Does         any pundit come up with as many embarrassingly dumb         columns as Maureen Dowd of the NYT? Here         she announces that the solution to the Baby         Bust is for humans to act like bonobo chimps, who supposedly         "lead extraordinarily happy existences... There's no battle of the         sexes in bonoboland. And there's no baby bust."
In NR back in 1999, I exploded the         Bonobo Myth so beloved of feminists in my aptly titled "Chimps         and Chumps:" "A bonobo chimp troop resembles an omnisexual         commune run by Madonna and Little Richard," complete with         pedophilia. Bonobo life sounds about as appealing as a case of the         clap. Further, they do indeed suffer a baby bust: "Bonobos are         Darwinian duds. As appealing as their genetic programming may be to the         students and faculty of Smith College, their genes have not succeeded in         replicating themselves widely: there are fewer than 10,000 bonobos         alive, no more than 1/20th the number of those testosterone-addled         common chimps."
Dowd is just about the last True Believer         in Anita Hill-Era Feminism left in big time opinion journalism. The         major improvement in the American intellectual climate during the         Nineties was the near complete collapse of feminism. Sure, the         feminists have walled themselves into positions of power in lots of         institutions, but almost none dare come out to argue their case anymore.
Dowd's main psychological problem         is a near-pathological sensitivity over whether she made the right         choice in pursuing career over family. Consequently, she obsessively         browbeats female dissenters who don't validate her life choice. Since         feminists hate to admit that not all women agree with them, Dowd tries         to point the finger of blame at men, telling them they should act like a         different species!
Dowd is only a lurid example of the         general female tendency toward conformism. Women want to do what         all other women are doing and they want all other women to do what they         are doing. There's a fundamental evolutionary reason for this: an         individual woman is simply more valuable in a Darwinian sense than an         individual man, so they tend to be cautious and conformist. If an         individual man tries something different from all other men in the         tribe, and dies as a consequence, well, it's sad, but some other guy         will step in an impregnate his woman for him. In contrast, if a woman         dies from doing something eccentric, the tribe's reproductive capacity         is permanently diminished.
So, Dowd's fanaticism is perfectly understandable. The only problem is that, as the remarkable Time cover story (a perfect sign of the moribund intellectual status of feminism) shows, Dowd's kind of self-absorbed reasoning has ruined the happiness of millions of women by depriving them of ever having a child.
 
 
 
 Posts
Posts
 
 
 
 
 
 
No comments:
Post a Comment