September 2005 Notebook Entries

Notebook entry, September 20, 2005

Two interesting articles appeared today in the online edition of The New York Times. 1) Natalie Angrier, "Almost Before We Spoke, We Swore," the well-respected science writer expands her horizon to include evolutionary perspectives and linguistics. "Yet researchers who study the evolution of language and the psychology of swearing a human universal. Every language, dialect or patois ever studied, living or dead, spoken by millions or by a small tribe, turns out to have its share of forbidden speech, some variant on comedian George Carline's famous list of the seven dirty words that are not supposed to be uttered on radio or television."

And to feminists who thought they knew everything: "...The title "Much Ado About Nothing," a word play on "Much Ado About an O Thing," the O thing being a reference to female genitalia."

The second article: by Lou side Story, "Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Career Path to Motherhood. " Once again, the biological imperative of reproduction raises its ugly head to ask the question that Hollywood has always erected as a crisis point in their plots when they attempt to attract female viewers: "career or motherhood." [A Woman's View: How Hollywood Spoke to Women 1930- 1960, by Jeanne Basinger]

"My mother's always told me you can't be the best career woman and the best mother at the same time," Ms. Liu said matter-or-factly. "You always have to choose one over the other."

"At Yale and other top colleges, women are being groomed to take their place in an ever more diverse professional elite. It is almost taken for granted that, just as they make up half the students at these institutions, they will move into leadership roles on an equal basis with their male classmates." "There is just one problem with this scenario: many of these women say that is not what they want."

So, once again, as a statement to any evolutionary feminists that may be reading the above words: The location of the female on the hierarchical position is equal to the commitment of support that the female knows that she will receive. If the biological force is for the female to give the "best" to her children, then these elite females will do just that. What is missing from the new consciousness: is that the upward movement of resources to the wealthy (or those who can afford to go to Yale, Harvard, etc, comes at the expense of those below these elite women in the hierarchy. When the female consciousness understands this as a whole gender self-awareness, then the female will understand that helping the female below them to establish child-support systems without the assistance of the male, is really helping the whole species. Diversity is the key, not exclusion.

If the female wants equality, then the female (with the support of understanding males) needs to narrow the gap between resource-rich females and resrouce-poor females. Male dominance is not the sole problem; it is being held up with the support of the female who gets the most advantage.