A sociological survey revealed the grass to be green

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mega-featured/a-sociological-survey-revealed-the-grass-to-be-green/

 

 

October 29, 2015 By  25 Comments

 

This article first appeared on AVFM Romania.

At the end of the last week, the gutless faceless sociologists that the media quotes with authority have released what they call a “sociological survey” regarding how do women feel discriminated against at the workplace in north-western Romania, says Actual de Cluj.

The great frustration of all “progressive” ideologues is that Romanians in general tend to be quite aware of the basic facts of life and they are less likely than other peoples of Europe to rush into sacrificing their families, their relationships and their social structures on the altar of forced equality of outcome.

The absolute majority of Romanians know, either from direct experience, or from their parents, that the progressive equality tends to end in rationed bread and forced admissions in a mental hospital in case of wrongthink.

And this lately survey serves to show, yet again, that in spite of the feminist agitprop, Romanian women continue to insist in crediting common sense and their native tendencies and reject the ideological pressures of this day and age. And this aspect drives ideologues nuts.

For instance, the team of sociologists who conducted this survey declares that they are profoundly “surprised” by the fact that women consistently prefer to have a male boss and not a female boss.

The fact that they are surprised shows that either the team of sociologists that conducted this survey is filled with sinister incompetents, or is filled with ideologues who aren’t terribly interested in the facts, but rather in building a narrative that would allow them to manipulate the public. In all fairness, both of these are perfectly possible.

The answers provided by the Romanian women in the survey are almost word-for-word consistent with the answers provided by American women, British women, Swedish women or Spanish women in similar surveys. In any country in which similar studies have been made, the inescapable fact that most women prefer a male boss and not a female boss has been revealed without exceptions.

Moreover, the reasons given by Romanian women for this preference are almost identical to the ones given by British women. For instance, from a survey conducted in 2010 in Great Britain, which revealed similar tendencies in that country, we learn that:

Two thirds of employees agree they would rather work for a man than a woman.
Female bosses were accused of being moody and incapable of leaving their personal lives at home.
A third of those polled claimed women in charge are ‘loose cannons’ – ready to stab colleagues in the back at any time, and who constantly feel threatened by other people in positions of authority.

By contrast, both male and female workers believe male bosses were less likely to get involved in office politics, were easier to reason with and rarely suffered from mood swings.

Men are also said to be more straight-talking than women and rarely talk about others behind their backs, it emerged.

The esteemed sociologists, led by Alina Bîrsan, sociologist at Encore Research SRL (LLC), who conducted this survey in northern Transylvania explained for the paper the reasons given by the female interviewees for their preference:

All female respondents, regardless of their level of education, would rather prefer working for a man than a woman. They say that such an arrangement is more appropriate since men represent the institution better on the outside, they manage conflicts in the workplace better, they don’t try to micromanage everything and they don’t waste time by involving themselves in all the components of a process. [Women in the survey] also said that male bosses tend to have a much more relaxed attitude than a woman and that women bosses tend to be a lot more demanding for the subordinates.

So, they’re more straight talking (and thus solve conflicts better), don’t get themselves into petty gossip (more relaxed attitude) and are not obsessed with control (no micromanagement). One would say that the Romanian women had a consultation session with the British women before filling out the questionnaire.

More to the point, the revelations of this survey are perfectly congruent with a more comprehensive study made several years ago by Gallup România1. In 2003, the study called Women’s access on the labour marketmade by Gallup Romania revealed that:

In almost all [studied] groups the difficulty of working with female collectives was mentioned. Gossip, envy and lack of support are problems that frequently emerge in female-dominated collectives. […] At the same time, most female respondents stated that they prefer working in male-dominated collectives, arguing that one can always count on help and respect among men. One of the participants from Satu Mare summed up the argument by saying: “Only among men can a woman feel like a lady”.

Didn’t Alina Bîrsan and her taxpayer-subsidized sociologist team know these aspects? If not, then maybe they should consider starting a career in hamburger flipping – because in their current field they have already proven their limits. If they knew these aspects, why were they surprised? Were they sort of hoping that in the meantime the women in this country have mentally regressed to such an extent that they’d now swallow the feminist fairy tales?

The question from above is not exactly a rhetorical one since Bîrsan provides a hint in her answers that she might have hoped that Romanian women swallowed at least a bit from the feminist kool-aid that is being subsidized with tens of millions of euros for propaganda annually. Alina Bîrsan explains for Actual de Cluj:

Moreover, many women do not want to be bosses, ”because they say that family comes first and one can’t perform best in both”.

