Saturday, June 06, 2009

Women in politics - 'little more than window dressing'?

While Christianity has traditionally taught the equality of souls for God and the world to come, it has manifestly perpetuated an inequality of the sexes in the Church and the present world. Historically, the Church has been a patriarchal institution based on an anthropology in which man is the ‘head’ and woman subordinate. Augustine of Hippo helpfully explained: ‘Woman does not possess the image of God herself, but only when taken together with the male who is her head’.

The theology has clearly influenced Gordon Brown’s ‘Presbyterian conscience’. The most significant shot fired across his bow by Caroline Flint – the fickle and capricious erstwhile Europe Minister – was that he treats women in the Cabinet as ‘little more than female window dressing’. The Prime Minister does not, she avers, view women as equals, preferring instead structures which secure and perpetuate male dominion. To her frustration, he has not grasped the emancipatory ideas of the Enlightenment.

Feminist politics is a murky as feminist theology, but they are united by their fundamental antithesis to patriarchy. In his Dogmatics, Barth observed: ‘Different ages, peoples and cultures have had very different ideas of what is concretely appropriate, salutary and necessary in man and woman.’ While the liberal tradition has been concerned with an equality of liberties and opportunities, Marxist feminism has been more radical in its identification and elimination of the prevalent androcentric fallacy – that men and women do not only differ physiologically, but also in their experience, perception and appropriation of reality; and that this difference has been masked because the normative representation of humanity in Western culture has been the experiences, values and conceptual constructs of males.

Ms Flint has simply discovered the consequence of Gordon Brown’s failure to find femininity in God. Gordon Brown’s God is a father, husband, king, clan leader and warrior. Caroline Flint’s is a pregnant woman, mother, midwife, mistress. Gordon Brown’s testosterone-charged, self-asserting and self-aggrandising ‘inner circle’ has no need of the goddess and no use for the ‘feminine experience’. And so Caroline Flint feels that she exists on the periphery of misogyny, enduring an intolerable oppression. In the worldview of the Prime Minister, men possess all dignity, virtue, and power, while women, as a mere derivative of man, are inferior, defective, passive, somehow less than fully human. Therefore the female contribution to Cabinet can be largely ignored.

But Ms Flint’s error of judgement (and it is a considerable one) is that her emotional outburst, pettiness and inconsistency (not to mention posing for this sort of photograph) will simply be taken as corroboration that she was never qualified to be any more than ‘window dressing’ in the first place: her feminist quest to join the male-dominated ‘inner circle’ was the superficial pursuit of gender, not of merit. By resigning from the Cabinet, she can no longer be a critical voice within it, but is reduced to being just another feminist revolt against it. Hers is now the ‘advocacy stance’ adopted by all liberation theologies which favour the oppressed. Her desire was to join the male-dominated ‘inner circle’ in order to realise the full equality of male and female: by removing herself from it she has just set back by years the struggle for the political liberation of women. She has simply proved herself to be the incarnation of all that Gordon Brown intuitively felt but, with his commitment to Marxist principles of equality, could never actually state.

Ms Flint ought to reflect on the fact that it was the women who did not desert Jesus but were united with him in his crucifixion and death; they were first to witness the resurrection; and they were the first to receive the apostolic commission to go and tell others.

But those women were not obsessed with a trivial political feminist quest: they kept their eyes fixed on the super-objective, and they had the balls to persevere.


Blogger Demetrius said...

Alas, Your Grace, if there is one thing that transcends gender, it is political ambition.

6 June 2009 at 09:27  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

So many versions of a woman in here YG my head is in a spin. I am not sure to be honest what it is that has happened, but I will take your word for it for now.

I was under the foolishly naive impression she was just a bitch.

6 June 2009 at 09:35  
Anonymous John Knox redivivus said...

Here's hoping Mr Brown paid attention to this this tract of mine.

6 June 2009 at 09:42  
Anonymous Proudgeordie said...

She acted and performed her parliamentary function in the style of mere 'window dressing' when she recommended the Lisbon Treaty without having read it!

It is a shame that her absolute ineptitude is only highlighted because of her gender. The entire male contingent of that hateful party are equally inept.

6 June 2009 at 10:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your quotation from Augustine of Hippo is one of his particularly unfortunate statements.

6 June 2009 at 10:37  
Blogger Gnostic said...

I wish those particular sisters had stuck to doing it for themselves and left the rest of us alone.

Looks like the wish fairy has finally granted my wish...

