NYT: Women are stupid
Foley Hearts Chuck
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
len...@courant.com, michae...@po.state.ct.us,
con...@po.state.ct.us, executiv...@nytimes.com, managing-
edi...@nytimes.com, news...@nytimes.com, the-...@nytimes.com,
biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com, me...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, ubi...@courant.com, ma...@concentric.net,
camp...@courant.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, hor...@courant.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, cohen...@aol.com,
FalN...@aol.com, brans...@comcast.net, vts...@comcast.net,
o...@po.state.ct.us, da...@davila-dilzer.com,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, hor...@courant.com,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, thomas...@usdoj.gov, amcg...@rms-law.com,
rjmu...@aol.com, paulcrai...@yahoo.com,
sidney_b...@yahoo.com, criminal...@usdoj.gov,
karla.d...@usdoj.gov, christophe...@usdoj.gov
Subject: NYT: Women are stupid
Date: Mar 2, 2008 5:22 AM
Women tend to be actresses and this is acceptable.
I am not this type and I object to categorically supporting this
behavior as if
it is okay.
Note that I have the opposite general cognitive profile of women:
http://www.actionlyme.org/PsychEval.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/PsychEval_2.htm
http://www.actionlyme.orh/MY_IQ.htm
with the "very superior" visual spatial abilities.
I don't think that to the degree stupidity (in both sexes) is acquired
has been
ruled out. If people with learning disabilities can learn to
compensate with undamaged
areas of the brain, who is to say women and men don't overdevelop
their peculiar
stupidities in response to social pressures?
It's fine to point these things out (BELOW), but on the other hand, if
we don't
want to let men get away with being stupid in the way that they are
(men are more
paranoid and vain, which detracts from their ability to reason), then
women and
their obvious acting should be confronted, too.
I hate phonyness. It should not be tolerated, but instead it is
reinforced by the
crazy, insane crap we see on TV, especially soap operas, and men have
outright,
clearly stated that they prefer their women "cute, stupid and
therefore not
a threat." The Freudians say this is due to sex motivation, but the
truth
is that it is LOVE (unconditional) motivation.
People do what they WANT, to the degree that they have self-control.
The primary motivation of humans is "What do I WANT."
The smartest people take out the "I" and replace it with "we,"
and the "want" with "need."
The smartest people don't need a high IQ to replace I with we and want
with
need.
Our society has been warped by this Freudian, godless, ego-centric,
vain-tolerant,
disrespectful crap.
The modern, enlarging stupidity in our society in both sexes is the
measure of it.
I don't disagree that women should be the carers, because the mental
defects
of males is so overwhelming and would be catastrophically damaging to
the species
if we women don't intercede. It does no good to report this
excuznikness for
female stupidity in the NYTimes at this time. Rather, the motivation
for it, and
the social pressures which encourage it (stupid male ideas of how
women should act,
written into TV scripts as well as male-designers of female clothing),
should be
confronted.
These are the best of times, the best opportunity, for the examination
of the bad
example of what our society has produced to be exposed and
confronted: A total,
drunken, demented moron of an arrogant fool, who never did anything in
his life
except party and be irresponsible, is now the world dictator and
literally gets
to decide who - in the world - should be kidnapped or tortured or
murdered.
This article is a very, very inappropriate analysis of our society at
this perilous
time in our history. We should be analyzing arrogance or vanity,
since it is the
thing that collapsed our economy, our status in the world, and very
likely, our
posterity. The Me-centeredness in both sexes should be confronted,
rather than
found to be acceptable and normal, by psychiatrists and sociologists
(neither are
scientists, by definition, or else they would be geneticists) since
only a fool
wants to appear to be foolish.
If a woman found out some man married her because he found her to be
"cute
and stupid and therefore not a threat," how could she allow that man
into her
bed? Wouldn't that be sorta, um, cheap?
This is what we should be teaching our girls instead of encouraging
this behavior,
as if there was no other way to acquire "love."
Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022902992_pf.html
washingtonpost.com
We Scream, We Swoon. How Dumb Can We Get?
