On Gender Roles, The Proclamation, and USA Today

[Nofear]

58 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

but there is a definite movement by feminists, by no means all feminists, who believe rhey can improve the world by demasculinizing men.

Curiously, "gender-egalitarian" efforts might actually be leading to more dichotomous societies on the gender front.

" Gender differences in personality tend to be larger in gender-egalitarian societies than in gender-inegalitarian societies, a finding that contradicts social role theory but is consistent with evolutionary, attributional, and social comparison theories. " (Heterodox Academy: The Google Memo: What Does the Research Say About Gender Differences)

Edited September 2, 2017 by Nofear

[Buckeye]

I'm not sure what you (and the National Review) are driving at SMAC. In all the news about Harvey, I have seen zero articles decrying men who are helping. This post is pure strawman speculation.

As for complimentary gender roles, here's a few of my favorite pics from Harvey. Evidently you missed the memo, but lots of women were working in the water too. This is how my marriage works during disasters and, well, everyday. You can gnash your teeth all you want, but my wife and daughters open doors for others, carry stuff for others, walk through water for others, and do all kinds of "masculine" stuff. I guess its just their divine nature  - the same divine nature that I and my sons have. 

 

 

Edited September 2, 2017 by Buckeye

[california boy]

57 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

"I am sorry I can't save you from drowning.  I am only a woman.  And women don't rescue people that are drowning.  I know this to be from God because the Mormon church has assigned that gender role to me.  I can pray for you or offer you some Jello if you like.""

What church are tou talking about? The LDS Church? The one whose wonen helpes men across the plains? That church? 

1 Nephi 17

Yes, there are gender roles by the LDS Church. That stregthens women, not diminishes them. The point of this article is that men have come out in droves to rescue people in crisis. They did what men do, which is, as the article pointed out, to protect others despite risk they may take in doing so. They are filling their gender roles which does not in any bit diminish roles women have made in rescuing people. It only points out men being men. Please tell me what women have done so far as boating out snd physically bringing people to safety during these floods. You'll find many cases of women doing great things but this specific aspect of rescue was done primarily by men. That's insulting to who? Women were perfectly welcome to do the same but the overwhelming amount of people doing this were men. Please show me otherwise. 

"Who in their right mind believes this?  But making women out to be helpless saps is every bit as ignorant."

I think the overblown whistle blowing of a so called rape epidemic on college campuses is a perfect example of what the article is talking about:

https://www.city-journal.org/html/campus-rape-myth-13061.html

Not that rape doesn't happen, nor that it's serious when it does, but there is a definite movement by feminists, by no means all feminists, who believe rhey can improve the world by demasculinizing men. 

Everything from boys "playing with blocks" and army men is blamed for men being bad. 

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/12/toxic_masculinity_is_killing_men_the_roots_of_male_trauma_partner/

It's a destructive force in society and I was very glad to read sn article to counteract the feminist points of male toxicity. 

Then why is a thread about this kind of gender role appearing on this board and being supported by male members of the church.  

 

[thesometimesaint]

I'm a male member of the Church, and fully believe that anytime people excludes 50%+ of the population because of sex we limit ourselves as to what can be done.

[Gray]

As you might imagine, I follow all kinds of liberal sources. I've seen none of them criticize the rescuer in your picture in the least. Are you sure the National Review isn't using a straw man to rile you up against liberalism?

What a strange thing, to try to tie heroism to gender roles.

[Darren10]

59 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Good.

I just think that quotes like this...

...are not accurate and are just more divisive on this topic.  

My post was to point out that women could have been pictured just as these men were.  I'm not being critical that they weren't, just stating that women could have done these things too.

Women in general cannot do the same things as men. Not even close. Likewise, in general, men cannot do things women can do, not by a long shot. Neither are more important than the other. The article's point is that masculinity, things men clearly do better in general and do well in when "men act like men" is good for society. The article is focused on the relief efforts of men during the Houston floods. The type of rescuing demonstrated by the article was dong, overwhelmingly, by men. Nobody here has demonstrated otherwise.  I've asked you and California Boy to do so but you have not. This is a supporting fact to the article saying "men being men" is good.