6 June 2009 at 10:54  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

I have read it again, three times, but it's no use, I am resigned to the fact I will never grasp it.

I am inclined to sign up to the liberal tradition, which is "concerned with an equality of liberties and opportunities", and accept in my heart that a woman is a mysterious creature at worse.

This is the bit which is confusing me the most:

"While the liberal tradition has been concerned with an equality of liberties and opportunities, Marxist feminism has been more radical in its identification and elimination of the prevalent androcentric fallacy – that men and women do not only differ physiologically, but also in their experience, perception and appropriation of reality; and that this difference has been masked because the normative representation of humanity in Western culture has been the experiences, values and conceptual constructs of males."

Is it a 'prevalent androcentric fallacy' in the eyes of the Marxist only? It has been my experience that women are physiologically different, and indeed also in their experience, perception and appropriation of reality. But it would be ridiculous to suggest all women are the same.

Women can do much of what men do, but there exists in my world, 'differences'. In my world there are women, and I thank God that they are here.

6 June 2009 at 11:06  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

There are as many different types of women as there are men. Take the recent behaviour of Flint. In my mind she exhibited a specific female quality with the way she appeared to give her support to Brown one hour, without any sign of doubt or inward conflict, then in the next hour exhibit a total opposite stance, but with a ferocity of hissing and spitting that I would ascribe as a characteristic of the female personality, but not to say typical.

For instance, take the Harman woman as an other example of female. She is the ultimate Ice Queen, she is so cold she makes me shudder, the hairs stand up on my neck when I see her eyes. It would take a flame thrower to break into her and provoke a similar response as that of Flint, but she is non the less female, but again not to say typical: in my mind, just a different kind of bitch (a much scarier one).

6 June 2009 at 11:25  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

With regards to women in the Bible, the best example is the first, the story of Adam and Eve.

The story of Adam and Eve will seem primitive and fairy-tale-like to anyone, but still there are elements of the story which we strongly identify with non-the-less. The ideas of forbidden fruit and temptation are very real and powerful realities that characterise human existence. There are many levels of interpretation in this story, some better than others, but one that I feel relevant to this post is the very real fact that women can and do have a powerful influence over men. Something of a lesson that should not be taken lightly.

Less is more...cheerio.

6 June 2009 at 11:58  
Blogger ooberlib said...

Another interesting point is that it can be very difficult to imagine the ultimate evil being, such as Satan, to be purely female.

A female goes through great pain and suffering in order to bring other beings into the world, then makes many instinctive sacrifices to nurture and protect their children (well, they used to anyway). But it then becomes difficult to conflate the female personality with ultimate evil.

6 June 2009 at 12:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Slightly OT but:

In his capacity as full time organiser of the National Association of Operative Plasterers during the 1950s my Father had to write many official letters to other trade unionists and he always employed the formal address "Dear Sir and brother", ending with "yours fraternally". One day he had to write an official letter to a lady luminary, after much thought he addressed her as "Dear Madam and Sister". The answer came back short and sharp: No bugger calls me Madam and gets away with it and I'm not your bloody sister".

I like to think it might have been Bessie Braddock, but I'm pretty sure it was not; I've probably got the details wrong too.

6 June 2009 at 12:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A lady luminary"

The luminaries can be found in the Bible:

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: He made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:16-18, King James Version)

I suppose in this case it's a question of which is which?

Moon pants, or Hot Pants, who wears the pants..hah!

6 June 2009 at 13:30  
Blogger Dominic Marchmain, said...

But neither should we forget, Your Grace, the strength of womanhood displayed in the person of Christ's Mother, Mary, the Mother God. She shows humility and devotion, certainly, but strength is what exudes from her. The Wedding at Cana, with which Your Grace is of course very familiar, she ignores his protests that the time is not yet come and tells the servants to go to him. Indeed, at the very foot of the cross, despite the historical background, it is John who is committed to the care of Mary. Humility and strength combined.

I'm no fan of the kind of feminism which leads to defeminisation and, Heaven forbid, the killing of the Unborn (don't bother starting an abortion debate because it would not be the place) but what is so wrong with Ms Flint disaplying her feminimity and trying to have a political career at the same time?

6 June 2009 at 13:37  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

I think the Bible celebrates womanhood Dominic, and there is a message in all of this from God. Flint is a name that Dickens would have been very comfortable with when ascribing it to such a character as hers.

