Experts Discover Men And Women Are Different!

When it was revealed that scientific studies published in the new book "The Female Brain" demonstrate that women talk more than men, many of us responded with a collective shrug. Anyone who has ever been in a relationship with a member of the opposite sex -- whether romantic, familial or friendly -- knows that women talk more than men. A lot more. "The Female Brain" indicates that not only do women talk three times as much as men, but they also get a chemical rush in their brains from hearing their own voices. This may explain why women describe "feeling better" after talking about problems or issues in their lives, beyond the mere relief of getting it off their chest.

But what is most fascinating about the book is the background of its author. A neuropsychiatrist at the University of California, San Francisco, and the head of a female mood and hormone clinic in San Francisco, Dr. Louann Brizendine is also a self-described feminist. In putting forward the results of clinical work and scientific analysis, Brizendine was forced to concede that everything she had been taught about gender was wrong. That is, men and women really are different. As she put it, "I know it is not politically correct to say this but I've been torn for years between my politics and what science is telling us. I believe women actually perceive the world differently from men."

None of this will come as a surprise to those already attuned to the politically incorrect reality of gender differentiation, but for those indoctrinated in the feminist school of gender uniformity, Brizendine's words are heresy. While correctly focusing on egalitarianism between the sexes, the post-1960s feminist movement has all too often confused gender equality with gender sameness. Consequently, at a time when college students can graduate with degrees in Gender Studies, there seems to be a marked lack of acknowledgment about the differences between men and women.

Trans Confusion

The attempts by the burgeoning transgender movement to prove that gender itself is meaningless add to the confusion. Rather than a fixed notion, they see gender as something fluid. This works well to the advantage of those who do feel, whether for medical or psychological reasons, that they inhabit some gender nether zone. The problem is, with the exception of cases of physically hermaphroditic children, one's sex is biologically determined at birth. Granted, we all have feminine and masculine traits and there are always exceptions to the rule. But any parent who has given dolls to little boys only to see their heads torn off or fire trucks to little girls only to see the vehicles tucked into bed at night knows that gender uniformity can't be enforced. These differences come naturally.

Gender variance exists even among same-sex couples. It's not uncommon to see one partner taking on a more feminine role and the other a more masculine one. Whether it be "butch-femme" lesbian couples or a "bear" with a "nelly" on the male side of the equation, male and female roles often come into play. It seems that even when gender differences are not a factor, human beings find a way to adopt them.

Killer Females

The entertainment industry is big on pushing the gender envelope. Whether consciously or not, the progenitors of pop culture help to perpetuate a kind of gender role reversal. Women have become tough and controlling, while men are seen as weak and indecisive.

Since the influence of martial arts films on U.S. markets began, audiences have been treated to countless film and television scenes of petite lasses duking it out with big bruisers. The TV show "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" was a case in point. But at least Buffy's bad-guy butt-kicking was explained through her having supernatural powers. It has now become far more commonplace to see mere mortal female characters punching people in the face on a moment's notice, beating up or overpowering men and taking the romantic or sexual lead. Far from empowering women in reality, these fantasy scenarios put forward unrealistic expectations and a false sense of security.

The gravity-defying female fighters of the "Charlie's Angels" films, the demure Southern belle Daisy Duke whose high heel ends up lodged in a man's throat in "The Dukes of Hazzard," the cold, cruel Taser-wielding blonde on the TV show "Smith" and the perennially bed-hopping Samantha character in "Sex and the City" are all examples of this trend. Even Hermione, the smart young heroine of the "Harry Potter" film series, slugs the annoying Malfoy in the face in the third installment. In other words, the leading lady has become the leading man, and a not terribly charming one at that.

Male Girlfriends

In contrast, too many of today's leading men -- if they can be called that -- are content to let women take the reins. TV shows are populated with male characters -- usually police officers or detectives -- who stand meekly by as their much more confident and assured female counterparts (who often happen to be their bosses) lead them by the hand. An episode from the first season of "Heroes" featured one such male character, with superpowers no less. Still, he was content to tag along in the rear as his aggressive female partner charged into a violent suspect's home instead of calling for backup. The fact that she and other such female characters typically weigh only 90 pounds and have more intimidating hairdos than they do physical prowess seems to make little difference.

When male characters do exhibit masculine traits on TV, they are often made to look like fools in the process. Sitcoms such as "According to Jim" and "King of Queens" -- featuring overweight, average-looking husbands married to gorgeous, skinny wives -- are a prime culprit. The man is usually portrayed as a complete schlub who couldn't find his ear from his elbow without the guidance of his far intellectually superior wife.

The emergence of metrosexuality, or straight men exhibiting the traits of gay men, can be blamed in part for the decline of masculinity. All around San Francisco, one can see evidence of the trend. From men getting manicures, pedicures and waxings to wearing outfits that are just a touch too matching to fawning over small fluffy dogs, the metros appear to be taking over. And TV shows such as "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" are not helping. While no one can deny that many straight men need assistance in the fashion department, it has traditionally been a woman's role to provide it. But now we have gay men doing the honors and, if you ask me, overdoing it. Even a makeover must acknowledge the reality of male clothing and toiletry habits. The stylish fellows on "Queer Eye" may school allegedly clueless straight men in the joys of astringent and pink ties, but any woman knows those items will be dispensed with at the first opportunity.

