Venus v. Mars…
The battles in our culture wars often mystify me. The testosterone v. estrogen title Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, besides being non-chivalrous by putting men first, sums up one culture war where battles are often fought. What mystifies me is that I think there’s nothing to fight about. I’m a unisex kind of guy—I open doors for anyone, although I’m getting to the age where anyone under fifty should open the door for me. That age also means that people should offer me a seat on the train or bus, but I’ll often go the other way just to be nice. Mom called it being a gentleman.
While race has little to do with the feminine and masculine mystique, Rodney King’s question echoes here too: “Why can’t we just get along?” Respect for fellow human beings should be a habit, independent of race or ethnicity, religious preferences (or lack thereof), sexual orientation, most political beliefs (where guns and knives aren’t used to proselytize), and gender. That’s the creed my parents practiced, and I have never considered changing it.
So, let’s talk about some of my other related personal beliefs. I believe women are better grounded in reality for the most part, quick-reacting but less emotional about most issues, not afraid of showing their emotions when it’s appropriate, and often more intelligent and often better at using their smarts than men. I’m also the first to admit that I benefitted from men being in control in my old day-job, but I commiserated with female scientists, programmers, and technicians as they struggled to rise in that testosterone-rich environment, and I have always enjoyed working with women of all ages.
Before that last day-job, I spent many years in academia mostly in the muy macho environment of Colombia (that “o” is important—I was NOT at Columbia University). U.S. women have it easy compared to Latin American women. I admired the Colombian women who succeeded there outside the historically enslaving and traditional roles of nurturers—the old “fighting alligators” metaphor comes to mind, only the alligators were the macho Colombian males who expect their ladies to be obedient and nurturing, and the women had to wrestle with those beasts.
A recent study shows female doctors perform as well as male ones (actually better by 0.5%, but that’s certainly in the error bars, so I’ll just say they’re even). Previous studies have argued that women are better because they’re sued less, but those dated studies are just affirming that there were more male doctors than female ones at that time (probably still true?). The best internist I ever had (and I’ve had many good ones) was a female doctor. On the flip side, female doctors make $20k less per year than male ones, which is absurd and goes against my equal pay for equal work mantra. (It might also mean that male doctors just make too much.) These stats aren’t uncommon across the professions.
All of this serves as a preface for this comment: I’ve found something where I can agree with what President-Elect Trump said (now his official title until the inauguration, but, as one black elector basically said, respect of the rubber-stamp process is part of our democracy—if you don’t like it, change it BEFORE the election, not after, or make sure your candidate wins BOTH the popular vote and the EC vote). Before my progressive friends jump all over me, I quote from the Donald: “I hate to tell you,” Mr. Trump told men at a victory lap last year in Cincinnati, Ohio, “but women, generally speaking, they’re better than you are.” While this might have been startling news for his followers (mind you, not all of them are old white angry men as the media portrays), it’s something I’ve known for years, and it sort of sums up what I’ve been saying above.
But one comment about Trump’s true observation mystifies me. His quote was highlighted in Irin Carmon’s “Low Expectations for Husbands and Presidents,” an article in a Sunday NY Times op-ed section (12/11/16). And here’s the mystery, quoting the author: “As a feminist, I disagree. It does women, and society, no favors to grouse about female superiority as a way to let men off the hook. When society writes off men as irredeemable, we all lose.” [Italics are mine.]
First, Ms. Carmon has committed the journalistic sin of putting words in someone’s mouth. OK, maybe she can’t reconcile Trump’s statement with incidents that occurred during the 2016 election, probably one of the crudest in history, but, if we take his statement at face value, all Trump is saying to his male followers is that THEY shouldn’t be complaining (and, if you believe he didn’t have female followers, you’re naïve and ignorant). Trump (in his battle with Megan Kelly, for example) said a lot of off-color things, but he obviously appreciates strong, smart women too—he was even alarmingly gracious and seemingly out-of-character with HRC right after the election (not any longer, but Obama is now his target). OK, he’s a thin-skinned streetfighter, but Ms. Carmon is commenting on that one quote, not an entire election’s-worth of insults and innuendoes.
Second, the author’s statement is doubly mystifying. I guess the meaning of feminist has changed. If I take her article as the new feminist gospel, it seems that feminists now will never be satisfied. She disagrees with women are better than men? Does that mean she now believes that men are better than women? Seems crazy, but maybe I’m just from Mars (I’ve written about it, of course). Or is Ms. Carmon afraid that the feminist movement will become irrelevant? I don’t think so! I hope that one day a very qualified woman will become president of the U.S. That woman just wasn’t HRC, although I believe that she’d be a better president than Mr. Trump. (In the grand scheme of things, most male presidents have been asses and incompetent in one way or another—Obama included—not unusual for politicians of any stripe. Of course, there are a few female politicians who are sleazy hacks too—Fiorina, Palin, Pelosi, and Wasserman Schultz come to mind, to name a few at the top of the list.)