Had she been a God fearing lady of high moral principle, then she would have attracted the benefit of the doubt, and much of her behaviour would have been ignored as being some menopausal idiosyncrasy or something. But instead, she was Caroline Flint.

PS. did you meant to say Mary Mother 'of' God?

6 June 2009 at 14:09  
Blogger John Woolman said...

It is a long time since I reflected on the facts in your penultimate paragraph. Thank you.

6 June 2009 at 14:51  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Your Grace, another enjoyable article.

She certainly is a foolish woman setting herself up for a fall the night before when she extolled the virtues of McBroon and the NU Liebour, to her petty letter of resignation the next day which I think showed her as an aggrieved ex employee. And the tacky photo well looks as thought her next career will be in the “dirty windows” of Amsterdam!

6 June 2009 at 15:03  
Blogger The Heresiarch said...

Not quite sure why you want to compare Gordon Brown with Jesus. Jesus laid down his life "for the sins of the world". Brown won't even lay down his job for the Labour party.

6 June 2009 at 16:35  
OpenID jamestheless said...

The Heresiarch,

Perhaps a more apt comparison would be with Harold Macmillan. In January 1958 his entire Treasury team (Chancellor of the Exchequer, Economic Secretary and Finanancial Secretary) resigned in protest at his policy of full employment. Macmillan brushed this aside as "a little local difficulty".

June 1962 saw a major Cabinet re-arrangement which came to be known as "the night of the long knives". Liberal MP Jeremy Thorpe, deliberately misquoting John 15:13, commented 'greater love hath no man than this, than to lay down his friends for his life'

6 June 2009 at 16:58  
OpenID jamestheless said...


You are not the only communicant perplexed by the paragraph about the "androcentric fallacy"!

The first point of confusion is that this "fallacy" is nothing of the kind. A fallacy is an argument that contains a logical flaw, and not a belief that one disgrees with.

The second point of confusion is that there does not seem to be anything particularly Marxist about the proposal that "men and women do not only differ physiologically, but also in their experience, perception and appropriation of reality". Leaving aside "appropriation of reality" (I have no idea what that means), this seems to be no more than common sense, and is certainly consistent with Christian tradition as I understand it.

Oddly, it seems to completely contradict the beliefs of most Socialists I have known, who seem to believe that men and women are identical (apart from genitalia).

Genesis 1:27 says "male and female created he them". It is God's will that men and women should be different, although the differences became much more sharply delineated after the fall (Genesis 3:15-19).

Genesis 2:21-23 tells us that the woman was made from the rib of the man, the closest thing to his heart; she should therefore be loved, cherished and nourished like his own body, just as the Lord does his church (Ephesians 5:28-29)

Man and woman are not so much equal as complementary. They are different, but need each other to be complete; as all shall join together and become one body, the church of Christ, so shall a man and a woman join together and become one flesh (Genesis 2:24, Ephesians 5:30-32)

6 June 2009 at 18:27  
Blogger Bert Rustle said...

Reality Denial.

Compare reports of the lack of women in top jobs being due to sexism without mention of the fact males have a much wider range of IQ than females and that the bulk of really clever people are male. However alluding to the fact that the bulk of really stupid people are male is OK. Or compare reports of the lack of women in top jobs being due to sexism with the absence of a similar argument that the male/female incarceration rate is due to sexism. Females are grossly under-represented in prison - what is the policy to correct this?

Homo sapiens are not the only species with differences between males and females. For example: Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children

... Sex differences in toy preferences in children are marked, with boys expressing stronger and more rigid toy preferences than girls ... gender-specific toys are thought to be the primary force shaping sex differences in toy preference. ... Sex differences in juvenile activities, such as rough-and-tumble play ... share similarities in humans and monkeys. ... We compared the interactions of 34 rhesus monkeys ... with human wheeled toys and plush toys. Male monkeys, like boys, showed consistent and strong preferences for wheeled toys, while female monkeys, like girls, showed greater variability in preferences. ... The similarities to human findings demonstrate that such preferences can develop without explicit gendered socialization. ...[emphasis added]

6 June 2009 at 19:57  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Similar difference can be seen in the is also the female that makes all the noise.

6 June 2009 at 20:10  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Bert Russell:

So where, in your scheme of things, would you place a tomboy who had a preference for dart guns, science fiction and motorbikes (my brother was the one who played with dolls) and who now holds two university degrees (one of which includes a smorgasbord knowledge of that difficult science stuff)?

Think very carefully now...


