on 27 April 2012
This is one of the most disgraceful examples of bandwagon-jumping I've ever seen, with Dan Abrams having surely relegated himself to the level of a People magazine journalist. It's hard to see his real motivation. To pander to feminist ideology in the hope of selling books, to revenge himself on a father who neglected him, or just a display of masochistic self-hatred common amongst men unsuccessful in the area of women, much like those nerdy guys at college who join campus feminist groups in a desperate last-ditch attempt to lose their virginity. But his motivation is ultimately unimportant. It's the disastrous result that matters, and the effects of publishing a book of misinformation and false facts. Nemesis always follows hubris - pride always comes before a fall - and I'm willing to predict that this latest round of showing off based on false data will ultimately only hurt those whose fragile egos obviously need to be boosted. The truth is generally politically incorrect - but that's the only place to argue from.
To get down to the nitty-gritty of the relative skills of men and women, we really ought to stay scientific and look at what Charles Darwin had to say on the matter. The key point is this - the gender that takes the initiative in courtship is always bigger, more aggressive and more creative. This is something that has evolved over millions of years in all species. The submissive gender is generally smaller, more passive and less creative, and that is why women have been able to take over bureaucratic, administrative jobs so well. They perform well in sticking to routines and following guidelines, doing things by the book and not cutting corners. They perform well at university, as success in university study is a lot about keeping to routines, doing work diligently, etc, but has little to do with true creativity. They make great classical musicians, as playing classical music is again based on learning by heart, following the music exactly as it stands on the paper.
But move away from the routine, learning by heart, and following administrative procedures, and we see a dramatic change. In professions where creativity is involved (and I mean first-order creativity, not copycat creativity), where new procedures have to be drawn up, where pioneering research is being done, or in music which requires improvisation (like saxophonists and guitarists in rock/blues/jazz), women are noticeably absent. Once the groundwork has been laid and pioneering work done, some women may venture forth. But they've seldom been involved in any true acts of creation. And we wouldn't expect them to, not according to current evolutionary theory. Women would need to take the initiative in courtship for many thousands of generations at least before they start evolving that kind of creativity. When feminist organizations try to convince us that men and women are completely equal, that women can do anything men can, or even better, they are flying in the face of science. It's wishful thinking that's far removed from reality, and which only breeds bitterness in those women silly enough to believe such gender propaganda when inevitably they find reality not conforming to their wishes. For the truth, and science, will always remain politically incorrect, regardless of what today's gender ideology may say. And for men, or anyone looking for the truth on these issues, that fact will always remain the ace up their sleeve. Dan Abrams and his cohorts may try to mold reality in any way they wish, they may trigger a laugh amongst female chauvinists or undeveloped, immature males who feel inferior, but at the end of the day, men can only sit back and smile at their stupidity, and wait for time and the inevitable truth it brings, to slowly wipe away the jeers of superiority.
Other than the area of creativity, there is another area where women remain dramatically underrepresented - dirty, dangerous and unhealthy professions. While there are cases of women risking their lives for their babies or children, no woman risks her life for a stranger, let alone for a man. Women have a strong sense of self-preservation, of living the longest possible life at any cost, and jobs like coal miner, garbage man, construction worker or fire fighter remain safely in the hands of men, who are willing to risk their lives and health for complete strangers. While office women fuss over their repetitive strain injuries, or getting a sore backside from sitting too long, these men face mutilation and permanent disability on a daily basis, without whining about the unfairness of it all. If only they had the luxury of getting repetitive strain injury, which compared to the real injuries of construction work for example, are negligible.
Books such as these smack of a collective inferiority complex that has haunted feminism for decades, and which has driven the movement to their tactic of the denigration of men and the glorification of women. However, the effect is the very opposite from that intended. I can see from other reviews here that the result of this book has just been another opportunity to offer real world data to the public, data that usually gets filtered out of the public domain by western media's skewed gender ideology. So the result is the very opposite of what the female chauvinist would want - a chance for normal people to counter their bogus arguments that fly in the face of science, as well as publicize real information that normally gets filtered out. And for that I thank Dan Abrams and his bogus work.