"My post was to point out that women could have been pictured just as these men were.  I'm not being critical that they weren't, just stating that women could have done these things too."

Um, yes, you were being critical;. By critiquing an article you are, by definition, critical of it. The point of the article, again, was not to diminish the role of women but how valuable it is when men are men.

[Darren10]

50 minutes ago, california boy said:

Then why is a thread about this kind of gender role appearing on this board and being supported by male members of the church.  

 

Because it's muy macho and machismo is good. It is never good to dominate over a gender and this article is a counter point to the male gender being dominated over and has been for decades.

[Darren10]

59 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I'm not sure what you (and the National Review) are driving at SMAC. In all the news about Harvey, I have seen zero articles decrying men who are helping. This post is pure strawman speculation.

As for complimentary gender roles, here's a few of my favorite pics from Harvey. Evidently you missed the memo, but lots of women were working in the water too. This is how my marriage works during disasters and, well, everyday. You can gnash your teeth all you want, but my wife and daughters open doors for others, carry stuff for others, walk through water for others, and do all kinds of "masculine" stuff. I guess its just their divine nature  - the same divine nature that I and my sons have. 

 

 

"In all the news about Harvey, I have seen zero articles decrying men who are helping. " - It's not about critiquing males helping out during Harvey. It's about pointing out the social benefits of men being men during a crisis.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Curiously, "gender-egalitarian" efforts might actually be leading to more dichotomous societies on the gender front.

" Gender differences in personality tend to be larger in gender-egalitarian societies than in gender-inegalitarian societies, a finding that contradicts social role theory but is consistent with evolutionary, attributional, and social comparison theories. " (Heterodox Academy: The Google Memo: What Does the Research Say About Gender Differences)

Speak English.

[Buckeye]

1 minute ago, Darren10 said:

Women in general cannot do the same things as men. Not even close. Likewise, in general, men cannot do things women can do, not by a long shot. Neither are more important than the other. The article's point is that masculinity, things men clearly do better in general and do well in when "men act like men" is good for society. The article is focused on the relief efforts of men during the Houston floods. The type of rescuing demonstrated by the article was dong, overwhelmingly, by men. Nobody here has demonstrated otherwise.  I've asked you and California Boy to do so but you have not. This is a supporting fact to the article saying "men being men" is good.

"My post was to point out that women could have been pictured just as these men were.  I'm not being critical that they weren't, just stating that women could have done these things too."

Um, yes, you were being critical;. By critiquing an article you are, by definition, critical of it. The point of the article, again, was not to diminish the role of women but how valuable it is when men are men.

False. If you make a Venn diagram of all "things" men and women can do, the overlap is much much much greater than the non-overlap. The value of "men being men" is no greater than "women being men" or "men being women." To whit, my father is one of the best mothers I've ever met. Truly a compassionate and nurturing man. I aspire to be just as good a mother as he is. That's not to downplay how great a mother my mom is. She's just as good; and also just as good a father as is my dad. 

In the gospel sense of what really matters - i.e., taking on us the 'image of Christ' - there is no difference. The image of Christ is the same for all men and women. That's why there is no need for a female savior. Christ's gender is as unimportant to his 'image' as is his skin color, height, spoken language, hair style, blood type or any other physical characteristic. What matters are the characteristics spelled out in the beatitudes, D/C 121, and many other places in the scriptures. Those characteristics are equally available to all. 

[Buckeye]

21 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

"In all the news about Harvey, I have seen zero articles decrying men who are helping. " - It's not about critiquing males helping out during Harvey. It's about pointing out the social benefits of men being men during a crisis.

Wrong. The people who were rescued by men didn't care that they were "men being men." They cared that they were there to help. Women rescuers were viewed in the same light. 

Take a look at the first picture I posted above. Do you really think that Granny cared that the constable on her left was a while male or that the constable on her right was a hispanic female? C'mon.

Edited September 2, 2017 by Buckeye

[thesometimesaint]

While it is true that men and women are physically different.   It is a stretch to claim those physical differences make much of a difference.

[Buckeye]

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

While it is true that men and women are physically different.   It is a stretch to claim those physical differences make much of a difference.

Even physically speaking, men and women have much more in common than different. 

[JulieM]

17 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Women in general cannot do the same things as men. Not even close. 