While gay men are welcome to be as in touch with their feminine side as they like, straight men would do well to ignore it. For what woman would want a man who cannot go a week without buying beauty products, let alone guard hearth and home? Those who acknowledge the reality of gender differences know this instinctively, while those who pretend they are meaningless are affronted when one dares speak the truth. But most women, on a biological and often conscious level, are looking for a provider and protector in a man, among other things. Yet the metrosexual revolution would have us believe that women are yearning for nothing more in a man than another girlfriend.

Weepie Guys

Another disturbing offshoot of this trend is the public preponderance of men hugging, telling other men they "love" them and crying on a moment's notice. Anyone who has witnessed the unseemly weeping of certain male politicians in recent years (former President George Bush and Ohio Sen. George Voinovich come to mind) knows that men crying in public is not a good thing. Whatever happened to the strong silent type? The male movie stars of yesteryear provided some good examples. Men with the quiet strength of Gary Cooper, the warmth and humility of Jimmy Stewart or the laconic toughness of Robert Mitchum were the real deal. Hold the tears.

But there are some it seems who would like to do away with the notion of masculinity altogether. Robert Jensen, a journalism professor at the University of Texas, wrote as much in an October column, "Men Being Men Is a Bad Deal: Guys Should Evolve Beyond Masculinity." Jensen's column provoked an avalanche of laughter and scorn on talk radio and the blogosphere. Not only did Jensen come across as, well, a wimp, but his demonizing of manhood missed the mark. In equating masculinity with all things violent, Jensen underestimates his own sex. For masculinity is not only about being a warrior. The manly virtues include character, confidence, honor, inner strength, pride, responsibility, loyalty, generosity, industry and dignity. To eliminate masculinity would be to eliminate the positive along with the negative. Similarly, the natural and instinctive traits that constitute womanhood need not be exclusive of adaptations to modern life. Women should not have to apologize for their femininity, just as men should not have to apologize for their masculinity.

As a society, we would do better to accept our differences instead of turning men and women into bland imitations of each other. For it is the very dissimilarities between the genders that make them complementary -- the veritable yin and yang. Not only do we balance each other out, in the best of circumstances, but learning to adapt to our more challenging variations strengthens us as human beings. And it certainly makes life a lot more interesting. Vive la difference!

Source



Do Iraqis Have Free Will? Not according to liberals

By Theodore Dalrymple

A headline in the British liberal newspaper, the Guardian, caught my eye recently: IRAQIS CAN'T BE BLAMED FOR THE CHAOS UNLEASHED BY INVASION. The writer was that newspaper's veteran foreign correspondent, Jonathan Steele (another immortal headline to one of his articles, in May 2002, read: NEW YORK IS STARTING TO FEEL LIKE BREZHNEV'S MOSCOW).

Let us grant, for argument's sake, the article's premise: that American policy in Iraq has been naive, rash, foolish, precipitate, and culpable. Yet still it would not follow that "Iraqis can't be blamed" and so forth, unless one also believed what not even the severest critics of the Bush administration have alleged-that the American army, or other agents of the American government, have desired, planned, and even executed the ongoing terrorist attacks in Baghdad.

The only other explanation of the non-culpability of Iraqis would be that they were not really full members of the human race-in other words, that they did not reflect upon their circumstances and act upon their reflections in the way that the fully responsible and therefore potentially culpable Americans do.

The headline makes clear that double standards are about to apply, double standards that are not flattering to the Iraqis' capacity for independent action, despite the evident wish of the author to display as conspicuously as possible his sympathy with them by means of exculpating them. Forgive them, he invites all men of goodwill, for they know not what they do.

Like hell, they don't. Not even the most ardent, anthropomorphic dog-lover credits his pet with a fully developed moral sense, and he therefore regards its misdemeanors with an indulgence that he would not extend to a ten-year-old child. The author regards Iraqis as if they were in the same moral category as pets: for can one really say that people who travel to a different part of the city to explode bombs, resulting in scores of deaths of people chosen merely because they are (most of them) of a different religious confession, do not appreciate what they are doing, any more than a dog appreciates what it does when it knocks over a precious porcelain vase?

Is there anything in the American invasion, however deeply ill judged you might consider it, that makes these bombings as inescapable as the weather, and that therefore renders those who carry them out wholly blameless? Is not a prerequisite for these bombings that those who carry them out consciously decide to do so? And if it is not wicked to kill people in this fashion, it is difficult to know what is wicked. Not the Iraqis, but some of the Iraqis-presumably a small minority-can take blame to a very considerable extent for the chaos in Iraq.

