Please read this
article from the Washington Post. I usually don't read the Washington Post. I am much more a Cosmo or Better Homes and Garden girl, but I went all smart today and decided to read this. I MUST know your thoughts. Please, oh
purty purty please, comment.
6 comments:
Oh heck no, I say that author needs to "go around the block" more.
Oh heck no, I say that author needs to "go around the block" more.
Hmm...I agree with her assessment of how women can be embarrassing at points because they choose to allow emotions to take over. I can't believe that a woman would faint at the sight of Obama. Get a grip, I say. As for Hillary, that woman needed to get a grip on her emotions and play the game like the boys do. She let her emotional side take over and now many people wonder if she truly has what it takes to run the country.
I don't agree with us just giving in to those "inadequacies" as the author calls them. We, as women, certainly do have more aptitude for caring for children and making a home - HOWEVER - that doesn't mean that we can't be the hunter if needed. If we allow ourselves to be ruled by the perception of how women behave and react, we'll never overcome the obstacles that society places in front of us.
:-) Nice article...really gets you thinking.
"A study published in 1998 by the Johns Hopkins schools of medicine and public health revealed that women clocked 5.7 auto accidents per million miles driven, in contrast to men's 5.1, though men drive about 74 percent more miles a year than women."
I agree - she's not good at math - if she quotes a percentage, she doesn't need to review the total mileage for each set of drivers.
It is a rather interesting article. I felt like the broad trend of the article was the author pointing out that woman aren't doing things the "right" way. But traditionally the "right" way has had its standard set by men through the years.
Are women going to be better at acting like men than men are? Probably not. That certainly doesn't mean that the way women handle things is fundamentally incorrect.
Hi there, by the way. I love reading your blog but don't think I've ever gotten around to commenting! :)
I don't think being the more emotional/feeling of the two sexes precludes our ability to be successful and get the job done. Crying (or swooning or dreaming) doesn't mean you're weak...It means you allow yourself to feel and express your emotions (and desires and hopes).
We're uncomfortable with it only because we've let men (and women like this author) decide that only "manly" qualities (such as stoicism) are desirable. I don't buy it.
I'm not a swooner, but I don't care if someone else is. And I admire that these people permit themselves to feel inspired, hopeful, impressed, etc. What in Lord's name could be wrong with that? Except that it might be embarrassing for those women who really just want us all to be men.
I like your blog, by the way. From one country girl to another, Jackie
Post a Comment