The Dim-Post

November 27, 2008

Get off my lawn!

Filed under: Uncategorized — danylmc @ 9:12 am
Tags:
Why if I were ninety years younger . . .

Possible side effects of L Dopa include hypertension, confusion and amphetamine psychosis

There’s a hilarious column by Garth George in the Herald today. Here’s my personal highlight:

The second major cause of violence against women and children is the belief held by too many women that they should not just be equal to men but, in all but physical appurtenances, are the same.

This is an illusion: men and women are different physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually. It astounds me that in this age in which knowledge of the makeup of the human being is greater than at any time in history, we will not concede that men and women are genetically programmed for differing roles.

The assumption by so many women of the roles traditionally exclusive to men has left many men in confusion, frustration and anxiety, and more are lashing out because they feel their maleness is under threat.

I find that inordinately sad. You can call me a sexist until you run out of breath . . .

Actually, the idea that woman are simply unfit to do a man’s job is pretty much the textbook definition of sexism, as is George’s suggestion that woman are responsible for violence directed against them on the grounds that they have trespassed on male authority.

But that’s only one tiny fragment – the whole thing is an admirable exercise in ignorant, reactionary hysteria and the kind of thing that editors are supposed to decline to publish on the grounds that it’s not worth the subsequent loss of subscriptions and advertising revenue.

About these ads

13 Comments »

  1. Some may think that men have been lashing out for generations and that may just kind of undermine Garth’s argument. But don’t be mistaken. It was probably a feminist that started cooking the damn mammoth flesh. I mean how humiliated us hunters must have felt! What was wrong with chewing on it raw for (the) gods sake?? Next thing you know they will be asking us not to shit in the cave….

    Comment by pkiwi — November 27, 2008 @ 10:07 am

  2. How can he hate women, his mother’s one?

    Comment by Mausism — November 27, 2008 @ 10:18 am

  3. Embarrassed by such tripe.

    Comment by ropata — November 27, 2008 @ 10:35 am

  4. I don’t know who is worse, Laws, Minto or this clown.

    Laws wants to take all the children off the ‘underclass’, Minto blames it all on the economic reforms of Roger Douglas and Garth George blames it on ‘abortion’.

    What’s left? Blame child abuse on the fact the All Blacks have not won the world cup for 20 years, or maybe the introduction of the metric system?

    (Shut up Ieuan you are just giving these idiots ideas)

    Comment by Ieuan — November 27, 2008 @ 11:42 am

  5. haven’t run out of breath yet.

    …we will not concede that men and women are genetically programmed for differing roles.

    the only lashings required here for both conservatives like George and their left-wing counterparts is lashings of Pinker and Dawkins. A little bit of knowledge as they say.

    Comment by Neil — November 27, 2008 @ 11:58 am

  6. Neil – you might want to follow your own advice here. Steven Pinker considers the evidence for genetic differences between men and women in their abilities is “reasonably good”.

    Comment by ChrisD — November 27, 2008 @ 12:26 pm

  7. Surely Garth George is genetically programmed to be a newspaper columnist.

    Comment by danylmc — November 27, 2008 @ 12:32 pm

  8. …we will not concede that men and women are genetically programmed for differing roles.

    He’s not even right about that! Of course we “concede” (if that were the right term, which it’s not) that men and women are genetically programmed for differing roles. Women are genetically programmed for the roles of pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding, and men are genetically programmed for the role of squirting semen in the right place so that the above-mentioned happens. Garth however, seems to be fantasising for women some kind of genetic programming for cooking, cleaning, childminding and getting the bash when they threaten their husband’s masculinity. Yeah, call him sexist til you run out of breath – he’s earned it.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — November 27, 2008 @ 12:33 pm

  9. Steven Pinker considers the evidence for genetic differences between men and women in their abilities is “reasonably good”.

    Just off the top of my head: abilities != gender roles; difference in populations != individual differences.

    Comment by lyndon — November 27, 2008 @ 12:34 pm

  10. The general does not equal the specific of course but it does, obviously, imply that some groups will be more suited for specific tasks than others. If roles/activities are not to be associated with abilities then I insist on being selected in place of Dan Carter immediately.

    Comment by ChrisD — November 27, 2008 @ 12:57 pm

  11. Neil – you might want to follow your own advice here. Steven Pinker considers the evidence for genetic differences between men and women in their abilities is “reasonably good”.

    Yes I know, that was my point. there certainly is a link between genes and gender difference, it’s ironic that here it’s a conservative presenting this view – but people like Dawkins and Pinker have dealt with this sort of misconception about the consequences.

    Most violence towards woman and children does come from men and most of that can be seen in the light of evolution. But George’s argument is that most of this violence is the result of men being threatened with all this role changing. Well men were violent towards woman before feminism.

    Comment by Neil — November 27, 2008 @ 1:01 pm

  12. I honestly cannot wait for his further columns explaining the roles of “multiculturalism” and “the Internet” in all of this.

    Comment by Sam Finnemore — November 27, 2008 @ 1:30 pm

  13. It’s worth noting that Pinker makes it clear that if such differences exist, they should have no impact on our conception of sexual equity.

    “First, the human brain works however it works. Wishing for it to work in some way as a shortcut to justifying some ethical principle undermines both the science and the ethics (for what happens to the principle if the scientific facts turn out to go the other way?). Second, there is no foreseeable discovery in psychology that could bear on the self-evident truth that ethical and politically, all people are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Finally, radical empiricism is not necessarily a progressive, humanitarian doctrine. A blank slate is a dictator’s dream. Some psychology textbooks mention the “fact” that Spartan and samurai mothers smiled upon hearing that their sons fell in battle. Since history is written by the generals, not mothers, we can dismiss this incredible claim, but it is clear what purposes it must have served.”

    Comment by The PC Avenger — November 27, 2008 @ 6:38 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 388 other followers

%d bloggers like this: