Against women

It’s a weekend, so you’re probably expecting me to write something controversial. So here goes. Women - I don’t think much of ‘em. Here are seven reasons why.
1. They have “feelings.” It would be futile to decry so widespread a human failing, but women - more than men - compound this shortcoming. They think their feelings matter. Worse, they are prone to mistake them for thoughts.
2. They are self-obsessed. The counterpart of believing their feelings matter is that women are less interested in the external world than men. You don’t often get women in pub quiz teams.
In this respect, TV is a mirror onto the world. Carrie Bradshaw, who’s interested only in self and shoes, is a icon to many women. But the women who are really attractive to men - Calleigh Duquesne, Dana Scully, Martha Jones for example - are those who take an interest in the outside world.
3. Women are not ironists. Despite the fact that they disproportionately read English at college, women tend not to realise that there can be a big gap between author and text, and under-rate the virtue of insincerity.  The upshot is that, like the silliest Muslims, they are quick to be "offended."
4. Women are unmusical. It’s a paradox that whereas most of my favourite music is made by women, hardly any of the women I actually meet have much interest in any form of music.  I’ve lost count of the times one has asked me what sort of music I like and looked blank when I’ve replied, until I’ve cottoned on: “y’know, like the soundtrack to O Brother Where Art Thou?” I do not have this problem with men.
5. Women are cowards. They are therefore more likely to look to the state to protect them; they are more likely (pdf) to support ID cards and a DNA database than men.
6. Women have careers. Now, I’m not saying that a woman’s place is in the home; in my experience they are best kept well clear of a kitchen. Quite the opposite. Ambition is unattractive in any gender, and yet women, more than men, are likely to boast of being so. They fail to see that anyone who is still ambitious past the age of 30 can consider themselves a failure.
7. Women are posh. Men like me - who have been effortlessly upwardly mobile - are ten a penny. But such women - East Europeans aside - are very scarce.  From university on, most of the English women I’ve met have been from “nice” middle class families.
This creates an enormous barrier. People who have been brought up to see their father as the solution to their  problems cannot understand those who see him as the problem - and vice versa.
 Now, I’m not saying all this because I’ve been on a run of bad luck since moving to Rutland; I very much have London women in mind here. Nor - obviously - do the above points apply to all women.
Instead, the question is: am I a victim of selection effects here? Going through Oxford, the City and journalism means the women I’ve met have been a very biased sample of all women; points 6 and 7 are nonsensical otherwise. The trouble is  is that they have been a badly biased sample.
Which brings me to social mobility. Brown said this week; “I want the opportunity to rise from the place where they are to the place where they can be, to be there for everybody.”
But what is insufficiently appreciated is that there are costs involved in rising to the place you can be. Better advice came from Flatt and Scruggs, of whom women have never heard: “Don’t get above your raisin.”

Comments

[Alex]

"In Slow News Day, Writer Falls Back on Cheap Sensationalism, Manufactured Controversy"

Not a bad headline, eh?

[Iain]

You left out a crucial factor: they are less intelligent(than me, you and male readers of this blog) and so less interesting company (bet there are very few female readers of this blog). There are far more stupid men than stupid women but there are also far more intelligent men than intelligent women. This consequently means, girls who are friends are simply girls who I failed to bed or decided not to bed, as I certainly wasn't entralled by their theories of life on initial contact.

[kinglear]

I would suggest your run of bad luck might have a lot to do with your thoughts here. Women are dead easy to get along with - tell them you love them several times a day, hold hands and look at them adoringly. They'll do anything for you...

[Innocent Abroad]

If my daughter reads this post, there won't be much of you left.

Happily for you, she's far too busy with her pub quiz team.

[Charlieman]

And apparently point 3, Irony, is lost on some of the male commentors here. Or they are English/Lit grads. Or the degree of irony goes above my head.

[Shuggy]

You've got 7 points about women here and sex doesn't appear in any of them: there's something far wrong with you, m'boy.

[James Hamilton]

My experience of people possessed by one form of prejudice, such as yours against people you perceive as posh or public school, is that there's always another form of the same thing in them somewhere. So I've been expecting this. I'm surprised by what it is,though. I expect you'll get off in the same way you usually do - enough people prepared to believe that you don't mean it. I'll give you this much: I do think you're open about these things, and that you do mean it, although I think you lace them with humour. But you're not being ironic, in that crude and misconstrued blogosphere sense. Good luck.

[dearieme]

Where's the controversial material you promised?

[Adam]

Sexist weekend should be a cultural institution:

What do you do if your dishwasher breaks down?

Slap her.

[Chris B]

"(T)hey are more likely (pdf) to support ID cards and a DNA database than men"

Perhaps that's because they're more likely to be victims of, say rape, than men, and are therefore more likely to support measures to curb or solve this kind of crime.

To a person who's never suffered this crime I would imagine that this would seem risible, but as someone who's been mugged nearly countless times I also support the DNA database. Perhaps you should explain why this is 'cowardly' without merely assuming everyone would agree that it is?

[Bob B]

Something that really puzzles me: If DNA databases are bad and an infringement of personal liberty, are fingerprint databases also bad for the same reasons? If not, why not?

[HaHa]

Thank you for mentioning the fact that women meet so much prejudice that only those born to middle class advantage tend to get anywhere.

[Steve]

June 22nd:

"Take it for granted that blogs are the natural arena of proper political debate. What goes on in parliament - and to a large extent in the dead trees - is merely the clash of managerialist egos. It is we bloggers who are the moral and intellectual high ground. So-called politicians are just inadequates scrabbling in the dirt for pennies."

June 29th:

"Now, I’m not saying that a woman’s place is in the home; in my experience they are best kept well clear of a kitchen."

You couldn't parody this stuff. You're in danger of becoming the David Zucker of the blogosphere.

[Hilary Wade]

You're just jealous

[Will]

Wow! I wonder if there are any articles on blogs against men, out there?

Baldrick, (a man) said that irony was like goldy or bronzy but made of iron.

[Katie]

In terms of an intellectual exercise, I am not sure this is a success. Some of your points are opinions, while few are supported by evidence. It would be good to see an evidenced four way comparison: boys good, boys bad, girls good, girls bad, with every point evidence to compare for each points.

[Neil Harding]

Chris: I think you have been working too hard. Women are great.

[Laura]

Resisting the temptation to pluck Chris's tongue from his cheek and nail it against the nearest wall...

(and actually, it was rather a refreshing post, and funny too. It's just a shame that it brings out the swivel-eyes in the comments section.)

It's true that women have historically been less upwardly mobile than men. http://www.crest.ox.ac.uk/papers/p70.pdf (pdf) describes "more downward mobility and less upward mobility for women than for men" (against a general backdrop of increasing upwards mobility) for most of the twentieth century.

The real disaster here, obviously, is that women's failure to rise creates externalities for society - Chris can't meet any interesting women.

And even worse, the women he does meet up there in ABC1 don't share his views. This is a tragedy! Bring on the bluegrass.

[Hilary Wade]

Speaking personally I lay claim to no redeeming features whatsoever. Chicks don't need them! Men still fancy you and buy you cool stuff.

[Trixy]

Ignoring the obvious point that shoes provide me with more pleasure than most men I've met, I'm a whizz in the kitchen and have a wide and sophisticated taste in music, much of which I play myself, I can't help but agree with you on many of your points.

Which is probably why I have so few female friends and the ones I do have think I'm a bitch.

I do hope, however, that you also view your own gender with such contempt because they really are terribly annoying, clingy and useless.

[Fred Kite]

I dislike women because they prefer "bad boys" i.e physically imposing criminals,and once they get chucked over they run to "nice guys" (like me) to pick up the bills for them thereafter.
So for nice guys like me the problem is that when they are young and hot some other guy gets the benefit.
Once they are dried up, consumed with a lifetime anger they then deign to allow you to look them (and bad boy's spawn).
That is the reward a nice guy gets for being a responsible bill payer who holds down a job.

[Fred Kite]

While I'm a roll here I'd just like to point out that political correctness was invented so that all women could nag all men, not just the ones they are married to.
Nagging is women's secret weapon. It is the reason they ever get anything because they could not win an argument to save themselves.
It is successful because it is irrational and infuriating and men just give up in disgust.
And it has been responsible for all their advancs. Nagging. Not reasoned argument, is behind all female advances.

[Rachel]

Bad time of the month dear?

[Maggie mae]

The points you make are not of interest in terms of you sounding like an intelligent male. If I were in a room with you I would immediately play dumb- simply it would be the fastest way to get rid of you. Consider while you may have an idea about women- there are the ones who are intelligent enough to know how to work each man in the room- ever consider you didn't bed anyone because they did not want to bed with you? It is a 2 way street dear boy- and I would tread more carefully. The females who are good at playing dumb (shoe obsessive- careless music interest) are the ones who rise to the top quietly while males on the outside scratch their plug in hair line trying to figure out how she got there.

[Matt Munro]

I can't belive you missed Kylie Minogue, Cheryl and Sarah (from girls aloud) and er Kirsty Wark off newsnight from your "women who men find really attractive category"

If your basic statement is "There;s nothing less attarctive than a middle class career girl who takes a perverse pride in her inability to cook and considers friday night a good time to stay in and talk about the realtionship" then I'm in full agreement. If women concentrated on buying and wearing attractive underwear the world would be a much happier place.

[Twony]

Well notice how many defensive comments from fems there are in the replies section.

considering there supposed to be the superior gender I'd have thought they would have used their superior coping skills to laugh this off but hey ho.

As often stated in my circle of friends the only way fems are the superior gender is their superior egotism.

Despite many years of "advancment" its still men fixing things, building things, keeping things safe, while dying earlier, more likely to be assaulted and get our pensions later than fems.