Gender Studies is Crap

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ2xrnyH2wQ&feature=related]
Good video out of Norway, with English subtitles. Presents good evidence that at least some of the well known gender differences which seem to occur across all cultures are due to biology and not environment.
At the very least, it seems that males are more interested in mechanical objects and females are more interested in people. These differences show up on the first day of birth, at nine months and in cross cultural studies all over the world. Males who are exposed to more testosterone in the womb are better at math and science, worse at interpersonal relations and show more tendencies towards autism.
The video highlights the gender equality paradox. In Norway, which is the most gender-equal country on Earth, the professions are still highly segregated by gender. 90% of nurses are female. 90% of engineers are male. These trends have been static for 10-20 years, despite efforts by the government to rectify them.
The host interviews Gender Studies professors in Norway who insist that all gender differences are constructed by society. They pooh-pooh all of the cutting edge research coming out showing biological differences between the races. They fall back on the usual line that no gene has been discovered that accounts for gender differences. But I am not sure that is true.
The social constructionists continue to pretty much lord it over the debate here in the US. A university president, Larry Summers, was forced to apologize to women over comments that the gender differences in math and science were due to biology and not society. The feminists threw a shit fit.
It’s generally feminists who insist that there are no biological differences between the sexes. No male oriented groups insist on this.
The reason for this is probably quite simple. Male oriented jobs pay more than female oriented jobs. If feminists insist that there are no biological reasons why men get more high paying jobs and women get more low paying jobs, then they can continue to lobby against the prejudice and discrimination that keeps women out of these better jobs. Amidst all of the feminist pontificating and hand-waving, at the end of the day, it’s probably pretty much all about the money.
In addition, feminists feel that the notion of biological woman is used against women in order to imply that women have less desirable traits that are biologically mediated, especially in terms of emotionality and whatnot.
In today’s workplace, a typical female emotional basket case is not going to cut it. No one wants an overemotional female in their workplace. Feminists feel that women’s over-emotionality will be used to discriminate against them in the workplace, so they argue that men are just as emotional as women. Once again, it’s all about the money.
On the contrary, the notion of biological man does not seem to be harmful. Society does not discriminate against men who act like men. Male traits are seen as desirable across the board and especially in the workplace. There is no wage penalty placed on male behaviors.
One thing is for sure and that is that the Gender Studies and Women’s Studies crowds are 100% wrong when it comes to the social construction of gender. Gender is not socially constructed.

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

48 thoughts on “Gender Studies is Crap”

  1. “At the end of the day, it’s probably pretty much all about the money.”
    I’m not sure about that, I think it goes deeper. Feminists recently got their way in both US and Australia re women in combat roles in the military. Now that’s not a desirable job as far as most women or most people in general are concerned. What’s most important is the symbolism, which says that women and men are equal, they can do the same things, what really matters is the individual, generalisations are just odious stereotypes, etc.

  2. “No one wants an overemotional female in their workplace.”
    We’ve had plenty of those at my office.This is why we hired a male accounts payable clerk, because my boss refuses to hire any more women. Ultimately very few women have the stamina for ‘equality’ as gender feminists define it.

    1. Yeah, working in a feminised workplace can be pretty awful. There’s gossip, cliques, passive-aggressive behaviour, overreaction, etc. If you’re a man in such an environment you have to go around apologising all the time and trying to live down the “hopeless man” image. I have some experience of this.
      Conversely, talking to my brother in law (a plumber) I hear tell of workplaces where men routinely go offsite to beat each other up over their disagreements.

      1. I can understand why males are embittered and I believe that feminists went about it the wrong way. They should not have tried to emulate males or outdo them on their own turf, but instead create their own organizations. Rather than a exploit male weaknesses to their full potential, they tried to mute them.