Wow 

 

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Even physically speaking, men and women have much more in common than different. 

True. One without the other is incomplete.

[Nofear]

19 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Speak English.

I posted the Bay Watch trailer too! 😁

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Um, yes, you were being critical;. By critiquing an article you are, by definition, critical of it. 

You keep trying to disagree with something that I never stated.  I'm fine if you want to disagree with me regarding the thoughts that I actually posted (and maybe you just need to read my original post again?).  I actually said that I was "touched" by the pictures posted and I did not criticize them for not publishing an equal amount of pictures depicting women performing rescues.  My comments were referencing the topic here, not the news outlet or the actual pictures shown.

Either quote what I actually stated and comment on that, or move on....because you're not being accurate regarding my opinion.

Edited September 2, 2017 by ALarson

[Darren10]

20 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

False. If you make a Venn diagram of all "things" men and women can do, the overlap is much much much greater than the non-overlap. The value of "men being men" is no greater than "women being men" or "men being women." To whit, my father is one of the best mothers I've ever met. Truly a compassionate and nurturing man. I aspire to be just as good a mother as he is. That's not to downplay how great a mother my mom is. She's just as good; and also just as good a father as is my dad. 

In the gospel sense of what really matters - i.e., taking on us the 'image of Christ' - there is no difference. The image of Christ is the same for all men and women. That's why there is no need for a female savior. Christ's gender is as unimportant to his 'image' as is his skin color, height, spoken language, hair style, blood type or any other physical characteristic. What matters are the characteristics spelled out in the beatitudes, D/C 121, and many other places in the scriptures. Those characteristics are equally available to all. 

Certain women can do things men can, absolutely. Robert F. Smith's Zumba instructor is a perfect example of that. But compare her to male Zumba instructors just as dedicated to Zumba(ing) and I'd betchya that venn diagram would tilt towards contrasts more than comparisons.

"The value of "men being men" is no greater than "women being men" or "men being women." "

THANK YOU! Could you show me how men being men in the Houston floods excluded women, even in physically rescuing others? Could you show me where the Natonial Review article advocates any such thing? Their point is that "men being men" is good countering the barrage of portrayals as it being a grave social ill.

"To whit, my father is one of the best mothers I've ever met. Truly a compassionate and nurturing man."

Mine too. But compared to my mother? Nope. flip those roles and my mother was ne of the best fathers I've known. But, compared to my father? Nope. Of course you can find exceptions but in general men being men has enormous social benefits. And it's perfectly fine to say that without feeling obligated to equate that to "women being men" or "women being women".

"In the gospel sense of what really matters - i.e., taking on us the 'image of Christ' - there is no difference. The image of Christ is the same for all men and women."

Much truth to that but what other scripture or scriptures (besides D&C 121) do you base that on? And don't scriptures advocate gender roles? Does that not indicate that gender roles are not inherently demeaning between the genders?

"What matters are the characteristics spelled out in the beatitudes, D/C 121"

What specifically? To use the priesthood to serve? how are the men in the National Review article not serving? How is that article suggesting that women aren't serving either?

[Darren10]

15 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I posted the Bay Watch trailer too! 😁

Good. I miss seeing David Hasselhoff in action.  

[BlueDreams]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

We are living in strange times.  Times when gender roles are not merely being questioned, they are being cast as the devil's work.  In the LDS context, we are excoriated for having the nerve to maintain and advance the notion of complementary gender roles in The Family: A Proclamation to the World.

And then . . . Hurricane Harvey hit Texas.  And this picture went viral:

This is a wonderful image.

And now I am coming across online articles that are discussing the goings-on in Texas and dare to broach the thoughtcrime of . . . praising gender roles.

From National Review:

"It is this aspect of manhood for which men are never given credit by those deconstructionists in the culture and in academia who view masculinity as an obstacle to their agenda. Misandrist activists and intellectuals never acknowledge that there are positive aspects to masculine strength or that women want traditionally masculine men."

I wish I could write like that.

And this from USA Today:

"The picture however, is a reminder of the reality that men and women are different, and that those differences can serve society for the better."

I wish I could write like that.

And I wish that we did not have to write such self-evident truths in 2017.