How did we get to the point where women prefer their bosses to be always men and, more importantly, not to even aspire to be bosses? The causes are profound, says Bîrsan and she explains: “it’s a reproduction of the familial environment; that’s how we grew up – with the man leading the family and that’s what we expect in the workplace. And women say they feel safer that way” – says the sociologist. “[The women] are very comfortable with this arrangement. They seem to draw positive feelings by being in this position. For now, unfortunately, it seems that women prefer to be secondary; they don’t mind working more but they do mind being at the forefront” (emphasis ours)

That unfortunately seems to suggest that the team of sociologists is at the very least trying to explain the facts away through an ideological perspective. This tendency is also revealed by the fact that women’s preferences for male bosses and rejection of female bosses is described as “misogyny” instead of a more neutral (and much more correct) description such as the fact that this preference is the result of past experiences.

The argument that “that’s how we grew up” is also dubious at the very least once we put these responses into an international context. The social context in Great Britain is now totally different than the one in Romania. In the UK, divorce is sky high, the family court system works on a Kafka-esque model and huge areas of that country are essentially man-deserts, as Erin Pizzey calls them. And yet, British women have the same preferences with Romanian women when it comes to bosses.

When one finds such congruences on completely different groups that come from completely different social contexts, any researcher worth his salt has to wonder whether this may be the result not of a social construction, but rather biology. But these questions are now outside of the Overton window of the social sciences in the Academe – where the ideology of social constructivism is now the official dogma.

Let’s be crystal clear on this one: no-one says that nice female bosses don’t exist. A significant proportion of individuals can bring up one, or maybe even two pleasant experiences with female bosses. However, by and large, the experience with female bosses – both for women and for men – tend to be negative and generally worse than one’s experiences with male bosses. And the reasons for this state of affairs are diverse and go beyond the usual “social construct” claptrap.

Romanian women tend to be adult

In total contradiction with the multilaterally-progressive sociologists, Romanian women tend to put their families first and they tend to be perfectly aware of the feminine nature and tendencies and take them as they are (as opposed to ignoring them or, even worse, shout out loud that they don’t exist).

For what sociologists call “gender roles” – Romanian women tend to apply the correct term: nature. And Romanian women seem to tend to know better than the ideologues that messing around at a fundamental level with your own natural inclinations tends to end badly.

Whilst in other countries women have allowed themselves to be manipulated by the ideology that promises that you can “have it all,” Romanian women aren’t even trying to bother listening to the ideological fairy tales. One of the reasons for this is that almost all Romanian women can ask their parents what happened the last time when the ideological fairy tale of absolute equality of outcome was put into practice.

In other words, Romanian women tend to be adult. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Unless you’re a sociologist, in which case you would treat any trace of normality and common sense as inherently bad and oppressive; and as something that must be deconstructed ASAP in the good tradition of the dialectics.

Reference:

1 V. Marinescu; V. Pricopie – Accesul Femeilor pe Piața Muncii, The Gallup Organization Romania, 2003, p. 43

What No One Can Say on Campus

http://theothermccain.com/2015/10/28/what-no-one-can-say-on-campus/

“So what is feminism? What do feminists believe? Namely, that American women are oppressed by a patriarchy hell-bent on keeping women down, and that men and marriage are expendable. . . .
“What feminists want is to make men and women interchangeable. . . .
“I am not a feminist because I don’t believe feminists have an accurate understanding of human nature.”
— Susanne Venker

Great minds think alike, and Suzanne Venker sees the problem with feminism exactly as I see the problem with feminism. It is a War Against Human Nature aimed at using the coercive power of government to bring about an androgynous “equality” that ignores the actual differences between men and women. Feminism is a totalitarian movement to destroy civilization as we know it — and feminists say so themselves.

In her recent book Beauty and Misogyny, feminist Professor Sheila Jeffreys cites Andrea Dworkin as authority for indicting “the notion of beauty” as a “cultural practice . . . damaging to women,” an expression of “woman-hating culture.” Professor Jeffreys quotes Dworkin’s 1974 bookWoman Hating, specifically this sentence from Page 26:

“We recognize that it is the structure of the culture which engineers the deaths, violations, violence, and we look for alternatives, ways of destroying culture as we know it, rebuilding it as we can imagine it.” [Emphasis added.]

