Smart-assery on gender differences

By Heraclitus

Disclaimer: The truth is, as the lead character says at the end of Trainspotting, I'm a bad person. I'm in a rather bad mood, aggravated by tension from caffeine-consumption, so I'm not very nice in what follows. More than a little polemical, at least in parts. So, if you don't want to read me being an insufferable smart-ass, proceed thee not. You have been warned (but, if you find that my posts radicalize you too much to teach in a college classroom in the Commonwealth of Virginia, you still have to read this, because there's a joke only you will get).

There are at least half a dozen things I should be doing instead of blogging, so I'm going to limit myself to a delicious, light-hearted post making sport with a right-wing commentator, much like I did in my easy, breezy ridicule of a recent column by Dick Morris and his wife in The New York Post (hey, at least they called the election for the Dems). My hope is that this will be less taxing for all of us than a more serious post.

Now, where to look for such material? Well, how about Townhall.com? That's where Hugh Hewitt recently intoned, with all the solemn dignity appropriate to such a wise pronouncement, “Senator Santorum is now available for a seat on the SCOTUS should one become available.” Well, actually, I didn't go there unprompted. I actually saw this article discussed by Amanda Marcotte, and thought it would be a lark to write down some of the smart-ass remarks that went bouncing around my little brain as I read about it. But read my post first, because I don't want to have to try to follow her act.

The subject of this Townhall masterpiece? How gender differences are innate (some of you may recall that I'm not much for biological reductionism). Now, I know some of you gents out there get the vapors and swoon whenever someone suggests that our society -- you know, the one in which one out of four women will be sexually assualted -- might be a wee bit misogynist. You're too chickenshit to acknowledge your swinish behavior and attitudes for what they are, so you want to hide behind the idea that it's all "natural" (hey, if you think I'm being mean here, you should see what I do to dudes who piss me off while I'm trying to watch football -- eh, Mr. Martin?). Well, whip out that two-inch Johnson of yours, because you're going to love this.

The article is by someone named Burt Prelutsky, who looks like a more corpulent version of Tommy Lasorda with a beard. He delivers himself of this profound insight:

Study after study have [sic] shown that, left to their own devices, little girls will seek out dolls to play with, while little boys will seek out trucks, guns, and things they can take apart and, they hope and pray, break into a thousand pieces.

Yes, because no socialization takes place between birth and the age at which children are old enough to pick their own toys. Excellent point, Fat Tommy Lasorda (man, I'm such a dick). Oh, and apparently men are innately incapable of grasping the rules of subject-verb agreement.

But it gets better.

A recent poll further emphasized the stark contrasts between the dreams and ambitions of the two genders. Asked to name their fantasy careers, women’s top five were Hollywood wardrobe stylist, vacation tour director, doll fashion designer, concert promoter, and ice cream creator. The men’s top five were comic book guru, video game developer, toy creator, casino host, and brew master.

I might have more faith in this "poll" (did this study even make a pretense to being scientific? or was it some kind of on-line poll that is essentially meaningless?) if whoever designed it understood that "ice cream creator" isn't a job. I mean, my ideal job would be something like wise-crack maker -- or would it be wise cracker? I am, after all, a wise cracker -- but that doesn't mean it's actually a job. Let's see what Burt makes of these lists.

Nobody even fantasized being a lawyer, a doctor, an architect or a CPA. Predictably, the women wanted to be involved with fashion and ice cream, while the men leaned towards, toys, games, and beer.

Yes, but what if we try actually thinking about the lists, since we don't write for Townhall? Two of the women's dream jobs were "vacation tour director" and "concert promoter." In other words, very strongly "executive" positions, jobs that call for all of the traditionally masculine qualities you can name. In fact, designers, whether of Hollywood wardrobes or dolls, possess the same qualities, even if they display or apply them in traditionally feminine areas.

And what about the dudes? First on their list of dream jobs is "comic book guru," again a profession that does not exist. But, to the extent that we can figure out what this means, what is it? Sitting around discussing the minutiae of thirty year-old issues of Spiderman and The Green Lantern, speculating, á la Jason Lee's character from Mall Rats, on whether The Thing's genitals are made of stone? What innate difference between men and women does this dream job illustrate?

Numbers two and three on the fellas' list: video game developer and toy creator. Who answered this poll, Comic Book Guy and Homer's three roommates from when he went back to college? The top three "dream jobs" for men are all expressions of adolescent escapism, and nothing else. What traditional gender role is this survey supposed to be propping up? One that decrees that men are too weak-minded and weak-willed to deal with reality, and so have to escape into childrens' stories and games? Or is it another illustration of the old saw that men are more "creative" and imaginative, while women are more rational, attuned to hard, physical reality, and driven to assume roles of leadership and planning?

Oh, finally we get "casino host" and "brew master": men are sleazy and insincere or drunkards. The "master" part sounds vaguely masculine, but doesn't hide the fact that the dudes basically want to get paid to lay around belching drunkenly. Very manly.

Then, as Amanda notes, the article spirals off into some bizarre fantasy about being a wealthy heir (and this fantasy is about half the column). He proudly proclaims that he wouldn't let any concern for social justice prevent him from enjoying the vacuous and materialistic life such riches would afford him. Then, at the end, we learn that the author is one of those "former leftist" right-wing hacks. It starts to make sense. He's a sort of poor man's David Horowitz (and you have no idea how dismayed and terrified I am to learn that such a thing is possible).

Incidentally, I should perhaps note, since some people seem to have trouble understanding that rejecting one extreme position on a subject doesn't automatically mean embracing the other extreme position, that I'm not necessarily denying that there are gender differences, or asserting that gender differences have to be a bad thing. What I'm objecting to is intellectually lazy and dishonest attempts to "prove" that there are gender differences, like in the column cited above (although, granted, it's kind of no fair picking on something from Townhall.com, sort of a poor man's New York Post -- again, a dismal and terrifying reality). Nor is it a coincidence that such an overflowing pot of hogwash is served up by an ideologically regressive media outlet. So it's not just that the column is the intellectual equivalent of something you would scrape off the bottom of your shoe; it's that it's morally and politically pernicious or retrograde as well.

I'd like to come up with a snappier ending, but I have to go pretend I'm Aquaman designing a better kung-fu grip for my favorite G.I. Joe (in reality: I have to go wash dishes).