What a great reminder these photos and the above articles are.

We are not alone.  Many other people in the world feel as we do about the amazing / differing /complementary strengths that men provide to women, and women to men, and men and women to children.  I only wish we could remind ourselves of these things as a matter of course, without the prodding and prompting brought about by natural disasters.

So this evening I express gratitude for the amazing men and women who are working to help others in Texas.  I am grateful for the respective strengths and skills both genders are bringing to bear.  I am also grateful that men, so regularly maligned as Homer Simpson-like idiots and worse, are being recognized for . . . being men.  For utilizing their physical strength and protective instincts to literally save lives.

The Proclamation is not the source of these axiomatic truths about the complementary gender roles God has set for us.

Reality, most recently manifested in the form of Hurricane Harvey, is.

Thanks,

-Smac

I would be lying if I didn't say I found this frustrating. 

I went home to Texas 2 christmases ago right after a tornado touched down only 20 or 30 miles away from us. The local wards got together to do clean up of debris through the helping hands. I volunteered with my 2 teen brothers. Only the quorums of men/young men had been formally invited to go. So I was one of the few women there, with some sister missionaries and a spattering of other women. No one stopped me from going of course. But no one had gone and asked the young women or RS groups to attend. I will readily admit that most men in good shape are stronger than me. I'm a measly 114 and 5'5" in height. I'm tiny. But I'm also not weak. I climb mountains almost weekly, I've back hoed and shoveled and lifted bags of dirt and compost. Picking up debris around farms was not out of the question. There are inherent differences physiologically between men and women. But some of the reason that the majority of those pictures are men are also how we reinforce and socialize around these differences. This dialogue ignores that those who own civilian boats are likely to be men or that men are enabled and encourage (particularly in areas like TX) to go for big physical acts of rescue while women are not. It also ignores pictures like these: 

     

 

 

I am not saying that the efforts weren't male dominated. They were. But that's more complicated than men's urge to protect. I also have an urge to go out and do when something goes wrong. I like working with my hands and straining with my body. My urge just wasn't as readily encouraged. Ironically my brothers are often a little less inclined...but they're the ones who are called on first.

As for the national review and the sarcastic jokes referenced, those also frustrate me. It's flippant about the real problems around how we're socializing both men and women that can be extremely problematic and dangerous.  This is from the same outlet that denies an existence of rape culture while I and people like me have to work to heal those suffering from its destructive effects. It's irritating to play unfair depictions of men by pointing to one or 2 examples that are comedies anyways...when in the last couple of days my TV viewing has entailed several shows with very obvious strongman stereotypes and other diverse roles with more complex male portrayal being far more common (several superhero shows, a couple of scifis, etc). Heck, even my comedies run a variety of men...though everybody in comedies are meant to be hyperbolic characters....even in The Simpsons...you have homer, sure. But you also have Ned, the reverand, Mr. Burns, Dr. Hibbert, etc....as other male portrayals. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

I don't think the OP is trying to make women "out to be helpless saps", but I do think that women could have been pictured doing the same things as these men were doing (especially trained firefighters or police who are women, women who are military/ex-military and many others).  Women also have "protective instincts" and I'd imagine that there were women involved in rescues as well as these men.  I am touched by the pictures above and would be just as touched if it were women carrying children on their hips or helping just as these men were doing.  It's not a male/female thing, IMO, but these are human emotions and desires to help, protect and rescue someone in trouble.

 

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

True.

Why?  I never stated anything in disagreement (that what was depicted in the National Review were pictures of men doing the rescuing). 

 

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I didn't mention the "National Review" in the comment I made (from the title of the thread, I thought the pictures were actually in USA Today).  

I simply stated:

Do you disagree?

 

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Good.

I just think that quotes like this...

...are not accurate and are just more divisive on this topic.  

My post was to point out that women could have been pictured just as these men were.  I'm not being critical that they weren't, just stating that women could have done these things too.

 

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I think we agree, california boy (just not about the use of the term "helpless saps"....although it came close to using that ).  Overall, this article states many things I don't agree with and I already expressed my opinion regarding it.