6 June 2009 at 20:25  
Blogger ukipwebmaster said...

Brown gets booed:

6 June 2009 at 21:36  
Blogger cottus said...

Perhaps this is the place to observe that taken generally, all those societal tasks traditionally taken up by men, i.e. bringing home the bacon, defending hearth and home, etc. - these seem to be in good shape and getting better, judging by increasing standards of living, declining percentage of GNP spent on the military, in the long run, at least until recently*.

On the other hand, those tasks traditionally in the hands of women, i.e. the raising of children, making comfortable nests and the like? Not so much as witnessed by high divorce rates, falling school test scores.

Or perhaps this is not the place, your Grace, for which I apologize. Such observations today are totally unacceptable, I'm sure.

*scary thought - perhaps the current economic troubles are merely the reflection of the 'rise' of women finally making itself felt.

7 June 2009 at 05:39  
Anonymous not really mousy said...

Great pics, Your Grace. Invokes from me the kind of reaction they used to express up near the Don Valley -

"Who let them out, then?"

7 June 2009 at 05:49  
Anonymous no nonny said...

As several communicants seemed to indicate on the recent Thatcher strand -successful women don't have to be better lads than the lads. Neither, I would add, do they have to adopt hare-brained, posey, 'femininity' in order to prove that they are women.

Rather, this country has a tradition of producing strong and capable women who are also ladies - I say it's a function of the warrior society: someone had to run the manor while the men were off fighting for its survival.

Now, I'm not sure that I'd like them all, or would want to stick around in the presence of some of the more colourful characters: say, Boadicea, Cartimandua, various Anglo-Saxon queens, Matilda, Margaret Beaufort, Bloody Mary, Elizabeth I, or even Victoria! I'd kind of like to meet some though, especially Hild[a].

Though Northerners preferred us not to be of the colourful sort - the tradition still held when I was a lass in the North; they taught us to be practical, sensible, and capable. They even encouraged us to have brains and use them - we had some excellent girls' grammar schools up there; and even some co-educational ones.

So it flabbergasts me somewhat that the same people actually voted for a spin merchant, flibbertegibbet southerner like wots-'er-name.

7 June 2009 at 06:49  
Blogger Bert Rustle said...

Gnostic 06 June 2009 20:25 wrote ...So where, in your scheme of things, would you place a tomboy ...

I am not aware of any research drawing logical deductions from the statistical analysis of empirical data with such a subject.

Please provide links to such research if you have them.

Some further research on male/female differences is summarised below.

7 June 2009 at 07:26  
Blogger Bert Rustle said...

Professor Richard J. Haier - Pediatric Neurology Division University of california Irvine asks Are Sex Differences in Cognition Responsible for the Under-representation of Women in Scientific Careers? Brains, Bias, and Biology: Follow the Data

... Considerable evidence ...indicates ... differences in cognitive strengths and weaknesses. [which] are statistical in nature and never predict anything about a specific person’s abilities.

... functional brain imaging ... to investigate whether men and women, matched for SAT-Math scores ... during a test of mathematical reasoning ... showed that the harder the temporal lobes were working in the men, the better their score. This relationship ... was not found in the women ... Here was a clear sex difference in brain function[emphasis added]

... research used ... (MRI) and asked whether brain structure, especially the amount of gray and white matter in different brain areas, was related to general intelligence, as determined by standard IQ tests in normal volunteers ... There are structures distributed throughout the brain were the amount of gray matter or white matter predict IQ score. Specific areas associated with language in the frontal and parietal lobes seem especially important. Other researchers have shown that the volume of these same brain areas appears to be under genetic control.

... we found completely different brain areas correlated to IQ (the men and women in these samples were matched on IQ). The amount of gray and white matter in the frontal areas seems more important in the women; the gray matter in the parietal areas seems more important in the men ... If this difference proves to be correct after independent replication, it could be concluded that men and women achieve the same general cognitive capability using difference brain architectures.

Why is the notion of differential brain architecture important? ... It would put the concept of individual differences in the center of human brain research and refocus attention on questions like why do some individuals learn, memorize, and reason better than others; it also may help
explain why some pain drugs work better in women than in men.

... It is still fashionable to ascribe behavioral and cognitive differences among people entirely to cultural and environmental differences, especially in childhood. This remains true even through many twin/sibling studies in behavioral genetics consistently show zero
contribution of shared environment to variance in psychological variables like personality and intelligence. Because such variables do show moderate to high heritability, we know there is a genetic component of importance.
[emphasis added]

... What does all this have to do with women in science?

