![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
What say you?
Friend ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
nylorac15 would like to ask us [me and you LJ friends of mine] what we think of this article from today's Christian Science Monitor from a feminist perspective (or, any other perspective you have to offer).
I have many opinions, but I'll start with the fact that I find it problematic that this "consultant and former presidential speechwriter" only cites one one study in his article (and even then, not very specifically).
If more women had been in charge of things, I'm certain that we could just as easily have entered our current financial crisis. God knows lots of us are greedy jerks, too.
The author takes many behaviors and ascribes them to being biologically ascribed, as opposed to socially constructed. I don't really agree with his sentiment, or would at the least need data to be convinced.
:[
His conclusion is hopeful, but is it really related to gender, or to people learning how to be less bastardly?
What do you think?
nylorac15 would like to ask us [me and you LJ friends of mine] what we think of this article from today's Christian Science Monitor from a feminist perspective (or, any other perspective you have to offer).I have many opinions, but I'll start with the fact that I find it problematic that this "consultant and former presidential speechwriter" only cites one one study in his article (and even then, not very specifically).
If more women had been in charge of things, I'm certain that we could just as easily have entered our current financial crisis. God knows lots of us are greedy jerks, too.
The author takes many behaviors and ascribes them to being biologically ascribed, as opposed to socially constructed. I don't really agree with his sentiment, or would at the least need data to be convinced.
The difference could be evolutionary. Primordial hunters (men) had to make rapid decisions and act on them, right or wrong, but quickly. Chase that bunny! Club that rival! Run away! Gatherers (women), meanwhile, needed an awareness of the larger context – knowing which berry bushes would ripen when, how to keep the kids from clonking each other with rocks, and generally holding the tribe together and getting things done.
:[
His conclusion is hopeful, but is it really related to gender, or to people learning how to be less bastardly?
By example, they will teach us to lead less through positional authority and more through positive influence- with more of a bias toward informed action and a clearer connection between everything we know, and all we have to do.
What do you think?
no subject
It does make me uncomfortable to say "women should be in power because they are 'better leaders'". Women should have an equal chance at leadership roles because they have equal rights, not because they are inherently better at anything or inherently different. Hmm.
And yeah, why bring sociobiology into at all? Just, why? I'd be more comfortable with sticking to numbers-- look at the dearth of female senators. Argue it from a standpoint of representation; our government should ideally be more reflective of the populace.
no subject
Jo March: I find it poor logic to say that women should vote because they are good. Men do not vote because they are good; they vote because they are male, and women should vote, not because we are angels and men are animals, but because we are human beings and citizens of this country.
Mr. Mayer: You should have been a lawyer, Miss March.
Jo March: I should have been a great many things, Mr. Mayer.
no subject
I think I have at least three Women's Studies-esque books about Louisa May Alcott, who was apparently quite a prolific writer about race, women's rights, and the like. She wrote tons of books, but of course her ones about family were the ones that were popular. She's an interesting lady!
no subject
Yes, exactly. He says some interesting things, but he's using some out-of-date stuff to bait the trap. I mean, arguing that women do it better inherently, or using evolution? Margaret Thatcher put those things to rest back in the '80s.
no subject
no subject
Vanity Fair article (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/04/iceland200904?currentPage=all)
I wouldn't extrapolate from Iceland's example to the US or the whole planet, my gut level feeling is, like you, that women are just as capable of causing a meltdown than men are if given the opportunity. We'd have to have more than just anecdotal evidence of the contrary, and it would have to take a fair chunk of time. If I'm around in twenty or thirty years, it might be interesting to look at Iceland again, but it would probably take more of your projected lifespan to look at real change. I'm a fair bit older than you, and I don't figure I'll be around to see it.
no subject
no subject
no subject
i agree
And I will add that I didn't like to see the author characterize all men as being innately impulsive and arrogant. Because while that may be a common trait to some men--even many men--I don't think it's something shared by all of us. And even if it is a trait in any particular man, they could always overcome that tendency if they wanted to. The author just seems to suggest a stereotype that all men are dumb brutes who would be forever lost if they didn't have other people to guide them. (And I don't like that stereotype.)
Re: i agree
Re: i agree
I've been giving your comment a lot of thought since my initial reply this morning.
I know we don't agree on much when it comes to discussing gender/sex and the way it's discussed in the media, but it's really not that novel to me that you agree with my post here. And the reason why is because in this post, I'm criticizing the article for what it says about dudes (in addition to what it says about ladies, but your comment focuses on the dude aspect). If I had written the same post about what a newspaper article had written about women, would you be so quick to agree with me?
Re: i agree
P.S. Damn you change your avatar a lot.
Re: i agree
As for articles, yeah I don't really have a companion one to this one. I have noticed that a lot of the articles you post on FB are about dudes and how they are (mis)represented in the media. Perhaps Men's Studies or Gender Theory would be a cool way to spend any free time you might have? I am very unread in Men's Studies (in fact, I am very unread in Women's Studies...I have piles of stuff I haven't read yet).
Re: i agree