  3. “At the very least, it seems that males are more interested in mechanical objects and females are more interested in people.”
    Note to self: Become a hermit. Completely shun female relatives, friends, and acquaintances. Womens social organizations andactivities were designed as a distraction from allowing us to achieve our full potential.
    Interesting. On another blog, I heard someone say that corps prefer female employees because they are more gullible and can be misled.
    “Society does not discriminate against men who act like men. Male traits are seen as desirable across the board and especially in the workplace. There is no wage penalty placed on male behaviors.”
    I don’t know. Males are less employable as a group, due to the fact that they are more likely to have run ins with authority, so that weeds out the wrost of the pack from the more prestigious jobs so these traits are not so apparent.

  4. I don’t think anyone among the silent majority doubts that there are fundamental differences between the genders. I can forgive Gay Area Guy for assuming it was mainstream, given his source but no one else.

  5. What will happen if blacks team up with feminists : white male is screwed .
    You get Aunt jemima Tabasco sauce

  6. “Gender is not socially constructed.”
    I doubt too many people ever really believed this, considering that every mammal species has distinctly different lifestyles between males and females,

  7. HAHAHA!!!,
    The white workplace. What a fucking joke! Would you assholes please
    get off our planet (colored people’s planet). White’s are fucked. Discuss!

  8. I don’t understand why these Gender Studies people defend this statement:
    “…no gene has been discovered that accounts for gender differences.”
    Based on Wikipedia, our chromosome itself contains many genes. Since males have different chromosome from females (XY vs XX) it is obvious that some genes will be differentiated by gender.
    Do they not realize that XX chromosome is different from XY chromosome? It seems to me that even hard science such as biology is not safe from political correctness.
    Now what happen if in the future neuroscience proves beyond reasonable doubt that male brain is different from female brain? Are these people going to reject the finding?

    1. I got pretty much the same thought here. I take a sample, run a chromosome test and figure out that is a male or a female. PC conclusions? There are no differences.

  9. I’ve been wondering if males aren’t naturally psychopathic to an extent. As neonatal testosterone in the fetus damages the corpus callosum, the ability of both hemispheres to function simultaneously in the male is inhibited. Consequently males can shut down the right brain emotional side and simply focus on using spatio-temporal reasoning to solve some pressing problem, and only later freak out about it. The utility of this ability in a dangerous situation (hunting, inter- and infra- group aggression, etc.) should be self evident. Females OTOH can both think and feel at the same time, which gives them certain social games(wo)manship advantages as well as unfettered access to the famous female intuition, but does not necessarily equip them to handle crises in a calm, cool, and collected fashion. Add to this the militarized culture of the West (and East) and you have a perfectly constructed male social automaton, able to bring male vigor to bear against virtually any problem regardless of the emotional context, probably enjoy it. They can turn off empathy when commanded like one might flip a light switch. Which makes the militarized Western (or Eastern) man into a sort of acculturated situational remote control psychopath.
    Coincidentally this ties into the interesting nature of gay men, who are anecdotally noted for their right brain intuitive and relational gifts. There is a lot of evidence that the hormonal imprinting of gay males is interfered with by female hormones or the mother’s immune system, the corpus callosum is not damaged or not as damaged. We might therefore speculate that the gay male is thus allowed unusual access to the right brain so that a feminine intuition is able to harness male spatio-temporal reasoning facilities along with masculine vigor / vitality, which might explain their corresponding excellence in traditionally female fields, including many aesthetically creative endeavors. So when a gay male is born you might just get DaVinci, Michaelangelo, Oscar Wilde, or the guys from Queer Eye.

    1. “Which makes the militarized Western (or Eastern) man into a sort of acculturated situational remote control psychopath”.
      No it doesn’t. Even if you used even bigger words it will still be BS. We are all impressed with your use of “acculturated”.

    2. Yes men are more likely to be psychotic. But it seems that everyone has forgotten about European history and presence of strong female leadership–queens. Queen Isabella of Spain had 6 kids between military campaigns. She led her men into the battle field. Queen Elizabeth of England refused to marry Phillip of Spain and solidified the English empire. This is idea that women are weak leaders is a recent social construct which ignores historical facts.