... Over time, modern societies seek to minimize cultural and environmental disadvantages and overt discrimination as best as they can to promote a level playing field for everyone. As these social goals are achieved, the differences which remain among people, especially at the highest levels of talent, will be attributed more and more to genetic factors.

... Research often takes unexpected turns not foretold by a priori hypotheses or by popular expectations. Given the pressures of funding, publication, and peer acceptance such turns can be unwanted intrusions, or they can be thought provoking opportunities which lead to original discoveries and controversial applications. The challenge is to follow where the data lead, always cognizant of Orwellian fears and prejudiced misuse of knowledge balanced by the prospects of alleviating suffering from disorders and enhancing the quality of life for everyone. Along the way, controversy can only escalate as we constantly test new knowledge against old and comfortable ideas. This is the way science works and the way our culture evolves. ... [emphasis added]

7 June 2009 at 07:41  
Blogger Bert Rustle said...

For more detail see The neuroanatomy of general intelligence: sex matters

... We examined the relationship between structural brain variation and
general intelligence using ... analysis of MRI data in men and women with equivalent IQ scores. Compared to men, women show more white matter and fewer gray matter areas related to intelligence. ... Men and women apparently achieve similar IQ results with different brain regions, suggesting that there is no singular underlying neuroanatomical structure to general intelligence and that different types of brain designs may manifest equivalent intellectual performance. ...

7 June 2009 at 07:42  
OpenID jamestheless said...


"*scary thought - perhaps the current economic troubles are merely the reflection of the 'rise' of women finally making itself felt."

The rise of women may have also extended the boom. It certainly affected the housing market - buying a house on six or eight times salary makes no sense whatsoever unless there are two incomes in the household. (Of course, this assumes that the couple will never want to start a family, the woman will never tire of competing against men in the workplace and the man will never lose his job).

It has probably altered the balance of the economy as well, since in general men prefer to produce while women prefer to consume.

Another impact has been on pay. For men, pay is an important part of their social status, and they will fight hard to maintain or improve it. Women are more concerned about working in a pleasant and friendly environment; pay usually only becomes an issue when they feel unfairly treated, but even then they will probably only complain amongst themselves. Also, the increased competition for jobs tends to lower wages and salaries.

7 June 2009 at 09:02  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Bert Rustle

Empirical data can be interpreted in many ways and various hypotheses formed. It all depends on the bias of the person interpreting the data and the nature of the data collected. Theories can also be peer reviewed and agreed upon. However, consensus is never a firm foundation to rest a scientific conclusion. The strength of a theory depends on whether or not it can be falsified.

What I'm saying is, I would never form an opinion on Professor Haier's claims until I had viewed the attempts to falsify his theory. I would want to know the demographic profiles of the people who submitted themselves to the research. I would expect to see profiles covering the entire gamut of intellectual cognisance and see proof of the correlation with gender specific brain function. I would also expect to see how a subject's unique brain chemistry affects their performance before such sweeping claims are made.

You see, when it comes to brain function and intelligence, it is not black and white, there is a lot of grey (sic) in between. There is no such thing as a typical male or female brain. There are only correlations of group characteristics.

What I wouldn't do is take someone's word that the way I think and reason is inferior because my gender is under represented in certain careers. Professor Haier goes to great lengths to claim he used subjects of equal IQ. There is a flaw in that reasoning. People with similar levels of IQ do not necessarily have similar abilities so therefore it renders his conclusions questionable. Did he test subjects of equal ability? Comparing men and women of similar abilities would have been more helpful.

He might also have reached a different conclusion had he used more insightful test parameters. There exists a reasonable probability that the reason there are not more women of equal ability at the top of the science tree is because of male bias. But since Professor Haier chose IQ over peer ability we'll never know.

7 June 2009 at 10:00  
Blogger Bert Rustle said...

Gnostic 07 June 2009 10:00

You did not provide any links regarding research on Tomboys. Do you have any links falsifying the research of Haier, or the resarch on Rhesus Monkeys linked above?

Do you have any links to research falsifying the finding that males have a much wider range of IQ than females and that the bulk of both really clever and really stupid people are male?

Do you have any comment on the reports of the lack of women in top jobs being due to sexism with the absence of a similar argument that the male/female incarceration rate is due to sexism? Females are grossly under-represented in prison, how is this to be reconciled with the Drive-By Media propaganda that there are not significant differences between males and females?

