The ignorant mouthings-off that you women do spout - MEN ARE ALWAYS OFFERING SOLUTIONS THAT AREN'T ASKED FOR (and women don't equally do so?); MEN DON'T LISTEN (and women do?); MEN DON'T SPEAK ABOUT THEIR FEELINGS (in a number that isn't equal to the women who don't?); MEN WON'T ASK FOR HELP WHEN LOST (in a number that isn't equal to the women who won't?); WOMEN ARE LEFT FEELING ALONE AND UNSUPPORTED (and men are not in an equal number?); MEN GO SILENT ALL THE TIME (in a number that isn't equal to the women who go silent?) WHEREAS WOMEN TALK THEIR PROBLEMS THROUGH OUT-LOUD (and an equal number of men don't?). And on and on.
If you are going to run-off at the mouth with this ignorance, then you need to give me and my kind the research reference that it comes from, otherwise you're going to continue to anger your betters. However - you will impress we women and men who are (even a little) trained in critical thinking, when you confine your claims about 'men' to those men you've personally dealt with in your narrow neighbourhood, in your narrow country, and in the income-group and in the interest-group that you well know. That evidence is useful anecdotal evidence of a 'world' that you are dealing with every day. You go wrong of course, and offend my type, when you step out of that orbit and make a claim for which you have no research evidence.
Most of the claims above emanate (I'm guessing) from articles in women's media, or emanate from an actual reading of, Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, published in 1992. The guffaws of ridicule that emanated from academics after they examined the methodology that went into that 'research' went, sadly, largely unheard. A simple Web search of the value of the research behind this book, will tell you all you need to know. The author pulled a very simple, and a very babyish, trick - he identified what you women (quite correctly) see in men, and had you, full of the zeal of 'recognition', rushing off and mouthing these ignorances amongst yourselves and at men caught on the hop. What the author omitted to do (for he didn't believe it) was to point out that these behaviours identified in men, were equally prevalent in women. Men are ugly. What you lot persistently refuse to 'see' is that you yourselves are equally ugly. Where is the research then? The actual evidence-based research.
Well, a brief layman's search seems to indicate that there isn't a lot that is of much value, but that there is some that comes from a methodology that is rigorous. Small-sample research from Purdue University (2004), and research from Stony Brook University (2008?), is there, and the large-sample research is in the work of Carothers and Reis at the University Of Rochester (2012). These two researchers find that when personality types (Mars/Venus above) and when attitudes (Mars/Venus above) and when psychological indicators (ditto) are researched, then there is precious little difference between the genders. There is just so much overlap. In other words you lot don't listen either; you lot go silent also; you lot offer solutions when solutions aren't asked for also.
Of course you lot always did have a selective memory of that book. A vagina preference. You lot knew that some of it was pure apple-sauce nonsense. You lot ignored the bits in the book you didn't like, the bits of the book that 'proved' that you women (essentially) can't do a results-orientated job; the bits that 'proved' that men do not need to change anything they do; the bits that 'proved' that women need to be less disapproving and that women are essentially passive.
Yeah well poor diddums you, sweetie, for selecting the anti-male bits that you like, and ignoring the anti-female bits that you don't like. Research doan work like that sweetie; it is not a smorgasbord from which you are allowed to choose what seems right to you. No matter how much it looks like 'it's because he's a man', the research above (and yes await the new research that might change things) is telling you that - you - are - wrong; that your own gender is equally guilty of these failings. And thus are your problems far deeper than merely gender problems.
To address some of the comments about this book often read in the 'contributions' sections of the popular media - Yes of course men and women are not 'the same'; of course there are huge differences between the genders; there are cellular biology differences; the crimes that men commit are different to those women commit; men seem to be over-represented on the upper and the lower extremes of many spectrums (they make up the larger part of the history books of achievement and they make up the larger part of the serial killers) but in the vast bulk that is the middle of the spectrums, the genders are equal; their sporting abilities are different of course. Men and women are hugely different - but they are not different in the ways (above) that you lot want them to be different. At least, not at the moment. Next time, check the research and the sample size and the methodology why don' cha.
No comments:
Post a Comment