The one thing that pleases me about the current administration is that there appears to be a good number of women in powerful positions; more than I recall seeing in previous administrations, and certainly more than on The West Wing. I’m just happy to see it, for the sake of progress in gender representation.
It’s obvious that men and women will have different perspectives on certain issues, and try as we may, the opposite sexes will never understand each other. Because of that difference in perspective, I always enjoy seeing strong women in dominant positions. It’s kind of a thing with me.
I became a feminist on March 7, 1974. That was the day my daughter was born. The mother of my baby was my “practice wife,” age 21. I was 22.
That was during the early years of allowing husbands in the Delivery Room. I had to sit across the room and watch the “proceedings” in a mirror. It was kind of like watching for shoplifters at 7-11.
As soon as the doctor announced the baby’s gender, my then-wife turned to me and asked, “Is that OK?” I laughed, knowing she was not in her right mind. Of course it was OK! Why wouldn’t it be? Never mind that the father determines the gender!
Recently, there have been many heated discussions about Bobo’s nominee for the Supreme Court. I haven’t had time to read it all, let alone research her, so this post is not about her. However, it was inspired by some of the comments I have read here this week.
Where I take issue with some female feminists is a tendency by some to vent their anger toward males at large. Anger that is born of frustrations, building for lifetimes, sometimes manifests itself most when women see other women treated badly by men. At other times, it is the result of men in power keeping women out of the loop. I don’t disagree with them, but I do sometimes feel as if I am personally being blamed for all the injustices ever committed by men against women. No doubt about it, many men are out and out pricks, and I don’t defend them. Sadly, though, many women are evil too.
I often hear such phrases as “old white men making decisions for women that have direct impacts on women’s lives.” Well, I’m an old white man. But I am innocent. I have never voted against anything that would benefit women, I’ve always championed their political causes, and I have never mentioned any difference of genitalia as a political or social reason for discrimination, aside from the issue of public toilets. I don’t believe there’s a whole lot of controversy on that issue.
As a daily reader and weekly writer for No Quarter USA, I am often offended by comments from women that I perceive to be anti-male. I’m just prudish enough to be disconcerted over references to genitalia in a political discourse. Statements like “just because she lacks a penis” or “her vagina has nothing to do with her abilities” are uncalled for, in my opinion.
I feel very strongly about this, and this is why:
Differences in the urinary or reproductive plumbing of the genders have nothing whatsoever to do with the issues. It’s not because we use separate restroom facilities that men and women think differently. It’s much more about the relationships between men and women as married couples, extrapolated to include the outside world. If a woman is dominated and controlled by her husband, she instinctively paints all men with the same brush as befits her husband. Conversely, if a man is dominated and controlled by his wife, he thinks of all women as being like her. She thinks all men are bastards. He thinks all women are witches. See? I’m literally afraid to use the real word I was thinking of!
Our peers are those like us. I consider the female writers of NQ to be my peers, although in truth they are my superiors. On certain issues relating to the “battle of the sexes,” I have kept my mouth shut, until now. Some of the comments I make might cause offense to my female friends. And no matter how hard I try, I cannot always tell when my observations about gender issues will land me in hot water. My experiences as a boy taught me to never fight with girls — because they always win in the end!
My personal credo is that all people are equal under the eyes of the law, and therefore there should be no discrimination based on the gender, race, or religious beliefs of people. I believe the laws should protect against such discrimination. On the other hand, I believe quotas and affirmative action are wrong. The person who is best qualified should get promoted, whether their superior qualifications are the result of privileges or opportunities others rarely get, or simply having a better personality for the job. A highly qualified white man should not be discriminated against in favor of a less-qualified individual of any color, gender, or belief system. Reverse discrimination is still discrimination.
The majority of the readers of this blog will agree with this statement: Hillary Clinton was much better qualified to be President than Barack Obama. She should have gotten the job. Most of us feel that Obama benefited from “white guilt” voters who felt it assuaged their consciences to vote for the “poor black man” who has never had a chance at the office before. These are not grade school games, folks. We don’t need to take turns choosing team captains based on demographics. We just need to make it absolutely clear that we will not tolerate discrimination. We only need to be certain that the “old white men’s club” is not deliberately keeping women and minorities out.