By Charlotte Allen
Sunday, March 2, 2008; B01
Here's Agence France-Presse reporting on a rally for Sen. Barack Obama
at the
University of Maryland on Feb. 11: "He did not flinch when women
screamed as
he was in mid-sentence, and even broke off once to answer a female's
cry of
'I love you, Obama!' with a reassuring 'I love you back.' "
Women screamed? What was this, the Beatles tour of 1964? And when they
weren't
screaming, the fair-sex Obama fans who dominated the rally of 16,000
were saying
things like: "Every time I hear him speak, I become more hopeful."
Huh?
"Women 'Falling for Obama,' " the story's headline read. Elsewhere
around the country, women were falling for the presidential candidate
literally.
Connecticut radio talk show host Jim Vicevich has counted five
separate instances
in which women fainted at Obama rallies since last September. And I
thought such
fainting was supposed to be a relic of the sexist past, when
patriarchs forced their
wives and daughters to lace themselves into corsets that cut off their
oxygen.
I can't help it, but reading about such episodes of screaming, gushing
and swooning
makes me wonder whether women -- I should say, "we women," of course
--
aren't the weaker sex after all. Or even the stupid sex, our brains
permanently
occluded by random emotions, psychosomatic flailings and distraction
by the superficial.
Women "are only children of a larger growth," wrote the 18th-century
Earl
of Chesterfield. Could he have been right?
I'm not the only woman who's dumbfounded (as it were) by our sex, or
rather,
as we prefer to put it, by other members of our sex besides us. It's a
frequent
topic of lunch, phone and water-cooler conversations; even some
feminists can't
believe that there's this thing called "The Oprah Winfrey Show" or
that Celine Dion actually sells CDs. A female friend of mine plans to
write a horror
novel titled "Office of Women," in which nothing ever gets done and
everyone
spends the day talking about Botox.
We exaggerate, of course. And obviously men do dumb things, too,
although my husband
has perfectly good explanations for why he eats standing up at the
stove (when I'm
not around) or pulls down all the blinds so the house looks like a
cave (also when
I'm not around): It has to do with the aggressive male nature and an
instinctive
fear of danger from other aggressive men. When men do dumb things,
though, they
tend to be catastrophically dumb, such as blowing the paycheck on
booze or much,
much worse (think "postal"). Women's foolishness is usually harmless.
But it can be so . . . embarrassing.
Take Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign. By all measures, she has
run one
of the worst -- and, yes, stupidest -- presidential races in recent
history, marred
by every stereotypical flaw of the female sex. As far as I'm
concerned, she
has proved that she can't debate -- viz. her televised one-on-one
against Obama
last Tuesday, which consisted largely of complaining that she had to
answer questions
first and putting the audience to sleep with minutiae about her health-
coverage
mandate. She has whined (via her aides) like the teacher's pet in
grade school
that the boys are ganging up on her when she's bested by male rivals.
She has
wept on the campaign trail, even though everyone knows that tears are
the last refuge
of losers. And she is tellingly dependent on her husband.
Then there's Clinton's nearly all-female staff, chosen for loyalty
rather
than, say, brains or political savvy. Clinton finally fired her
daytime-soap-watching,
self-styled "Latina queena" campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle, known
for burning through campaign money and for her open contempt for the
"white
boys" in the Clinton camp. But stupidly, she did it just in time to
alienate
the Hispanic voters she now desperately needs to win in Texas or Ohio
to have any
shot at the Democratic nomination.
What is it about us women? Why do we always fall for the hysterical,
the superficial
and the gooily sentimental? Take a look at the New York Times
bestseller list. At
the top of the paperback nonfiction chart and pitched to an
exclusively female readership
is Elizabeth Gilbert's "Eat, Pray, Love." Here's the book's
autobiographical plot: Gilbert gets bored with her perfectly okay
husband, so she
has an affair behind his back. Then, when that doesn't pan out, she
goes to
Italy and gains 23 pounds forking pasta so she has to buy a whole new
wardrobe,
goes to India to meditate (that's the snooze part), and finally, at an
Indonesian
beach, finds fulfillment by -- get this -- picking up a Latin lover!