    1. That’s why most relationship columnists are men. :/ Thanks to a larger corpus callosum, women have more innate ability to think about their feelings. Whether and to what degree particular women choose to utilize this ability when serving as a test subject, I’ll let you decide. Suffice it to say that I question their methodology, and note the following quote in the article: “‘Some previous research has found evidence for female intuition, but perhaps over time men have become more in touch with their intuitive side,’ Professor Wiseman said.” Or perhaps you should reassess your facile methodology and assumptions about the nature of intuition itself. Experimental psychology is inherently reductionist if not outright behaviorist; the study of intuition is more properly the realm of depth psychology. Perhaps it might be experimentally verified, but the results would likely greatly depend upon the selection of subject. I’d be curious for instance how advice and relationship columnists fare in a study.

  10. Good post. I do think there are biological gender differences and it does seem to follow that men and woman will be predisposed to choosing different professions. I think its an exaggeration though to say that woman are so overemotional that they can’t be professional most of the time in whatever job they do. I don’t know but it seems like a bit of a caricature.

  11. I think it is biological differences + socialization = 9:1 ratios in certain jobs. I bet the ratio could become more equal, even if it never reaches 1:1 due to the ‘biological differences’ part of the equation.
    I don’t think you can expect it to change in one generation either or by anti-discrimination legislation. Girls and boys when I was growing up as recently as the 80’s and 90’s were still taught pretty radically different expectations and gender roles. As a small child, I was pretty much told doctor = man, nurse= woman.

    1. I was looking at the current gender ratios for engineering schools and it is closer to 30%/70%. It could be due to reverse social engineering (affirmative action and financial incentives.)

      1. I read that 30% of science doctorates were awarded to females in 2003. But less than 30% are professors. Maybe because professors are old and when they went to school, it was 90% males. So maybe the female professor percentage will keep increasing as the old men die and more young woman become professors.
        Perhaps the same will happen with engineering. If 30% of engineering students are female, presumably one day nearer to 30% of engineers will be female.
        I wouldn’t be surprised if the ratio becomes a lot more equal in science. Woman clearly have the intelligence to make it happen. The question is will they choose to become scientists in the same numbers as men.
        For a bit of trivia, 2009 was a good year for woman. They won the Nobel prizes in literature, economics, chemistry and physiology & medicine. :-O
        A woman might have won the peace prize too if it wasn’t absurdly given to Barrack Obama. I guess you get a Nobel peace prize just for getting the republicans out of office lol.

        1. The highest level of science and engineering will always be over two thirds male and I don’t mind. I just mind those males who assume the the top tier of males to be an accurate sample of the male vs female ability. Most of mthe hard core MRAs males middlemen or even low level and I don’t understand what they stand to gain by bragging about male superiority, when they are in effect highlighting their own failures as males.
          I think there is a secret agreement between MRAs and feminazis. They feed off of one another. Speaking as someone who never had prior interest in feminism, if I had children at the time, my gut instinct would be to give them a beating they would never forget, or at least vow to deprive them from dessert and birthday presents for the rest of their lives. Maybe I’m a bit extreme, but if the Male Rights Movement was more mainstream, they could effectively get what they wanted: to spend more time with children, and even become the primary care taker and preferred parent in addition to being the sole bread winner, because I think that if MRAs and traditionalists were too harsh, they could drive women to hate their own children. Argues women between the ages of 18-26 are ignoring their biological need for children and that along with the dog eat dog competition of the working world are the root cause of mental illnesses in young women. Nothing about the pressures of western beauty standards or abrupt endings to relationships.

  12. A lot of MRAs will say that males were forced into seeking female jobs because of perceived discrimination, but I think pink collar jobs are desirable because they are seen as recession proof. And as for the males who find secretarial jobs many are recent grads trying to make ends meet and network at the same time.

  13. Lindsay,
    Do you think there is any truth to the claim that depriving young women of their biological need for child rearing leads to severe depression? I’m happy taking care of puppies but I’m trying to be open minded.