 

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You keep trying to disagree with something that I never stated.  I'm fine if you want to disagree with me regarding the thoughts that I actually posted (and maybe you just need to read my original post again?).  I actually said that I was "touched" by the pictures posted and I did not criticize them for not publishing an equal amount of pictures depicting women performing rescues.  My comments were referencing the topic here, not the news outlet or the actual pictures shown.

Either quote what I actually stated and comment on that, or move on....because you're not being accurate regarding my opinion.

There's everything you posted.

"I don't think the OP is trying to make women "out to be helpless saps", but I do think that women could have been pictured doing the same things as these men were doing (especially trained firefighters or police who are women, women who are military/ex-military and many others)." - The last two pictures are from the National Review article are they not?

"I didn't mention the "National Review" in the comment I made (from the title of the thread, I thought the pictures were actually in USA Today)." - The first two are.

[Darren10]

2 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I would be lying if I didn't say I found this frustrating. 

I went home to Texas 2 christmases ago right after a tornado touched down only 20 or 30 miles away from us. The local wards got together to do clean up of debris through the helping hands. I volunteered with my 2 teen brothers. Only the quorums of men/young men had been formally invited to go. So I was one of the few women there, with some sister missionaries and a spattering of other women. No one stopped me from going of course. But no one had gone and asked the young women or RS groups to attend. I will readily admit that most men in good shape are stronger than me. I'm a measly 114 and 5'5" in height. I'm tiny. But I'm also not weak. I climb mountains almost weekly, I've back hoed and shoveled and lifted bags of dirt and compost. Picking up debris around farms was not out of the question. There are inherent differences physiologically between men and women. But some of the reason that the majority of those pictures are men are also how we reinforce and socialize around these differences. This dialogue ignores that those who own civilian boats are likely to be men or that men are enabled and encourage (particularly in areas like TX) to go for big physical acts of rescue while women are not. It also ignores pictures like these: 

     

 

 

I am not saying that the efforts weren't male dominated. They were. But that's more complicated than men's urge to protect. I also have an urge to go out and do when something goes wrong. I like working with my hands and straining with my body. My urge just wasn't as readily encouraged. Ironically my brothers are often a little less inclined...but they're the ones who are called on first.

As for the national review and the sarcastic jokes referenced, those also frustrate me. It's flippant about the real problems around how we're socializing both men and women that can be extremely problematic and dangerous.  This is from the same outlet that denies an existence of rape culture while I and people like me have to work to heal those suffering from its destructive effects. It's irritating to play unfair depictions of men by pointing to one or 2 examples that are comedies anyways...when in the last couple of days my TV viewing has entailed several shows with very obvious strongman stereotypes and other diverse roles with more complex male portrayal being far more common (several superhero shows, a couple of scifis, etc). Heck, even my comedies run a variety of men...though everybody in comedies are meant to be hyperbolic characters....even in The Simpsons...you have homer, sure. But you also have Ned, the reverand, Mr. Burns, Dr. Hibbert, etc....as other male portrayals. 

 

With luv,

BD

Sorry the young women were not invited. That could have been done better.

"I am not saying that the efforts weren't male dominated. They were."

Thank you! Now, that's a social good, is it not? In and of itself. Not automatically trying to equate it with women or feeling obliged to jump in and say, "hey, women are important too!", nobody is saying they are not. But, in and of itself, when men get together and act like men and go out in the mist of danger and use their physical strength to rescue people, that is good. These are men being men and that the result is good.

I think that that is all the article is saying with the intent to refute the constant barrage of pain and suffering caused by men dominating society.

NOTE: Of course there has been suffering due to male dominance but the social message today, from many sources, is that masculinity, males dominating, is the bane of great suffering and that masculinity, male dominance, is naturally bad.

"This is from the same outlet that denies an existence of rape culture while I and people like me have to work to heal those suffering from its destructive effects." - Bless you for your efforts. If you want to touch on this, we can but that'll derail the topic at hand. That is that when men are men society does well.

[Buckeye]

8 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Certain women can do things men can, absolutely. Robert F. Smith's Zumba instructor is a perfect example of that. But compare her to male Zumba instructors just as dedicated to Zumba(ing) and I'd betchya that venn diagram would tilt towards contrasts more than comparisons.