This is the kind of literature that countless women soak up like
biscotti in a latte
cup: food, clothes, sex, "relationships" and gummy, feel-good
"spirituality."
This female taste for first-person romantic nuttiness, spiced with a
soup¿on of
soft-core porn, has made for centuries of bestsellers -- including
Samuel Richardson's
1740 novel "Pamela," in which a handsome young lord tries to seduce a
virtuous serving maid for hundreds of pages and then proposes, as well
as Erica
Jong's 1973 "Fear of Flying."
Then there's the chick doctor television show "Grey's Anatomy"
(reportedly one of Hillary Clinton's favorites). Want to be a surgeon?
Here's
what your life will be like at the hospital, according to "Grey's":
sex in the linen-supply room, catfights with your sister in front of
the patients,
sex in the on-call room, a "prom" in the recovery room so you can wear
your strapless evening gown to work, and sex with the married
attending physician
in an office. Oh, and some surgery. When was the last time you were in
a hospital
and spotted two doctors going at it in an empty bed?
I swear no man watches "Grey's Anatomy" unless his girlfriend forces
him to. No man bakes cookies for his dog. No man feels blue and takes
off work to
spend the day in bed with a copy of "The Friday Night Knitting Club."
No man contracts nebulous diseases whose existence is disputed by many
if not all
doctors, such as Morgellons (where you feel bugs crawling around under
your skin).
At least no man I know. Of course, not all women do these things,
either -- although
enough do to make one wonder whether there isn't some genetic aspect
of the
female brain, something evolutionarily connected to the fact that we
live longer
than men or go through childbirth, that turns the pre-frontal cortex
into Cream
of Wheat.
Depressing as it is, several of the supposed misogynist myths about
female inferiority
have been proven true. Women really are worse drivers than men, for
example. A study
published in 1998 by the Johns Hopkins schools of medicine and public
health revealed
that women clocked 5.7 auto accidents per million miles driven, in
contrast to men's
5.1, even though men drive about 74 percent more miles a year than
women. The only
good news was that women tended to take fewer driving risks than men,
so their crashes
were only a third as likely to be fatal. Those statistics were
reinforced by a study
released by the University of London in January showing that women and
gay men perform
more poorly than heterosexual men at tasks involving navigation and
spatial awareness,
both crucial to good driving.
The theory that women are the dumber sex -- or at least the sex that
gets into more
car accidents -- is amply supported by neurological and standardized-
testing evidence.
Men's and women's brains not only look different, but men's brains are
bigger than women's (even adjusting for men's generally bigger body
size).
The important difference is in the parietal cortex, which is
associated with space
perception. Visuospatial skills, the capacity to rotate three-
dimensional objects
in the mind, at which men tend to excel over women, are in turn
related to a capacity
for abstract thinking and reasoning, the grounding for mathematics,
science and
philosophy. While the two sexes seem to have the same IQ on average
(although even
here, at least one recent study gives males a slight edge), there are
proportionally
more men than women at the extremes of very, very smart and very, very
stupid.
I am perfectly willing to admit that I myself am a classic case of
female mental
deficiencies. I can't add 2 and 2 (well, I can, but then what?). I
don't
even know how many pairs of shoes I own. I have coasted through life
and academia
on the basis of an excellent memory and superior verbal skills, two
areas where,
researchers agree, women consistently outpace men. (An evolutionary
just-so story
explains this facility of ours: Back in hunter-gatherer days, men were
the hunters
and needed to calculate spear trajectories, while women were the
gatherers and needed
to remember where the berries were.) I don't mind recognizing and
accepting
that the women in history I admire most -- Sappho, Hildegard of
Bingen, Elizabeth
I, George Eliot, Margaret Thatcher -- were brilliant outliers.
The same goes for female fighter pilots, architects, tax accountants,
chemical engineers,
Supreme Court justices and brain surgeons. Yes, they can do their jobs
and do them
well, and I don't think anyone should put obstacles in their paths. I
predict
that over the long run, however, even with all the special mentoring
and role-modeling
the 21st century can provide, the number of women in these fields will
always lag
behind the number of men, for good reason.
