After one or two tries, men tend not to marry women who are -- as they can readily tell after one or two tries -- flaming a**holes.
Those women are then doomed to either live alone or join the "Increasingly Unattractive Lesbians Society" or, as a friend of mine puts it when he speaks of his exwife, "The Realm of the Formerly Cute."
Neither God nor nature. What do people believe in? Does this lend credence that humans are not strictly evolutionary derivatives? It is a paradox that people who place their faith in evolution would permit their conscious musings to override their biological imperative, which establishes the principal criteria of a fitness function for a species. Perhaps there is more than one humanoid species on this planet, and there is a hidden action to sabotage the most prolific.
How's that for a conspiracy theory? It doesn't get much more fundamental.
I am perhaps opening myself to a charge of "well, that's certainly a non sequitur" ... but this post reminds me of how I loathe those lazy news stories about "the first woman/Swedenborgian/Hispanic-American/whatever" to hold some elected office. As if there is some distinctive commonality attached to all women, all Swedenborgians, etc. Maybe it's my 1960s/70s upbringing, but I'd much prefer to see people as individuals rather than suspect stereotypes. Some women like to be married/single; some men like to be married/single. Why does it have to be a function of gender?
This is an excellent post - I confess I was so sickened by Browning's essay I could not bring myself to write about it, but I'm glad you did.
I can only hope that people reading it were horrified by the blatant female supremacy she touts.
If there's a silver lining to this kind of feminist madness, it's that women who appreciate and respect men will perhaps stand out as unusual and extraordinary. Women like Browning and Gilbert shame our entire gender.
After one or two tries, men tend not to marry women who are -- as they can readily tell after one or two tries -- flaming a**holes.
ReplyDeleteThose women are then doomed to either live alone or join the "Increasingly Unattractive Lesbians Society" or, as a friend of mine puts it when he speaks of his exwife, "The Realm of the Formerly Cute."
Neither God nor nature. What do people believe in? Does this lend credence that humans are not strictly evolutionary derivatives? It is a paradox that people who place their faith in evolution would permit their conscious musings to override their biological imperative, which establishes the principal criteria of a fitness function for a species. Perhaps there is more than one humanoid species on this planet, and there is a hidden action to sabotage the most prolific.
ReplyDeleteHow's that for a conspiracy theory? It doesn't get much more fundamental.
I am perhaps opening myself to a charge of "well, that's certainly a non sequitur" ... but this post reminds me of how I loathe those lazy news stories about "the first woman/Swedenborgian/Hispanic-American/whatever" to hold some elected office. As if there is some distinctive commonality attached to all women, all Swedenborgians, etc. Maybe it's my 1960s/70s upbringing, but I'd much prefer to see people as individuals rather than suspect stereotypes. Some women like to be married/single; some men like to be married/single. Why does it have to be a function of gender?
ReplyDeleteThanks for the double links Stuart!
ReplyDeleteThis is an excellent post - I confess I was so sickened by Browning's essay I could not bring myself to write about it, but I'm glad you did.
I can only hope that people reading it were horrified by the blatant female supremacy she touts.
If there's a silver lining to this kind of feminist madness, it's that women who appreciate and respect men will perhaps stand out as unusual and extraordinary. Women like Browning and Gilbert shame our entire gender.