7 June 2009 at 10:46  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Bert Rustle.

Why on earth would I want to Google links to tomboy research? What on earth have Rhesus monkeys to do with my childhood proclivities and human cognisance in general?

Who cares whether males have a much wider range of IQ than females. It's all relative anyway. Perhaps you should do a little research on IQ. You will discover there are different types of IQ. What are the ranges within the sub-groups? Did Haier take that into consideration? People have different abilities, different methods of reasoning. That makes a fundamental difference when it comes to investigating cognisance. Were the mental stimulus tests identical or were they customised for individuals of a particular IQ set? It is all too easy to slant research to fit a particular theory.

Since I'm not a feminist I don't have an axe to grind one way or the other. People are as smart as they are. Haier et al is not the last word in why females do not dominate certain careers. His research parameters appear to be blinkered and therefore his conclusions are easily falsified. I'll leave it to those qualified in the field of neuroscience to take apart Haier's theory.

Since human cognisance and intellectual ability are not my field I cannot say, with any certainty, why there are less women in the top drawer of science. I have seen how many times males close ranks when they think their cosy world is about to be invaded by the opposite sex. Gender politics can be just as ugly when is comes to maleism. Perhaps you should read the court records on such cases. There are lots to chose from.

I can tell you, since you are apparently fond of statistics, that many women have qualified for and chosen a scientific career. You only need to look at the field of medicine to discern the fact. There are women represented in every scientific discipline. Why they fail to progress beyond a certain level is open to conjecture but I do not believe Haier has the answer.

Quite what the female prison population has to do with the question of why there aren't more top female scientists I couldn't say. However, it could indicate a trend that women are more adept at evading the consequences of their crimes. Who knows?

I never said there are no significant differences between males and females. Of course there are. As for the MSM, I couldn't give two hoots about what hysterical hacks have to say on anything because their track record is, frankly, pretty appalling when it comes to facts.

7 June 2009 at 12:17  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

Your Grace, Caroline flint is only window Dressing, she can sue me if she wants.

My evidence your honour is that as EU Minister she agreed to the Lisbon Treaty, by her own admission without ever having read it.

I must put it to the court that without doubt Ms Flint is indeed Mere Window Dressing, never fit for the post of EU Minister of this once Great and sovereign nation.

In fact I would like to suggest your honour that our entire Parliament is mere Window Dressing.

( I'll spare you the links your Grace, I've posted them all before )

7 June 2009 at 16:17  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Thanks to Gnostic for a very sane and balanced approach to what would otherwise be scrapping about gender. I also agree with Gnostic's comments on the politico-economics of 'research.'

I also am not a feminist. Having been to one of the above-mentioned girls' grammar schools, I remain awed at and grateful for the education it provided.

Nonetheless, I left not caring if I never saw another woman as long as I lived. Men, I thought, must be better than women who, regardless of brainpower, can be vile, vicious, ruthless, cunning, depraved, underhand, lazy, lying, cheating, and generally evil beyond anything I can still imagination. Fortunately for me, I also have known a few women who are exactly the opposite of those things.

It was pretty tough, learning that men are equally awful, and as good; and as intelligent and stupid - as women!! I have gradually learned to admire and be grateful for the PEOPLE I know who don't fall into the 'negative' categories. Gender has nothing to do with it; and I fear that the 'good' side can sometimes be hard to find.

So, Jamestheless I must take you to task for: "Women are more concerned about working in a pleasant and friendly environment; pay usually only becomes an issue when they feel unfairly treated, but even then they will probably only complain amongst themselves."
You have to be joking - or devoid of senses.

7 June 2009 at 21:29  
OpenID jamestheless said...

no nonny,

Original sin is indeed a problem for all humans, regardless of sex.

As someone who attended an all-boys grammar school, spent several years working in a predominantly female workplace and then a couple of decades in predominantly male working environments, I stand by my comments. They certainly reflect my own experiences and those of many other people (yes, I know, it's all anecdotal).

Again speaking anecdotally, I've noticed a considerable difference between classrooms (or playgrounds) filled with hormone-ravaged teenage boys and offices occupied by adult men trying to pay their mortgages and clothe their children. I'd be very surprised if this didn't apply to females as well.

I've just realised that the sentence you quoted could be interpreted as trivialising working women. That certainly wasn't what I meant, and I apologise if it appeared that way.

8 June 2009 at 18:48  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older