Dare I say it: the inability to take seriously the culpability of men and women who, as a matter of policy or tactics, kill large numbers of passers-by and bystanders is a hangover of the late Victorian imperial sensibility, which viewed much of the world's population as intellectual and moral minors. Special pleading of the kind encapsulated in the headline is not a manifestation of broadmindedness or generosity but of deep-seated arrogance.

Source



CASTRO'S TRUE LEGACY IS A TRAIL OF BLOOD

By Jeff Jacoby

It was on New Year's Day in 1959 that Fidel Castro's guerrillas toppled Fulgencio Batista, and a week later that Castro entered Havana and launched what has become the world's longest-lived dictatorship. This week thus marks the 48th anniversary of Castro's revolution -- and the last one he will celebrate, if the persistent rumors that he is dying prove to be true. Which makes this a good time to ask: What will be said about Castro after his death?

For decades, journalists and celebrities have showered Cuba's despot with praise, extolling his virtues so extravagantly at times that if sycophancy were an Olympic sport, they would have walked off with the gold. Norman Mailer, for example, proclaimed him "the first and greatest hero to appear in the world since the Second World War." Oliver Stone has called him "one of the earth's wisest people, one of the people we should consult."

The cheerleaders have been just as enthusiastic in describing Castro's record in Cuba. "A beacon of success for much of Latin America and the Third World," gushed Giselle Fernandez of CBS. "For Castro," Barbara Walters declared, "freedom starts with education. And if literacy alone were the yardstick, Cuba would rank as one of the freest nations on earth." Covering Cuba's one-party election in 1998, CNN's Lucia Newman grandly described "a system President Castro boasts is the most democratic and cleanest in the world."

During a 1995 visit to New York, writes Humberto Fontova in *Fidel: Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant*, a blistering 2005 expose of Castro and his regime, Cuba's maximum leader "plunged into Manhattan's social swirl, hobnobbing with dozens of glitterati, pundits, and power brokers." From the invitation to dine at the Rockefeller family's Westchester County estate to being literally kissed and hugged by Diane Sawyer, Castro was drenched with flattery and adoration at every turn.

When Castro dies, some of his obituarists will no doubt continue this pattern of fawning hero-worship. But others, more concerned with accuracy than with apologetics, will squarely face the facts of Castro's reign. Facts such as these:

* Castro came to power with American support.

The United States welcomed Castro's ouster of Batista and was one of the first nations to recognize the new government in 1959. Many Americans supported Castro, including former president Harry Truman. "He seems to want to do the right thing for the Cuban people," Truman said, "and we ought to extend our sympathy and help him to do what is right for them." It was not until January 1961 that President Eisenhower -- reacting to what he called "a long series of harassments, baseless accusations, and vilification" -- broke diplomatic ties with Havana. By that point Castro had nationalized all US businesses in Cuba and confiscated American properties worth nearly $2 billion.

Well before he came to power, Castro regarded the United States as an enemy. In a 1957 letter -- displayed in Havana's Museo de la Revolucion, Fontova observes -- the future ruler wrote to a friend: "War against the United States is my true destiny. When this war's over, I'll start that much bigger and wider war."

* Castro transformed Cuba into a totalitarian hellhole.

Freedom House gives Cuba its lowest possible rating for civil liberties and political rights, placing it with Burma, North Korea, and Sudan as one of the world's most repressive regimes. Hundreds of political prisoners are behind bars in Cuba today. Among them, writes Carlos Alberto Montaner in the current issue of Foreign Policy, are "48 young people [imprisoned] for collecting signatures for a referendum, 23 journalists for writing articles about the regime, and 18 librarians for loaning forbidden books." Political prisoners can be beaten, starved, denied medical care, locked in solitary confinement, and forced into slave labor. Castro long ago eliminated freedom of religion, due process of law, and the right to leave the country. He also wiped out Cuba's once-flourishing free press. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Cuba is one of the world's leading jailers of journalists, second only to China in the number of reporters behind bars.

* Castro stole Cuba's wealth.

While Cubans grew progressively poorer under communism, Castro exploited them to become one of the world's richest people. Foreign companies doing business in Cuba must pay a significant sum for each worker they hire -- but most of the money goes to Castro's regime, while the workers receive only a pittance. Castro also controls Cuba's state-owned companies, whose profits account for much of his wealth. Castro insists that his personal net worth is zero, but in 2006 Forbes magazine estimates the amount to be $900 million.

* Castro shed far more blood than the dictator he replaced.

According to the Cuba Archive, which is meticulously documenting the deaths of each person killed by Cuba's rulers since 1952, Batista was responsible for killing approximately 3,000 people. Castro's toll has been far higher. So far the archive has documented more than 8,000 specific victims of the Castro regime -- including 5,775 firing squad executions, 1,231 extrajudicial assassinations, and 984 deaths in prison. When fully documented, the body count is expected to reach 17,000 -- not counting the tens of thousands of Cubans who lost their lives at sea while fleeing Castro's Caribbean nightmare. "Condemn me, it doesn't matter," Castro said long ago. "History will absolve me." But Castro's ultimate day of judgment draws near, and history is not likely to be so kind.