I’ve heard and read many times that the dearth of women and minorities in Congress and Big Business management is somehow the fault of old white men protecting their turf from these newcomers. I take issue with that. I believe, based on my many years of experience as an employer and/or as the human resources manager at companies, that the majority of applicants for higher level positions are white males. If there is one female applicant whose credentials are about the same as the ten men who are qualified, she doesn’t have to be better than all ten to have a fair shot, she just needs to be “as good.” Based on qualifications, if she ranks second out of ten, she should not automatically get preference over the man who ranks first. The same goes for race, age, religion, or sexual orientation.
Also, I have been discriminated against in the workplace based on my gender. My profession is Office Manager. In my job searches, I have found that about 90% of the people making those hiring decisions have been female, and that they almost always give the job to another female. Why? Because it has come to pass that clerical positions are the turf of women. Men without MBAs have to take labor jobs to survive. Since I’m mildly handicapped, labor is out of the question for me. Since I am in my late 50s, that doesn’t help either. But because I was the best applicant for my current job, I got it.
Having had the chance to analyze this close-up over the last few years, it became apparent to me that the women HR Managers were hiring other women for the clerical jobs for a variety of reasons. One reason would appear to be that they are protecting their own turf, being true to the sisterhood, and making sure that these typically-female positions are reserved for females. I discovered along the way, and this has been confirmed by several women, that the other primary reason I was denied employment in an office full of women is that they don’t want a heterosexual man in their midst, especially a man old enough to be their grandfather. It kills the feminine atmosphere. Suddenly they can no longer speak freely amongst themselves about the things “typical” women talk about. Please don’t make me spell that out!
The same applies to men. I work for a construction company, and until lately, there were no female employees. I was hired for the position of Office Manager, which had always previously been given to women. Recently, a woman was hired as Office Manager for another company my boss owns. He moved her office into our building. Suddenly, with the addition of a female in the office, the men all have to start watching their language, what they talk about, what they look at on their computers, and so on. They curse less. They no longer discuss female anatomy. It’s like having your mother move in with you!
I haven’t heard a fart in weeks!
The company I work for is all male, mostly white with a few Hispanics. Not one single woman has applied for a job there since I started. Only about three black men have applied, and none of them had any experience. It’s not a deliberate cabal, a secret conspiracy to keep women and minorities out. It’s just that the job is hard work, requiring a lot of upper body strength, and quite a bit of First Aid. The hands of our workers are like chewed rawhide. Most men we hire can’t handle it, so we have a lot of turnover. That probably explains why no women have applied. I don’t know why we have so few black applicants. But what are we supposed to do? Must we recruit a bunch of inexperienced women and minorities, and refuse to hire experienced white men? We’d go broke in a month!
I’m convinced of this: there would be more women and minorities in all branches of business and government if people of those demographics applied or campaigned in equal ratios to white men. Why do we have only a few female senators? How many have run for those offices? How many white men have also run for those offices? If white male candidates outnumber female or minority candidates at a ratio of 20:1, which group will capture the most seats? So my point is that I don’t buy the argument that women and minorities are being “locked out” of the process. It’s strictly a numbers game. And it’s obviously changing, fortunately.
So I ask this favor of the women: before going off about how sexist men are, I hope you will first think about all the wonderful men you know. Guys like me! And sometimes Larry. 
And before making comments that seem to imply that the only difference between men and women is whether our reproductive organs are inside or outside, please consider that most men were never trained to be compassionate nurturers, and most women were never trained to kill the enemy with their bare hands. There’s more than plumbing that separates us. There are hormones, how we were raised, and how our peers pressure us.
And of course there’s that bathroom thing! No doubt about it, there really is a huge difference between pointers and setters!
Thank God!
And I couldn’t resist stealing Gordie’s “hot” pic from Riverdaughter. I nearly went blind when I saw it. And speaking of “Patriotism,” there’s nothing like wearing the American flag over your old and shriveled age-induced low-hanging ball sac.