"The value of "men being men" is no greater than "women being men" or "men being women." "

THANK YOU! Could you show me how men being men in the Houston floods excluded women, even in physically rescuing others? Could you show me where the Natonial Review article advocates any such thing? Their point is that "men being men" is good countering the barrage of portrayals as it being a grave social ill.

"To whit, my father is one of the best mothers I've ever met. Truly a compassionate and nurturing man."

Mine too. But compared to my mother? Nope. flip those roles and my mother was ne of the best fathers I've known. But, compared to my father? Nope. Of course you can find exceptions but in general men being men has enormous social benefits. And it's perfectly fine to say that without feeling obligated to equate that to "women being men" or "women being women".

"In the gospel sense of what really matters - i.e., taking on us the 'image of Christ' - there is no difference. The image of Christ is the same for all men and women."

Much truth to that but what other scripture or scriptures (besides D&C 121) do you base that on? And don't scriptures advocate gender roles? Does that not indicate that gender roles are not inherently demeaning between the genders?

"What matters are the characteristics spelled out in the beatitudes, D/C 121"

What specifically? To use the priesthood to serve? how are the men in the National Review article not serving? How is that article suggesting that women aren't serving either?

The NR article is correct to praise these good men. The article errs in speculating that unnamed people or media will criticize the press coverage for not depicting equal numbers of women rescuers. There's simply no evidence of that. And the burden is on NR (and you) to show an example. 

I have no problem if your dad was a better father than your mother and vice versa. Only you can speak to that. But when you generalize about all men and women your conclusions become unsound.

As for the scriptures, there are many teaching the principle that both genders are of equal value (e.g., Gen 1:27; 2 Ne. 26:33). There are some specific verses in the N.T. that define roles such as 1 Timothy 2:12 ("I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.") or Colossians 3:18 ("Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.") but the LDS church does not apply those teachings today; most members view them as Paul's cultural view rather than a commandment from God. 

If you really want to fruitfully discuss differences between the genders, you're going to have to make the first move and be specific as to what the differences are.

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

There's everything you posted.

"I don't think the OP is trying to make women "out to be helpless saps", but I do think that women could have been pictured doing the same things as these men were doing (especially trained firefighters or police who are women, women who are military/ex-military and many others)." - The last two pictures are from the National Review article are they not?

"I didn't mention the "National Review" in the comment I made (from the title of the thread, I thought the pictures were actually in USA Today)." - The first two are.

Ok.  I honestly don't care about that and it was not mentioned in my original post (who it was that posted the pictures, only that I was touched by them).

You know what, Darren?  You're really making no sense now.  

I absolutely did not criticize the pictures in the OP, nor did I criticize the news outlet for not publishing pictures of women performing rescues.  I stated that these pictures could have been of women and that women could have done the things shown in the pictures.  I would have been just as touched either way.  I stated that the emotions that one feels to help and protect are human.  This not a male/female issue and it's divisive to continue trying to do that. Others have now posted pictures of women involved in the rescue proving the exact point I was making.

 

 

Edited September 2, 2017 by ALarson

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Wow 

 

I'm fat and asthmatic and so I'm sure you could do far more things than I. But back in high school I rode my bike or walked everywhere, played baseball and soccer, and on my mission I walked constantly up and down hills as there were cars only for the Mission President and the APs and typically a missionary could not afford to take the bus all the time.

My primary achievement was long distance running. I'd run on the indoor track after school almost everyday. It calmed my mind which allowed me to organize my life from day to day. I was never good at sprinting but long distance I thoroughly enjoyed. I was also really good at it. It was not uncommon to start running with others only to later find them later all packed up and ready to go as I still ran. Nobody I knew could keep up with me in terms of long distance running. Nobody, that is, except a young woman from my ward. She and I never ran together but we would always compare stats and we'd always try to prove to the other that we were the best. No doubt you can find women doing the same thing as men but I phrased my claim "in general". I do not think there's any doubt that, in general, women cannot do that same as men, and vice versa. And I stick to that claim. It does not mean one is "better" than the other. Smac is not saying that, neither is National Review. Just that capabilities and "roles" if you will, are different. That when men in particular act like men, society benefits; not suffer from it.

Edited September 2, 2017 by Darren10