Men Chat

Women are worse drivers than men

2005-08-04T22:13:41+02:00

This title will come as no surprise to those who have followed driving accident statistics over the years. However, it will surprise those who take heed of television and magazine adverts by the likes of Admiral Insurance who say they charge women smaller premiums than men because they have fewer accidents. Quite a lot of women have been taken in by this scam. Admiral indeed charge women less than men, but if women shop around they will find that other insurance companies (most of them) who charge men less than women, will offer women a much smaller premium than Admiral will.

I remember reading a report on this subject some six or seven years ago which clearly showed that FOR EVERY MILLION MILES DRIVEN women have 18 percent more accidents than men. This is the only fair way to make a comparison of course as women do not drive anywhere near the miles that men do each day; if you do not go out in a car very often your chances of having an accident are fairly small.

The recent press release by the John Hopkins School of Public Health has also come to the same conclusion that women are worse drivers than men. I quote some of the findings of the report below.

What amused me was their attitude in disclosing this fact about female drivers. They bend over backwards to minimise their findings. The title is a masterpiece of contorted understatement:
"Women are not necessarily better drivers than men". For an attempt to mislead the reader, this title will take some beating. If, after the last test match when England were roundly beaten by Australia, a newspaper had reported the match under the heading "England are not necessarily a better team than Australia", I think there would have been a few complaints from "down under".

Another source which I found rather humorous was a report on the web which stated:
"Although men are three times more likely than women to be killed in car crashes, researchers at the Johns Hopkins Schools of Medicine and Public Health have found that, when the total numbers of crashes are considered, female drivers are involved in slightly more crashes than men. Overall, men were involved in 5.1 crashes per million miles driven compared to 5.7 crashes for women, despite the fact that on average they drove 74 percent more miles per year than did women.

"Slightly" more car crashes? Do you consider 12percent to be "Slight"? I think if the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was going to make a slight increase in income tax rates and then made an increase of 12 percent, every tax payer would disagree with his euphemism.

The report does eventually disclose the facts about driving accidents and, if you dig them them out of the camouflage, it is clear that the hoary old myth that "women are better drivers than men" is just a myth and nothing more.

Comments

For feminism the end is nigh; that means hope for boys.

2005-07-20T00:45:25+02:00

I wrote several weeks ago about Lawrence Summers, President of Havard, speaking the unvarnished truth about women being inadequate in the area of mathematics. He pointed out, quite truthfully, that it was not only ‘gender’ which accounted for the differing aptitiudes of men and women in society.

The constitution of the National Women’s Studies Association states:

“Women’s Studies . . . is equipping women to transform the world to one that will be free of all oppression . . . a force which furthers the realization of feminist aims.”

The truth of the matter is, of course, that this academic bunch wanted to arrange an androgynous society but with women in charge, so Summers’ comments scuttled their whole idea - hence his unpopularity amongst the feminazi generally.

There is one big problem that these idealists overlook and which is impossible to overcome: it’s women who bear children and who do the mothering. And mothers treat boys and girls differently thus producing girls who want to be mothers and boys who want to be independent.

It’s not that the “feminist system” has never been tried. The Jewish Kibbutz system treated men and women equally. Children were brought up by the state and women were required to work like men and to fight in the armed services. Boys and girls wore the same clothes and played with the same toys. But the system collapsed within a generation and is now abandoned as a failure.

One of the main reasons for its collapse is that the women wanted to be mothers and to look after their kids but were only allowed to do so for two hours a day. As one mother said: “Is it right to make the child return for the night to the children’s home, to say goodnight to it and send it back to sleep among the fifteen or twenty others? This parting from the child before sleep is so unjust!”

