Who’s superior?

September 30th, 2007

A story about same-sex education in South Carolina contained this paragraph:

Kim Gandy, viagra pilule president of the National Organization for Women, check believes states should not advocate educational experiments. Segregating boys and girls could damage students if boys come away with sexist ideas of being superior, or if students are boxed into learning a certain way, she said.

Why would boys “come away with sexist ideas of being superior” and girls wouldn’t?

Especially when (despite the continous whining of organizations like NOW) women clearly are superior to men.

More women then men go to college.

More women then men graduate from college.

Women control more wealth in America then men.

And women even live longer than men.

Maybe NOW is the time for some women to stop reflexively bashing boys and start worrying about what’s going on with so many of their sons, brothers, and fathers.

Entry Filed under: Observations

8 Comments Add your own

  • 1. capper  |  September 30th, 2007 at 10:42 pm

    Why would boys “come away with sexist ideas of being superior” and girls wouldn’t?

    Could it be because we live in a patriarchal society? Women still, on average, make less than men, and are more likely to take ‘submisive’ roles both at work and in the world at general. They are becoming stronger, but until society stops being patriarchal/matriarchal, one sex will always be dominant.

  • 2. Elliot  |  October 1st, 2007 at 7:03 am

    I mention four things and you come back with the standard 90 cents on the dollar line?

    So once there is complete pay parody (not even adjusting for time off for children, or amount of experience) can we stop treating women like a disadvantaged minority?

    (There are more women then men, too, btw. Not sure how that makes them a minority, but I’m sure someone will be happy to explain that to me.)

  • 3. Kate  |  October 1st, 2007 at 10:02 am

    You mean we’re not a disadvantaged minority? Guess that means I can’t whine and moan to get extra bennies, eh?

    :)

  • 4. Elliot  |  October 1st, 2007 at 10:10 am

    Well, I wouldn’t say women have no disadvantages.

    It does concern me that so many workplaces still have a dismissive attitude towards women. And it would be nice to see more women in Congress and at the top of Fortune 500 companies. But I do think it’s time for certain Feminists to stop reflexively basing men.

    And I do find it odd the Milwaukee County has Affirmative Action programs for female-owned businesses, but not Asians.

  • 5. folkbum  |  October 1st, 2007 at 7:11 pm

    . . . . and soon a woman will be president!

  • 6. Elliot  |  October 1st, 2007 at 7:39 pm

    You shouldn’t count your chick presidents before they hatch, Jay.

  • 7. capper  |  October 1st, 2007 at 7:49 pm

    I was only using the pay scale as an example of the larger point. I still assert that it is strictly a societal thing that will take time to get past. Look at all the blatant racism and other prejudices being displayed on a daily basis. And I am not referring to the subtle or soft sorts of racism, either.

  • 8. Melinda  |  October 1st, 2007 at 8:43 pm

    “Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.”

    I would like it if … instead of creating one entitlement program after another that really do NOT work… we simply worked to weed out the bad people… the real racists, sexists, etc.

    By creating these programs, you punish people who never did anything wrong — except simply exist looking like the wrong flavor of the month.

    Not all white men are sexist or racist. Sometimes the man is the better candidate for the job than the woman. Sometimes, the black man is the best candiate for the job without the leg up.

    But, when you create entitlement programs that look only at gender or race, you’ll punish those that never did anything wrong – as well as those people who work hard to do everything right.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.