I’m afraid this article will get me into trouble with female readers (and yes, they’re better readers than men!), but everyone should take it as a cry for clarification. When I read Ms. Carmon’s article, I just said, “Huh?” Maybe she or others can clear up my confusion. I don’t expect she is, or will be, my fan, though. For now, I’ll go back to my writing, where I tell stories about strong, smart women. Of my nineteen novels so far, a woman is either the principal character or one of the main characters, and my short stories often feature strong, smart women too. These characters represent a wide spectrum of behaviors and personalities (yeah, the female character can be a villain!) because the whole Venus v. Mars thing is a bunch of malarkey—people are interesting, irrespective of gender, and I want interesting people to populate my books. ‘Nough said….
***
Rogue Planet. Hidden away from near-Earth planets in remote spiral arms of the Galaxy are Human worlds that have lost contact with more progressive worlds and reverted to strange and primitive customs and traditions, their leaders using religion, superstition, and imported technologies to rule in tyranny. Survey ships explored and catalogued these planets as suitable for future colonization centuries earlier, but groups with a special interest in ensuring a homogeneous and often despotic society didn’t bother applying for permission to colonize.
Following the ITUIP (Interstellar Trade Union of Independent Planets) Protocol, ships are restricted to observe and maintain a hands-off policy for these rogue planets, even when there is great temptation to intervene. Eden, where a theocracy rules with an iron fist, is such a planet. A group of rebels struggles to end the oppressive regime to forge a new future.
Available in all ebook formats and print. Read for free by writing an honest review (query through my contact page).
And so it goes….
January 4th, 2017 at 8:30 am
Interesting entry. As a dentist, being married to a dentist, and having as a sister-in-law a neurosurgeon, I agree that there is nothing inferior about women as far as their skills as health care professionals.
I believe that there might be two things, at least in my specific profession and those with close relationships to it, that set men apart. One is experience. Men often end up working while women move into the role of a mother. Since they work more they get more experience and then they end up being “better” at what they do only because they’ve done it more.
A second thing is that I think men are more willing to take risks. I know that a lot of men open multiple offices in my profession but I know very few women who do the same thing. Multiple offices puts one at the top of a larger pyramid and potentially earning a lot more money than women in the same profession.
I’ve seen both of these to a degree in my own personal situation…
January 5th, 2017 at 8:27 am
Scott,
Having been a single parent, let me say that the “role of a mother” improves one’s skills at resolving disputes and motivating people; these skills are transferable to the workplace, and many men lack them. Today many women (and men) don’t take too much time off from work to be a parent–they have to multitask because of family economics. Experience does count, of course, but given the above, I’m not sure there’s a gender advantage.
Your risk comment is more interesting. By “risk” we mean an action with fewer known positive consequences. The example of multiple offices translates well to CEOs who expand too rapidly. Is this good or bad? I guess it’s good if things work out. 😉 Again, I don’t see any gender effect, but maybe I’ve known too many type-A women (including doctors).
You’ve brought up some important points, but I was referring more to whether gender is correlated with acquiring knowledge and skills and applying them. I don’t see much of a correlation. When I interviewed people in my old day-job, I asked the applicant the same questions, whether male or female. The answers were all over the board, independent of gender.
r/Steve
January 5th, 2017 at 10:04 am
I wouldn’t disagree that being a mother gives skills that one otherwise might not have, and these skills might be very valuable in the workplace. But I suppose that one’s economic status dictates whether one parent or the other takes off time while children are growing up. My primary assistant in my office took off several years to raise her child, reentering the workplace when her daughter was in high school. Many of my friends have wives who stayed home to raise children. Even in dentistry, the woman who graduated #3 in our class (in 86) never practiced a day, choosing instead to stay home and raise their kids. (She was married to an orthodontist who was two years ahead of us in school.) All of them lost years of experience and I suspect it translated to a decrease in income. It could go the other way, too: my retired hygienist’s son graduated from Vanderbilt, married an attorney, and left his job to stay home and raise their kids while she provided financially. He certainly lost years of experience as well, and with it years of income.
When I talk about risk-taking, I’m really thinking about people in my profession. Male dentists tend to be more aggressive with their business plans. I myself planned on opening a satellite office but never did, in part, because my wife didn’t feel comfortable taking on the debt we’d have to take on to do so. But many of my classmates own multiple offices, and I can’t think of a single female who graduated with me who is in that population. Some of them are taking home a million a year. They have people working for them, a lot of those employees being women. Guys in my field, and in several fields of medicine, seem to be more aggressive in this aspect. They’re more willing to take risks in order to make more money.
But perhaps that also translates to CEO’s as well. We’ve all heard about corporations that expanded in an intelligent manner, not overstepping, and we’ve heard about the reverse. Sometimes it’s the same corporation at different times of its existence. (Disney might be a great example. Michael Eisner declined to buy Pixar when he could have, and when Iger pulled the trigger years later, it cost them a ton more than it would have. OTOH, Eisner went full force into some ventures, especially internet ventures, that cost the company hundreds of millions.)
I don’t think this applies to individuals, but I think that maybe the trends generally go this way. And obviously my own observations are hardly scientific…
January 5th, 2017 at 10:37 am
Scott,
There are scientific stats and there is anecdotal evidence, and all is valuable to form opinions and plan. I’ve had experiences where someone tells me to try X because it worked for them, but I know I’m not an X-type of guy.
Economic pressures often lead to both parents working. Whether that’s good or not, for kids or parents, and can always be debated, but it’s a moot point when circumstances force the situation.
Good discussion…and probably an important one to consider when we write our stories?
r/Steve