Is Everything a Cause for "the Experts" to Worry?
So, a study shows that girls play less energetically than boys. Big whup and, as they say, vive la difference. But some find even this innocuous information a cause for hand wringing. From the story:
Girls tend to play less energetically than boys, because they are more interested in chatting, a new study shows. Researchers found the girls spent six per cent less time in vigorous physical activity than the boys Even at the age of 10, girls are more likely to stand around gossiping than playing games or sports like their male classmates, the research found.And here's the kicker:
Researchers warn that the trends last a lifetime and could lead to obesity.Please. But, don't worry "experts:" the men catch up by drinking more beer. And I am sure you are all worried about that, too.
Labels: "The Experts." Hand Wringing.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 5:49 PM
11 Comments
11 Comments:
That's hilarious. If it weren't so creepy. And the reference to "even at the age of ten." Who ever knew girls to get _more_ active and athletic as they got older? I mean, that's silly. Five-year-old girls are much more inclined to run around like maniacs than ten-year-olds. So that's a dumb sentence.
Chatty ten-year-old girls. Horrors. What's the world coming to.
If researchers are really worried that girls play less energetically than boys, I'm going to venture out and say this concern is sexist. It may be unconscious sexism and an inherent degradation of women. That's because it measures women by men. It says women need to be like men to be equal. They are worried little girls aren't measureing up to boys. Why aren't they worried that boys aren't as chatty and as good at socializing as girls? Some may want to make us men more like women and feminize us, but at the end of the day women don't like us that way, and I doubt that there are as many concerns about men not measuring up to women.
This is what happens when we consider humans "exceptional" and feel entitled to experiment on animals etc. because we feel "entitled" to the benefits of "science." Once they are authorized to to do the indecent, there ends up being nothing scientists won't intrude on. No one holds them to logic or good sense, let alone ethics. They've got good gigs and make work in order to keep them. The effect on society isn't worth the "benefits" their "science" brings, and that won't change until we get them under control and they lose their arrogance and are no longer allowed to do the indecent. "Human exceptionalism"s assumption of entitlement is a form of hedonism, as is this "scientific" claptrap that is part of what it is unwilling to rein in, of which this example of the insanity of the death culture is another facet.
The more of this nonsense there is, the more benign "science" (one could call this "nanny science" like nanny government, which is yet another aspect of the death culture) seems to us, and the more distracted from and blinded to the agenda of the death culture we are.
Lanthe -
I'm sick as a dog so let me make this short.
If people are exceptional, then we all have absolute worth, and therefore, nobody should worry about gender differences.
If people are not exceptional, then might makes right, and the only way a girl is "acceptable" is if she measures up to a boy's standards, because boys are stronger and more aggressive, and therefore have all the advantages, just as a lioness has the advantage over a zebra. Survival of the fittest and all that.
If we're equally special, we have both an obligation to treat other humans as special, and to treat everything else on earth humaney.
If we're not special, anything goes according to the wisdom of anybody who has more power; in this case, it's the scientists who wrote the article.
Having coached co-ed teams in soccer for 11+ years and watched the development of a large group of kids, I've found there to be both biological social imperative that tends to separate boys and girls, even when they're of equal ability.
They're fairly similar up to age 11 or so, and then as I like to say, the "Testosterone Fairy" comes a-callin' and it becomes difficult for girls to compete physically with the boys.
Even before that the girls seem to have a much stronger social component; they want to be on a team with their best friends, while boys tend to want to be on the team that wins the most.
I've read some bits by Anson Dorrance, Mia Hamm's soccer coach at North Carolina, who built dynasties there that eventually led to our outstanding women's Olympic and World Cup teams. The key item there was instead of fighting the social dynamics, he embraced them and used them as motivators. Anyone wanting to get girls more active would do well to follow his example.
T.E. The "might makes right" line of reasoning is one reason why I oppose experimentation on non-human animals. The scientists assume they have more power because we allow them to do what anyone else would be arrested for, and because we regard them as smarter than everyone else. It's our fault for not keeping them in their place, and theirs for not knowing what it is, but then, we don't tell them and they haven't the sense or humility to figure it out for themselves. If things weren't set up so that they can "tell" us of their "great discoveries" as if common sense didn't matter, we'd be better off.
Women have superior capabilities in so many areas (I'm not talking about reproduction here) that I think it's nice that the guys have a couple of things at which they're better than we are, like upper-body strength. I don't see why people don't simply give each gender and each person their due and leave it at that.
Lanthe -
I don't oppose humans experimenting on animals for the same reason I don't oppose using human corpses for scientific purposes. We have to learn somehow. But you and I both agree that might does NOT make right. I think our agreements outweigh our disagreements.
Each gender is *supposed* to be differnet. We're complimentary. Girls and boys excel at different things because put together, we make a wonderful population full of charming differences. It boggles my mind how much reverse sexism there is these days, you know? When a feminist like Alanis Morissette has to write a song about how anti-male sentiment is getting out of control, you know there's a problem in our society.
(The song I'm referring to is "A Man" on her "Under Rug Swept" album. Made me feel very annoyed on behalf of men because I know a few who had to go through all kinds of hell at the hands of their girlfriends, just because of their gender.)
There are plenty of idiots, male and female. But researchers don't focus on that aspect of humanity because then they'd have to be putting the spotlight on themselves.
Where did that idiotic anti-male sentiment come from, anyway? Men seem to be on the ropes -- joining groups "to try to learn how to be better men," for example.
T.E. There is an important difference between using human corpses and non-human animals: The animals are still alive, and feel pain and distress.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home