Stanley Kurtz in his article: “Can we make boys and girls alike?” sums up the present situation brilliantly when he says:

“True, the last 40 years have seen tremendous changes in the social roles of men and women—changes that could never have happened were there not significant flexibility in gender roles. From the standpoint of feminism’s ideal of androgyny, though, the shift is still very partial. Until the link between women and child rearing completely breaks down, neither corporate boardrooms nor Harvard professorships of mathematics will see numerical parity between men and women. In the meantime, in disproportionate numbers, at critical points in their careers, women will continue to choose mothering over professional work.

“From either a biological or cultural point of view, then, the feminist project of androgyny is ultimately doomed. But that doesn’t mean that it can’t do harm in the meantime. In America, many boys are slipping behind in school; their sisters are significantly more likely to go on to college. Yet thanks largely to the influence of academic feminists, legal and educational resources still flow disproportionately to supposedly victimized girls. In the end, gender won’t disappear, whatever the mavens of women’s studies hope, but the careers of some bright young men probably will.”

It is urgent therefore that the tyranny of female teachers, trying to teach boys how to grow up to be men, is ended. Teaching is a convenient career for women, even mothers, as the hours usually coincide with their own children being in school. For a man, teaching is not so convenient as the pay is not great and he can usually do much better in business. Hence, the prospect faces society that in order to be fair to boys, men might have to be paid more. Female teachers shy away from the ‘solid’ subjects, like maths and science, and many science departments are closing down for lack of teachers to staff them. A good start clould therefore be made by paying extra salaries to science and maths teachers. As these will almost be invariably men, it will kill two birds with one stone by getting men into the classroom and making more science and maths teachers available.

As feminism is now reaching its last gasp, politicians will soon realise that they have nothing to fear in the way of losing votes, except from a small minority of feminatrics who do not have long to hold sway either in academia or in society in general.

Tony Blair’s policy of appointing cabinet members because they possess a vagina has so obviously failed that the new generation of politicians will surely abandon this failed policy in favour of a realistic approach to appointing those with ability regardless of their sex.

Comments

Should female players at Wimbledon be paid less?

2005-07-03T17:52:23+02:00

It seems to happen every year during the Wimbledon tennis championships; some feminist-inspired female player will make the demand that women be paid the same prize money as the men. To me this sounds like bare-faced cheek! It had been said that at Wimbledon the women provide the glamour and the men provide the tennis.

I think that's it in a nutshell. Women play three sets and the men play five. Isn't it rather obvious that the men are doing a lot more work than the women? In the UK we have an Eqaul Pay Act, but it states quite clearly that it is about "equal pay for equal work".

Anywhere else, if a woman worked part time for three days, she would certainly not expect the same pay as a man who worked full time for five days. Why do some Wimbledon women have the utter gall to expect preferential treatment when they play tennis?

And the quality of women's tennis is laughable when compared with that of the men which is doubtless why more people watch TV when the men are playing than when the women are playing.

Nor is tennis the only athletic field where nonsense is talked about the ability and performance of the sexes.

Towards the end of the last century certain sports commentators, obviously lacking in any sense of reality, forecast that one day women might run as fast as men, even saying that this would happen in marathon races by 1998 and that early in the 21st century women would run as fast as men in shorter distances.

The public - in America at least - were obviously duped into believing this arrogant nonsense, as a poll of 1,000 adults found that 66 percent of Americans believe "the day is coming when top female athletes will beat top males at the highest competitive levels" (Tharp, 1996).

As we all now know, this has not happened. In fact the opposite is the case. Over the last 40 years the worlds fastest female athletes have been getting slower and the men have been getting faster. The most likely reason for this is that drug testing has reduced the use of anabolic steroids so that all athletes have to rely on their natural bodies for their performance.

The huge hormonal gap between men and women can never be closed. Women have a lack of testosterone, the male hormone which gives the "get up and go". Women's bodies have 80% more fat that men's and their muscle mass is much smaller. Women have smaller brains and smaller hearts.

