2008 Woodie Awards
Student challenges sexism
Arthur Takahashi
Issue date: 10/10/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
I was reading the last issue of The Johnsonian and came across a column entitled "Battle of the Sexes."
The story discussed a new group on Facebook entitled "A woman's place is in the kitchen, not the Oval Office." For reference, the description of the group is: "For those who are against Hillary and any other woman who think they can take on the job of Commander in Chief. Men don't do all things better, but this they do."
For the columnist's disgust, and mine too, a woman created the group.
After reading the critique, I was really annoyed and decided to add to and support comment.
So here I am.
I'll let philosophy and history explain and sustain my point.
The French philosopher Charles Fourier once proclaimed that when women are emancipated in society, the society as a whole is emancipated. I believe this is true because women are better administrators than men, so when they assume important managing positions in society, they improve it.
If you ask me why, I can answer it in two ways:
Considering the Darwinist point of view, women have been in charge of childcare throughout history - especially in pre-historical periods when people didn't know men had a role in conception. Therefore, women who weren't able to look after their children and guarantee their protection didn't leave descendents; thus, natural selection chose women who had the ability to manage their own lives and their children's lives.
Considering the Lamarckism point of view, because young women play with dolls and pretend that these toys are real babies; they act like moms and look after their "children." As a result, since childhood women are able to develop an ability to manage their lives and their dolls' lives collaboratively.
Therefore, women are better administrators than men and would be better as commanders in chief, considering either evolution or the law of use and disuse.
In addition, for those who still agree with the group on Facebook and don't prefer my reasoning, I want you to think about some questions.
The story discussed a new group on Facebook entitled "A woman's place is in the kitchen, not the Oval Office." For reference, the description of the group is: "For those who are against Hillary and any other woman who think they can take on the job of Commander in Chief. Men don't do all things better, but this they do."
For the columnist's disgust, and mine too, a woman created the group.
After reading the critique, I was really annoyed and decided to add to and support comment.
So here I am.
I'll let philosophy and history explain and sustain my point.
The French philosopher Charles Fourier once proclaimed that when women are emancipated in society, the society as a whole is emancipated. I believe this is true because women are better administrators than men, so when they assume important managing positions in society, they improve it.
If you ask me why, I can answer it in two ways:
Considering the Darwinist point of view, women have been in charge of childcare throughout history - especially in pre-historical periods when people didn't know men had a role in conception. Therefore, women who weren't able to look after their children and guarantee their protection didn't leave descendents; thus, natural selection chose women who had the ability to manage their own lives and their children's lives.
Considering the Lamarckism point of view, because young women play with dolls and pretend that these toys are real babies; they act like moms and look after their "children." As a result, since childhood women are able to develop an ability to manage their lives and their dolls' lives collaboratively.
Therefore, women are better administrators than men and would be better as commanders in chief, considering either evolution or the law of use and disuse.
In addition, for those who still agree with the group on Facebook and don't prefer my reasoning, I want you to think about some questions.
Be the first to comment on this story