Meet Mr. Kettle.Now now, Ayn Randian, surely you possess enough rational thought to discern the difference between "bashing men" and "bashing a stereotype of men and the idea that all men must be viewed thusly," right? Or maybe not. Research suggests men are inferior to women in terms of linguistic ability. Perhaps I should write in binary code instead.
00010101? 0000111001. (01000100) 1110101101!!!
Understand my point now?
Jennifer | September 7, 2006, 9:57am | #
Now if y'all will excuse me, I have to puruse a story which will take me away from my desk today.(Maybe. Or maybe I'm just going to perch on the couch, watch Oprah, eat bonbons and have a conversation wherein every third word is either "my husband says" or "my children are.")
Jennifer if you were not so defensive maybe people might believe you when you claim to be using stereotypes as a "rhetorical device".
Ayn_Randian | September 7, 2006, 10:08am | #
Ironic that while bashing female stereotypes, Jennifer asks me to be a mind reader.So, you were being sarcastic about male stereotypes to highlight the ridiculousness of female ones, Jennifer? Forgive me if that sounds as ludicrous as it is.
thoreau | September 7, 2006, 10:11am | #
0010000111100, 0011111010101 00111100100011110 00001111101010 10101000011110 111111000110011110 001100111101101.That's all I have to say about that.
thoreau | September 7, 2006, 10:14am | #
One more thing:00000100 00001000 00001111 00010000 00010111 00101010
That one actually meant something.
Ron Hardin | September 7, 2006, 10:23am | #
A guy thing, I dare say :This sentence has one thousand one hundred eleven a's, one b, ten c's, one hundred thousand ten d's, one million one thousand one hundred eleven e's, one f, one g, eleven thousand one h's, one hundred ten i's, one j, one k, one thousand one hundred one l's, eleven m's, one million one thousand one hundred one n's, one hundred ten thousand one o's, one p, one q, one thousand eleven r's, eleven thousand one hundred eleven s's, ten thousand one hundred ten t's, ten thousand one hundred eleven u's, one thousand one v's, one w, one x, one y, and one z.
home.att.net/~rhhardin/binary.html
Jim Henley | September 7, 2006, 10:32am | #
A real man would logically conclude that Jennifer just cleaned y'all's clocks.That's *clocks*, I repeat: *clocks*.
Ayn_Randian | September 7, 2006, 10:36am | #
And Henley wins for trotting out the "A Real Scotsman" fallacy.Women tend to be idealists and men tend to be realists. But a world made up of women leaders is MORE likely to cause violence. Because you always know where you stand with a man. Men say what they mean and mean what they say. Women are not like that.
Ron Hardin | September 7, 2006, 10:59am | #
Real scotsman fallacyHOR: I saw him once ; he was a goodly king.
HAM: He was a man, take him for all in all,
I shall not look on his like again.
What does Hamlet mean by ``man?''
A case where most specimens are not the ideal, so that when you find one that is, he's a sort of god, according to Empson.
That's not a fallacy.
fyodor | September 7, 2006, 11:09am | #
I think Jennifer's point was that the same type of logic could be applied to males as Ron Hardin applied to females, only using different sex specific stereotypes. I don't think that's male bashing. She could have used less inflammatory and more sensitive language, but under different circumstances, criticizing such a lack of sensitivity is considered disgustingly PC.Now, her comments assume that there is nothing factual to what Ron Hardin is saying. Personally, I don't know if there is or not. There does seem to me, on an intuitive level, the possibility that men and women, on the aggregate, address problems differently, and that some problems are better suited to the more-female types of thinking and vice versa. But, speaking of sensitivity, you can hardly expect a man to say we don't want 40% of women voting without any qualification and not have some women get defensive about that.
Brian24 | September 7, 2006, 12:55pm | #
That Jennifer was making a rhetorical point seemed pretty obvious to me. And I am male, as far as I know.Then again, I do wish the Pentagon were financed by bake sales. Is that because I'm a libertarian and favor voluntary forms of funding, or because I'm secretly female? What a connundrum.
MUTT | September 7, 2006, 5:55pm | #
".......and men tend to be realists."Really!?
Yeah, riiiight. Everything since 9/11 has been based on reality.
Jennifer cleaned your clocks. Y'all are too full of yourselves, humourless, & defensive (for a multitude of good reasons) to see it.
van | September 7, 2006, 6:36pm | #
>What is soap opera analysis?)I'm wondering about that too. Is it analysis that is sentimental, solipsistic, and overly dramatic? Because soap opera characters tend to have those characteristics. Or is it analysis that is oversimplified, like if someone is not on my side he is on my enemy's side? I've noticed that on soap operas, expressions such as "I thought you were on my side," or "So does that mean you're on his side now?" get used a lot.
Ron Hardin?
Lamar | September 7, 2006, 6:38pm | #
"Show me anyplace where at least 60 percent of the population--woman or man--thinks logically and rationally and I'll quit my job and move there right now."I'll show you my apartment, where 100% of the population thinks rationally...except when I'm there.
van | September 7, 2006, 6:45pm | #
"Then again, I do wish the Pentagon were financed by bake sales. Is that because I'm a libertarian and favor voluntary forms of funding, or because I'm secretly female? What a connundrum."Hmmm. Do you drive a Volvo station wagon? Does it have a bumper sticker advocating breast feeding next to the one about defense spending and bake sales? If so, you might want to get your chromosomes analyzed.
Stevo Darkly | September 7, 2006, 6:51pm | #
One more thing:00000100 00001000 00001111 00010000 00010111 00101010
That one actually meant something.
4-8-15-16-23-42 ???
Translating this to letters using simple number-letter substitution, I get DHOPWP ???
Writing out the numbers and then turning them upside-down to see if they resemble letters, I get: ZhEZgisiBh ???
I'm lost, thoreau.
Stevo Darkly | September 7, 2006, 11:06pm | #
Oh.Someday I must make time to see more of this newfangled "televideo" thing that broadcasts the radio shows with the movin' pitchers.
Thanks, thoreau.