I think the optimistic talk about the forthcoming performances of female athletes has now been well and truly buried. At a time when male marathon runners can sit down and have ten minute chat after the women have started, and still beat them by a comfortable margin, it's time for women tennis players at Wimbledon to be glad of what they receive. It looks as though, at the moment, they are being overpaid.

Comments

Harvard’s “Oppressed” Female Professors

2005-06-12T21:16:14+02:00

With America being designed around the needs of its women, it was ironical that a web writer should recently say:
“A group of the most highly-paid, privileged, and honor-laden women in history officially launched their screed against gender bias at Harvard yesterday. Harvard’s Task Force on Women Faculty presented its report on the university’s sexism to an adoring gathering of the school’s Standing Committee on Women. The event was drenched in irony, but few of the participants noticed.”

A lot of these mollycoddled female professors have made careers out of criticising the “sexist white male patriarchy”. But it’s that very patriarchy that pays them handsome salaries to keep them in comfort and luxury. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!

The Radcliffe Institute recently sponsored the journalist Susan Faludi, to speak on “9/11 Gender Shock: How 9/11 Got Enlisted in the Latest Backlash Against Feminism.” After 9/11 it was obvious to all that, when the chips are down, it’s men who have to sort things out. To be fair to ordinary American women, they realised that it was men and only men who faced danger to protect the public and to restore normality. They lined up in New York to cheer them as they passed by, and kept them supplied with food and drink. They knew the worth of men and were prepared to show it. But not their learned sisters at Havard it seems.

Every one of the “firefighters” who went up into those blazing buildings were fireMEN. Not a single woman amongst them despite the fact that the New York fire service has women in its ranks.

I came across one web site after 9/11 that praised all the men and women who went up the twin towers to rescue people and fight the fires. I wrote to the webmaster to ask for the names of the women who went up and, quite naturally, I got no reply. There were no women.

Quite naturally, this came as a severe body blow to the feminists whose mantra “anything men can do we can do” is repeated ad nauseam.

Another matter that annoyed these 'so sensitive" female professors at Havard was a comment by the President, Lawrence Summers. He had the audacity to suggest that the lack of proportional representation of women in the sciences may not be the result of discrimination alone. The feminazi at Havard should have been relieved that he spoke so moderately. It has nothing whatsoever to do with discrimination. Women on the whole are just not interested in the sciences and so naturally do not heed the diktats of the feminist “sisters” that more of them should study science.

The sisterhood at Havard are hoping to reinforce their ranks by introducing a tyrannical quota enforcer to get more women professors appointed no matter how inneffective they might be in their jobs. Many of our schools are suffering from the presence of a majority of female teachers who have scant ability to teach boys. Do we want this disease to spread to universities also?

Comments

The Man's Point of View

2005-06-09T18:00:40+02:00

I think the title of my blog and the heading of this first entry are pretty well self-explanatory. I intend it to be an atidote to the prevailing "wisdom" of today when everything on TV, radio, and in newspapers and magazines has to be presented from "the woman's point of view". On the very rare occasions when the man's view is put forward, there always seems to be a woman on hand to put the woman's point of view as well. Not so when the positions are reversed.

This situation showed up yesterday in a glaring manner on a UK ITV channel programme dealing with news items. The subject in question was "self harm". Then the discussion moved on to consider why it is so common "among women" and from that moment on, men didn't get a look in.

Two doctors were on hand to discuss the matter and they were most concerned that this behaviour might even lead to suicide, but no one thought to mention that four times as many men commit suicide as women. Instead they dealt with all those women who "attempt suicide". It seems that this is another area where women trail badly behind men as far as success is concerned. Of course, perhaps they don't try too hard.

The late Princess Diana was reputed to have tried to commit suicide four times. It struck me at the time that, if you can't get it right in three goes, why bother?

Although this blog is primarily meant for men, there is nothing to stop women reading it. It might be refreshing for them to read the man's point of view, something they rarely come across in the media.

Comments will be welcome as will ideas for future blogs.

Comments