      1. Mr.Robert,
        I strongly believe that this Cultural marxism must spread to India, its already a decadent society full of Hippocratic notions regarding the role of gender.
        Now if you induce this false myth, Indians will fight and destroy each other …its an easiest way to destroy parasites
        I still cant fathom why nature is so tolerant towards Indians.
        I mean every day around 660 million of Us Defecate our Faecal matter on Mother earth
        This alone shows -how destructive we are towards nature and every thing it stands for.
        Robert, we are anti natural, Anti Societal–There is only organism which behaves in complete opposite to Natural Norms
        In biology its called Parasite, I feel you need write a new column on Human parasitism , which is not discussed generally in intellectual sphere

  14. Gender is a biological reality because of the obvious hormonal differences between men and women. However societies with an agrarian feudal social structure often exaggerate and carciature women’s feminity to create a semblance of social order.
    Women are not necessarily docile, submissive and hyper-emotional creatures. While their low testosterone makes them far less physically aggressive than males, they could be very aggressive if provoked (like finding out about a husband’s affair for example). Women are also not naturally submissive. They respond submissively to dominance, the same way a man lower on the socio-economic hierarchy responds to a more powerful man.
    As for hyper-emotionalism, this is sadly, an inescapable reality about dealing with women. But once again, like male emotional outbursts such as overt aggression and anger, it can be controlled with appropriate social reinforcement and discipline. Unfortunately, it doesn’t happen though because most western societies condone and even ‘white knight’ women’s emotional impulsiveness, irrational behaviour and passive aggressiveness; either because men are unwilling to confront women or because women have a ultra-low trigger for crying ‘sexism’ (As Dota put it, women don’t have the stamina for *real* equality)

    1. “(As Dota put it, women don’t have the stamina for *real* equality)”
      Innovation and creativity don’t equal competance. Men are also hyperactive, highly distractable, disorganized. They are more likely to have criminal records.
      You really feed off each other. If I had children right now, I would seriously contemplate disposing of them in the most humane way, (JFK in case the
      FEDS are watching) or at least dedicating myself to ensuring them the most miserable childhood I could muster up-for the moment anyway.

  15. Reporting you to the CIA for an incompetent post.
    “hyperactive, highly distractable, disorganized”? Who built everything you see?

    1. “Who built everything you see?”
      The two are not mutually exclusive. Sometimes innovation and dysfunction go hand in hand.
      I never denied that, but these accomplishments are only representitive of a small percentage of males. Males can be found everywhere on spectrum, and are vastly over represented among the profoundly gifted and profoundly retarded alike. My problem with the MRM is not that they make those claims, but that they attribute those traits to every male, when this is hardly the case.

      1. Because groups of all types argue collectively and not on a case by case individual basis which would of course not be feasible. Is this really so hard to follow GSG?

        1. The MRM does not have the intellectual honesty; They cherry pick and dismiss the unproductive and incompetant males, and of course they are hardly unique in this regard. But they are ignoring those they purport to support. They are providing no favor to weak males and even average males, by overlooking their interests.

          1. It’s not the MRM’s job to point out the failings of some males. That’s wimmen and wimps are fer. Feminazi’s better stock up on double D batteries!

        2. You get my drift. You can’t pose yourself as a supporter for a human rights movement if you dismiss a whole subset of that population.
          If anything, weak and vulnerable men are in greater need of your support, and you just dismiss them because they make males look bad.

        3. I know of a case in which a stripper took advance of a borderline retarded young man from a rich family and made him isgn papers for financial obligations for her two children from another relationship. But MRMs are not interested in those kinds of cases.

        4. Actually, I heard the Spearfish advocating a male birth control pill, that would supposedly decrease sex drive, so males could concentrate on more worthy pursuits and not get bogged down financially.

      2. Stupid men are easy fodder for exploitation physical and even sexual abuse at the weakest level at the hands of women, but MRMs are not interested in helping them.

  16. Males are hardly a monolithic group, and can not be treated as such.
    You are doing the feminists bidding, that’s all I’m saying.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.