No, probably not, but that didn't stop
her from asking a stupid question in the form of her CNN article
“Are men stupid”.
Ghitis opens her article with a
repetition of the title's rhetorical question: “Are men stupid?
How else can we explain the endless parade of otherwise successful
individuals, who by all appearances seem intelligent and competent,
and yet risk destroying their careers and their personal lives over
the chance to have a sexual escapade?”
The attendant question, how else can
we explain the parade of successful, intelligent men who risk
personal destruction by exposure of their sex lives; has a very
obvious explanation. But to understand this requires recognition of
a basic element of modern social identity. Women are the arbiters of
what is publicly agreed constitutes a “good man”. Borrowing from
Ghitis's rhetorical stylings, let's ask ourselves, how else can we
explain men's willingness throughout history to die in the protection
of women. Well, maybe men are stupid after all, maybe, but let's
continue. Add to the fact that masculine social identity depends on
feminine approval, the further fact that men, like other human beings
are sexual creatures with both biologically driven sexual needs, as
well as socially driven sexual needs – and most of them, being
adults, are going to find ways to satisfy those sexual needs.
This probably seems tediously obvious
to some readers, but seeing all the dots and actually connecting them
is, apparently, difficult for some individuals. I apologize for the
possible insult to readers in presentation of such rudimentary
didactic. Frida Ghitis is invited to re-read this as many times as
necessary, but there won't be a formal quiz.
The fact that powerful, male, high
profile leaders of industry are regularly ruined by public exposure
of sexual misadventure tells exactly nothing about male stupidity. Of
course they have sex, thats what people do. People with vaginas and
penises have sex. Those who are rich and powerful have more access to
sex than those who are poor and powerless. What's revealing is that
men, when outed in their sexual pursuits are publicly chewed up, spat
out and destroyed. When Dominique Strauss Kahn shagged a hotel maid (
if we accept that part of the story ) the entire world lost it's
collective shit because this was a rich powerful man expressing his
sexuality in a way that didn't conform to woman-approved male
sexuality. Kahn's wife was surely never so stupid that she imagined
the head of the IMF didn't pursue some strange on the side, but DSK
going off the reservation of the socially approved sexual trade union
meant he had to be destroyed.
Intelligent, successful, powerful men
with a lot to lose being regularly demolished when their sex lives
become public doesn't indicate men's stupidity, it indicates the
power of female-defined male social identity. Frida Ghitis's CNN
article might have been a better article if the thesis had been “Are
Women Jealous Tyrants”.
Ghitis's exposition of apparent male
stupidity is frustratingly short on substance, but manages to list
athletes, politicians, bankers and other public figures in an attempt
to equate pursuit of off-brand poon to mental malfunction. The only
real stupidity in the presented narrative being the antiquated and
obsolete notion that men, whether they are rich and powerful or not
should continue to defer to a collectivist puritanical feminine
judgement of where when and with whom it is allowable for men to seek
consensual sex with other similarly inclined adults.
Is Frida Ghitis a judgmental, puritan
scold with an inadequate grasp of human nature and a condemning
hatred of any male sexuality which doesn't directly profit women?
Yep, apparently she is.
Frigiditis: noun
1] A mental disorder characterized by systematized delusions and sexual disfunction whereby healthy sexuality expressed in high visibility individuals including public figures becomes a focus for social condemnation. This is a socially corrosive mental pathology which in low mental function observers can be contagious. Outbreaks of frigiditis have been observed in correlation with high levels of societal misery and absence of individual happiness in community members.
The elephant in the room whenever this matter comes up is that men's sex drives are far stronger & more constant than (most) womens. The average man has between 20 & 100 times more testosterone - the hormone that governs sexual desire - than women. Men also are biologically designed to want to be with as many sexual partners as they can, in order to ensure reproduction, whereas women need only to mate once to be sure of the same.
ReplyDeleteThis leads to a marked imbalance just in the way men & women naturally approach mating that is as obvious now as it has been throughout all human history & yet we live in times in which to openly address that is considered politically incorrect & so taboo. The refusal to acknowledge any innate difference between the make-up & drives of the sexes inevitably leads to harsher societal judgement on natural male behaviours which, seen from a gynocentric position, seem aberrant.
What is wrong is not men or men's sexuality, but rather the lens through which we as a society presently look at them.