Archives for category: gender roles
lashes1-copy-300x210
If we want to understand what’s going on there we have realize that we are dealing with a absolute dictatorship which uses Islam as a crutch, exactly as the soviet style dictators in the so called ‘popular democracies’ were using ‘scientific materialism’ – their term for the communist doctrine.
The job of the Saudi ‘justices’ is to maintain ‘the order’ as they see fit – the kingdom as it is and the Saudi family in power, not at all to dispense justice as we know it.
In order to do that they use, ‘creativelly’, the most powerfull tool they have at their disposal: the faith shared by the majority of the inhabitants of the kindom.
It even doesn’t matter for them that in the process they are ruining any chance of a decent life for the majority of their conationals.
At first their only goal was to retain the graces of the ruling family – just as minions everywhere behave in the presence of a powerfull figure.
In time things have evolved in a malignant manner. I’m afraid that nowadays the House of Saud itself has become the prisoner of the erstwhile minions, just as every dictator eventually becomes the prisoner of his guards.

I hate crowded malls and supermarkets.
As a consequence I make it so that I seldom have to buy anything during the weekend. And when I do I wake up early and I beat the crowd to it.

Not today. It so happened that I started late so I had to experience ‘weekend shopping’ at full intensity. Farmers market, a hypermarket, a discount store and a supermarket. All in under two hours – it’s a relatively small city, those places are not so far away from each other and I know exactly where each item I need is shelved in each store.

And now the reasons for my current post.

– Why on Earth would a pensioner chose to buy anything during the weekend rush except for the things that have to be absolutely fresh. For instance fish or lettuce?
OK, I can understand that some of them were shopping for the Sunday dinner but still… they could have done that on Friday morning when the shops are empty and they don’t have to wait at the cashiers desk or to navigate the heavy trolleys through a dense crowd…

– We are raising a very strange generation of kids. The shops were full of parents who were obviously quite disconnected from their children. My guess being that the kids spend the week at the kindergarten/school/after school (or with a nanny) and the parents ‘take over’ only during the weekend.
In those two short hours I witnessed innumerable interactions that suggested to me that the parents had no clue about their children and that the children practically didn’t know/trust their parents.

 

Yet another misleading title

OK, I fully understand the editors’ need to grab readers’ attention… I also understand the fact that the readers themselves have become somewhat forgiving… in the sense that most don’t even notice that the title which convinced them to read an article is only vaguely connected to the rest… but how far down this road do we need to go before understanding how dangerous it is?

Most people do not trust the media anymore… could it be that this had been helped by the continuously widening distance between the titillating titles and the actual content of the articles?

How about ‘Men are attracted by smart women but not enough for them to overcome a certain weariness’?

Now, that I’ve hopefully grabbed your attention, let me delve into the matter.

“…more and more research reveals that though the thought of a smart woman is appealing to men, a real, live smart woman standing in front of them is actually a turnoff.”

“Researchers at the University of Buffalo, California Lutheran University, and the University of Texas at Austin” developed a two tiered study to test their hypothesis.
During the first step 105 men where read a “hypothetical scenario in which a woman either outperformed or underperformed them in a math or English course, and then (they were) instructed … to imagine this woman as a romantic partner”. During this step the men who were outperformed tended to describe a more favorable impression about the woman they were compared to than the one offered by the others. And this finding seems to validate another claim made earlier this year: “Men value intelligence in women far above large breasts and long legs.”
During the second step each of the same men were asked to complete something that looked like an intelligence test and then offered the opportunity to meet a woman that had either out or under performed them. Surprisingly (or not?) the men who were going to meet a woman that was smarter than them “distanced themselves more from her, tended to rate her as less attractive, and showed less desire to exchange contact information or plan a date with her,”

This being somewhat inline with the conclusion of another study which finds that: “men’s avoidance of more intelligent or ambitious women could be due to fear of rejection by these higher quality women.”

Can we even try to draw a conclusion? Given so much contradictory information?

Let’s start from here:

“This study also did not take into account men who are already in a relationship with a more intelligent woman.”

Wow! It wasn’t that hard, after all…
Until now we were considering ‘thoughts’ and ‘impressions’ provided by individuals confronted with ‘hypothetical scenarios’ but who had no first hand experience about the real deal…

But do not despair. You haven’t lost precious time reading all this.

Here’s some ‘homework’ you might find challenging:

Why are some men – those who haven’t yet discovered that this situation could be comfortable – avoiding a romantic relationship with a more intelligent/ambitious woman? While so many same sex friendships bond people who display different levels of intelligence/ambition?

Are we that stuck in our old ‘gender roles’? Do males’ egos still tend to be threatened if they are not the alpha member of their household?

Or could it be that some of the males tend to associate female smartness with a variety of rather aggressive feminisms and it’s this that puts them off, not the the intelligence itself?

And why is it that justice is usually depicted as a blindfolded woman instead of an overbearing male?

“Dame Athene Donald, who is Professor of Experimental Physics at Cambridge University, believes more “creative” toys such as Lego and Meccano, which are more likely to be given to boys than girls, should replace traditional “girls’ toys,” reported The Telegraph.”

Isn’t this nice? A scientist that shares her beliefs with us… how about some facts, for a change?

Don’t get me wrong, I basically agree with her only she’s got her horses behind the cart.

First of all Dame Athene Donald shared this, otherwise sensible, piece of advice – “ditch Barbie for Lego” – a full year after “The Lego brick has toppled the Barbie doll—at least for now—in children’s affections.”
Secondly the parents influence their children’s future in a lot more ways than by the choice of toys that are presented to their offspring. That choice is indeed a very good indicator about the attitude of the parents but only that, an indicator – not at all a ‘sentence’.

Here is Professor Donald’s main argument: ““We introduce social constructs by stereotyping what toys boys and girls receive from the earliest age,” she went on. “Girls’ toys are typically liable to lead to passivity — combing the hair of Barbie, for instance — not building, imagining or being creative with Lego or Meccano.””
So combing hair, or dressing a doll, leads to passivity while playing with Lego necessarily leads to becoming a creative adult… Yeah… sure… That’s why fashion and cooking, two domains otherwise closely connected to the womenfolk, involve a huge amount of creativity while most manufacturing jobs – still performed predominantly by men – are mostly about following procedures…

So yes, I fully agree with her conclusion – ““We need to change the way we think about boys and girls and what’s appropriate for them from a very young age.”” – but I’m afraid that she arrived there led by her activism rather than by ‘scientific’ reasoning.

And since I’m very afraid of all forms of activism I’d rather follow the advice offered by Claire Gillespie, the author of the article that prodded me into writing this post:“Don’t pigeonhole little girls into typically “female” interests and subjects. Don’t pigeonhole little boys into typically “male” interests and subjects. And give all children the time and freedom to explore all their options, without forcing them to go down the arts or sciences route from a young age.”