4 July 2002, 894 words
So Prime Minister Patrick Manning believes that when a woman is smarter than her spouse, it is a cause of domestic violence. Since I doubt that he beats Hazel, does this mean that he appointed someone dumber than himself as Education Minister?
Manning was just mouthing a standard feminist canard, though: that females outperforming males in school and in the workplace has led to an increase in violence against women. Frankly, I think this idea is a Cyrano-sized load of tata. I have never yet heard any man say, "Yeah, boy, that bitch have five subjects, I go have to beat she ass"; and, besides, if the idea were true, then the women who get the most licks should be those with PhDs and managerial positions.
Instead, the women who suffer most from violence &endash; physical, sexual, emotional and social &endash; belong to the usual group: poor and uneducated. The societies where women are most abused are always those, like Islamic theocracies, where female independence is not allowed.
Even so, I do think that females outperforming males results in violence: but the violence is mostly male against male, not male against female. The reasons are as follows. For men, sexual attractiveness is largely dependent on status. A man's status is determined by his income, fame, talent and intelligence, charisma and looks (pretty much in that order).
For women, sexual attractiveness is largely dependent on looks, followed by charm and intelligence. Wealth, intellectual or creative accomplishments, fame: all this may add to a woman's status, but status itself does not add to her sexual attractiveness in the way it does for a man. Indeed, it may have the opposite effect.
Moreover, the more accomplished a woman is, the smaller the pool of men she will be seriously attracted to. Psychologist David Buss, one of the world's leading authorities on the human mating game, notes that, "women who make MORE money tend to value monetary and professional status of males MORE than those who make less money."
Ours is a land with a ridiculously high proportion of gorgeous women, who are also quite bright and who like men. This is why there is quite a high proportion of middle-class professional females in this country who are the outside woman. In modern societies, earning and status are largely dependent on academic ability or creative talents. When more females than males are attaining status based on these criteria, it means that women effectively outnumber men as desirable partners, even if the sex ratio is equal! In other words, high-status men will be able to attract more than one partner, whereas low-status men will attract none.
But this kind of imbalance indirectly affects the levels of violence in a society. Steven Pinker, in How the Mind Works, writes, "Among polygynous mammals such as ourselves, reproductive success varies enormously among males, and the fiercest competition can be at the bottom, among males whose prospects teeter between zero and non-zero."
It is for this reason that societies where monogamy is the norm, such as Western European ones, tend to be less violent than societies, such as African ones, where polygamy is accepted. Males who have little or no prospect of getting sex or a mate by normal means will turn to violence, including rape (just to dismiss the other feminist canard about rape having nothing to do with sex) because that is the only means they have of attaining - note the apt slang - "ranks". This is especially so for young men.
Pinker goes on to say: "The population geneticist Alan Rogers has calculated from actuarial data that young men should discount the future steeply, and so they do. Young men commit crimes, drive too fast, ignore illnesses and pick dangerous hobbies like drugs...The combination of maleness, youth, penury, hopelessness and anarchy makes young men indefinitely reckless in defending their reputation."
All of this, to make a leap that is shorter than you might think, is related to boys not liking to read. In the modern world, reading is a basic necessity for earning a good income, and a young male who reads is therefore more likely to place higher value on his future than one who doesn't. But reading also has a subtler use since, for many women, intelligence can be quite seductive. Yet, ironically, boys do not like to read mainly because reading, and studying generally, is seen as sissy.
This wasn't always the case, and it needn't continue to be the case. One key to changing this image of reading is to get more male teachers into the system, especially in the English departments. When boys see men in authority who read books, they will not see reading as a girls' activity. Another key is to make sure that school libraries, as well as the English curriculum, has books that appeal to boys: once that bug bites, boys will hide and read if they have to. Most important of all, though, boys have to be shown that reading is sexy.
I'm not sure exactly how this can be accomplished, but such a campaign would start with one clear advantage: it wouldn't be a lie. And, if we can get boys to like reading, a lot of other things may then fall into place.
Copyright ©2002 Kevin Baldeosingh