So I don't understand why more women don't relax, enjoy the innate
abilities
most of us possess (as well as the ones fewer of us possess) and revel
in the things
most important to life at which nearly all of us excel: tenderness
toward children
and men and the weak and the ability to make a house a home. (Even I,
who inherited
my interior-decorating skills from my Bronx Irish paternal
grandmother, whose idea
of upgrading the living-room sofa was to throw a blanket over it, can
make a house
a home.) Then we could shriek and swoon and gossip and read chick lit
to our hearts'
content and not mind the fact that way down deep, we are . . . kind of
dim.
Post a Comment
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Report item as: (required) X
Comment: (optional)
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other
inappropriate comments
or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that
are unsigned
or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will
be
removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of
our posting
standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies
governing this
site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and
discussions. You are
fully responsible for the content that you post.
© 2008 The Washington Post Company
cowabun...@yahoo.com
YOURSELF A FAVOR AND SCROLL ON BY
Foley Hearts Chuck
wrote:
> To: SpinL...@yahoogroups.com, kshep...@calea.org, fitz...@gmail.com,
> patrick.fitzger...@usdoj.gov, modelt1...@sbcglobal.net,
> jdra...@nejm.org, lett...@courant.com, Jgerberd...@cdc.gov,
> len...@courant.com, michael.c...@po.state.ct.us,
> conn...@po.state.ct.us, executive-edi...@nytimes.com, managing-
> edi...@nytimes.com, news-t...@nytimes.com, the-a...@nytimes.com,
> biz...@nytimes.com, fore...@nytimes.com, me...@nytimes.com,
> natio...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidcalla...@optonline.net,
> t...@hotmail.com, ubi...@courant.com, m...@concentric.net,
> campb...@courant.com, jhornber...@fff.org, thomas.car...@usdoj.gov,
> thomas.r...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
> georgew...@washpost.com, hor...@courant.com,
> commissioner....@po.state.ct.us, cohencol...@aol.com,
> FalNie...@aol.com, bransfi...@comcast.net, vtsh...@comcast.net,
> o...@po.state.ct.us, d...@davila-dilzer.com,
> scott.mur...@po.state.ct.us, governor.r...@po.state.ct.us,
> attorney.gene...@po.state.ct.us, randall.samb...@usdoj.gov
> Cc: fran...@ucia.gov, dr-ahmadine...@president.ir,
> eugenerobin...@washpost.com, hor...@courant.com,
> bmil...@newstimes.com, t...@hotmail.com, rastr...@aol.com,
> billcurr...@gmail.com, thomas.car...@usdoj.gov, amcgui...@rms-law.com,
> rjmur...@aol.com, paulcraigrobe...@yahoo.com,
> sidney_blument...@yahoo.com, criminal.divis...@usdoj.gov,
> karla.dobin...@usdoj.gov, christopher.chris...@usdoj.gov
>
> Subject: NYT: Women are stupid
>
> Date: Mar 2, 2008 5:22 AM
>
> Women tend to be actresses and this is acceptable.
>
> I am not this type and I object to categorically supporting this
> behavior as if
> it is okay.
>
> read more »
cowabungabartn...@yahoo.com
1. Off topic materials except for an occcasional post with OT
2. Posts with offensive defamatory materials in the title
3.Posts with offensive defamatory materials in the post itself
4. Cross posting
5. Insane conspiracy theories
6. Your lies
Foley Hearts Chuck
>
> Date: Mar 2, 2008 5:22 AM
>
> Women tend to be actresses and this is acceptable.
>
> I am not this type and I object to categorically supporting this
> behavior as if
> it is okay.
>
> read more »
cowabu...@yahoo.com
YOURSELF A FAVOR AND SCROLL ON BY
kathleen YOU are STUPID and a LIAR
cowabu...@yahoo.com
Foley Hearts Chuck
>
> Date: Mar 2, 2008 5:22 AM
>
> Women tend to be actresses and this is acceptable.
>
> I am not this type and I object to categorically supporting this
> behavior as if
> it is okay.
>
> read more »