absolutely, 100% right.

I do keep hearing this and find it a fascinating defense for centuries of abuse. At work the other day one of my female coworkers was confronted with this same challenge, a male rebuke for defending herself against blatant sexism and stereotyping. “What? You don’t believe there are any inherent differences between men and women?”

That’ll teach her not to assume she can be a person too.

On the other hand it was my older brother (at a very young age) who walked around nursing his dolls until my mother insisted that he could not possibly be a mother when he grew up. Poor kid, he never touched a doll again. (My mother feels awful about it still.)

I wasn’t as easily swayed, and played with both dolls and weapons, fantasy house and fantasy warfare, late into elementary school when it became the ultimate un-cool. Now I’m cool, thank god.

I suppose I’ll just throw my backing (and all the masculine power, authority, certainty and firepower that come with it) behind hedonistic when she says: “Perhaps so, just a leetle beet, but probably not in very meaningful ways and certainly not enough to justify the yawning power gaps that still exist between men and women.”

And then I’ll add: And don’t you (male) dare (male) using it (male) as a (male) excuse for (male) sexism.

(Love the blog. Great stuff.)

Yes, the “if you don’t hand it over nicely, I’ll have to take it by force” argument in disguise.

“Good question. It presumes that violence is bad, which is a distinctly modern notion. It also presumes that the reins are given. Quite the opposite is true: they are taken.”

One more wonderful manifestation of the patriarchy - a meritocracy defined in terms of a violent power-grab, that is then labeled euphemistically as “leadership”.

No sweat, glad I could be of service. Just remember: it’s your species too.

> If boys/men are inherently more violent, how is that justification for handing them the reins of society? Quite the opposite.

Good question. It presumes that violence is bad, which is a distinctly modern notion. It also presumes that the reins are given. Quite the opposite is true: they are taken.

> anyone will get away with what they’re allowed to get away with; men literally get away with murder.

Yup. Women get away with other things, although not on the scale of murder. They can get away with murder too - it only requires planning and, of course, never telling anyone. Furthermore, they more senseless the killing, the harder it is to find a murderer. Go figure.

> Violence is just another word for misplaced leadership.

Nah, leaders get others to do violence for them. Followers get their hands dirty.

If boys/men are inherently more violent, how is that justification for handing them the reins of society? Quite the opposite.

The argument is the “channeling of energy” argument, which you’re supposed to already know about. Violence is just another word for misplaced leadership.

Men commit:

99% of rapes
97% of child molestation.
92% of burglary
92% of robbery
91% of public drunkeness
90% of car theft
90% of vandalism
88% of murder
87% of arson

I don’t believe men are inherently rampaging thugs but that anyone will get away with what they’re allowed to get away with; men literally get away with murder.

(Sorry, did someone just take offence? Thank you!)

Or here’s another one! The Alternative Reality where women band together and arm themselves with heavy artillery to shield themselves from the Original Protection Racket: Men protecting “their” women from other men. Because All Men are Assholes. Or something like that.

(Sorry, but I’m home with a sick kid and would rather hang out at IBTP than clean up the piles of cat barf in the other room!)

If boys/men are inherently more violent, how is that justification for handing them the reins of society? Quite the opposite.

My point is that Twisty is taking a wholly unwarranted interpretation of the facts and twisting (heh) the words of someone who’s actually on her side into an attack on women as a whole. How is that not bitter?

> “Men and women are just wired differently.” Perhaps so, just a leetle beet, but probably not in very meaningful ways

Give a 2-3 year old a doll. The girls role play domestic scenes that they’ve seen, while the boys make a gun. Yeah, we’re put together a bit differently.

> Men decide what’s important, and - surprise! - women rarely seem to make the cut. The game is rigged. That’s why we’re pissed. Get it?

Nothing personal. The men in power rig the game for their progeny - this shouldn’t be surprosong. I understand the part where you’re pissed about old boys clubs, but the harvard guy isn’t trying to bar the door.

> Long ago I concluded that what men call “history” is nothing more than a compendium of Men Behaving Badly.

That’s because men were in power. If it were women, then set pieces would be different, nothing more.

> Meanwhile, I fail to understand how “the weilding of power at its ugliest” is so goddamn important, unless it’s provided as a cautionary tale.

Well duh, that’s the most important part, and it gets ignored regularly. Then we go play in the sandbox and history tries to teach us again. It;s a very patient teacher, even with the dullest of students.

> Why do I have to be flaming ASSHOLE to get a “seat at the table?” IBTP.

You don’t, unless you want to be a senator or a C-level executive. Then you need to learn how to play hardball, which is what I assume you wanted. Blame the game all you want, but you don’t get to change the rules until you’re rubbing elbows with the people who write them.