On the very first page of that book, Dworkin declared feminism a “fundamental revolutionary commitment,” explaining that the purpose of her “analysis of sexism” was “transformation of the social reality on every level . . . the development of revolutionary program and consciousness.” Feminism is a revolution to destroy “culture as we know it,” and can only be understood in terms of its essentially destructive purpose. It is too seldom mentioned nowadays that modern feminist movement emerged from the radical New Left of the 1960s. Shulamith Firestone used a mailing list of women involved in Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) to help organize what became known as the Women’s Liberation Movement. They staged their first major national protest at the 1968 Miss America pageant, an event they said served “to further make women oppressed and men oppressors; to enslave us all the more in high-heeled, low-status roles.”

This claim that women are oppressed and enslaved by men remains the essential premise of feminist ideology and, as Suzanne Venker says, feminists insist that all women are victims of a “patriarchy hell-bent on keeping women down.” Feminism is a revolutionary movement to destroy this alleged oppression, “to make men and women interchangeable” in such a way that men would become “expendable” and irrelevant to women’s lives. How could this be accomplished?

“Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse have written about the sexual dilemmas of modern civilization and proposed solutions combining aspects of Freudian theory and Marxian economic analysis. . . .
“Reich’s analysis introduces the theoretical insight that women and gays have known instinctively: that civilization in its present form was designed for heterosexual men, and that its structure guarantees their authority within it. Thus, to change society by ending sexual suppression does not mean the end of civilization, but rather the end of civilization as we know it. . . .
“It was Herbert Marcuse who say the critical function of homosexuals in ending repression. . . . Marcuse sees homosexuals as having an important place in history in helping to free sexuality, since he feels gay people have a more natural, totally erogenous sexuality.”
— Sidney Abbott and Barbara LoveSappho Was a Right-On Woman: A Liberated View of Lesbianism (1972)

If you buy this weird mix of Freud and Marx, if you believe that sexual “repression” and male “authority” are the root of all evil, and that “gay people have a more natural, totally erogenous sexuality” — well, if you believe all that, congratulations, you’re a feminist.

However, if you disagree with that — if you think Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse were a couple of dangerous kooks and are skeptical about a plan for “the end of civilization as we know it,” to bring about a society controlled by the authority of “liberated” lesbians — well, you’re never going to be allowed to speak at Williams College:

 

Williams College students invited Suzanne Venker, a writer and longtime critic of feminism, to speak Tuesday night, but changed their minds and took back the invite for her talk, “One Step Forward, Ten Steps Back: Why Feminism Fails.”
Venker had been invited to participate in a student-run, alumni-funded speaking series at Williams called “Uncomfortable Learning.” The program’s purpose is to expose students to controversial voices and opinions they might not otherwise hear. Many of the speakers tend to be conservative or people whose views don’t square with those of most students.
The students who run the series decided to cancel the event, co-president Zach Wood explained, after its Facebook page began to attract acerbic comments and “things got a little out of hand.” . . .
The concern, Wood explained, was that “people would get riled up while she was speaking,” maybe even throw things, and there wasn’t time before the event to organize security. “You never know,” he said. “We’re just trying to think ahead here. The last thing we wanted to do was do something destructive.”

 

You see how it is. Feminists in 1968 could denounce the Miss America pageant, lesbians in 1972 could cite Marxists and proclaim the wonders of “totally erogenous sexuality,” and Andrea Dworkin in 1974 could advocate a revolut9ion “destroying culture as we know it,” but in 2015, no one is permitted to criticize feminism on a college campus.

American college students are living under a regime of intellectual totalitarianism. No one who dissents from this regime can appear on campus because “people would get riled up.”

You can read the full text of the speech Suzanne Venker planned to give at Williams College, but students at Williams College are prohibited from hearing what Suzanne Venker says — it is forbidden and impermissible. The soi-disant student journalists at Williams College declare that“Venker’s views are wrong, offensive and unacceptable.”

Annual tuition at Williams College is $50,070 — parents are paying good money to make sure that their children never have to listen to anyone who might get them “riled up” by telling the truth about feminism.

In her book The War on Men, Suzanne Venker argues that “modern feminism . . . has severed the bond between the sexes, pitting men and women against one another,” that “the sexual revolution was a disaster. Men today have no respect for women and vice versa.” This is so obviously true that only stupid people (or Williams College students) could disagree, much less get “riled up” about it.