All posts tagged interchangeable

A Slogan For Women

It is extraordinary how, in the modern world, people pick up rallying cries and keep repeating them, although they make no sense.  One of the slogans that one hears often today is the cry that women should make up 50% of the directors on public company boards.  This view is so strongly held that the government is threatening to pass legislation to enforce it, if it is not done voluntarily.  And yet there are at least four very strong reasons why this proposition is nonsense.
The first is that it is mathematically incorrect, because the number of women who wish to go on company boards are much fewer than the number of men who wish to go on company boards.  If, therefore, 50% of boards are women, the choice of candidates would be completely unbalanced in favour of women.
A second reason why this is nonsense, is to ask oneself why women should make up any particular percentage of any activity.  Are 50% of plumbers women?  Are 50% of electricians women?  Are 50% of street sweepers women?  It is clearly nonsense to say that any percentage of company boards should be women.
The third reason that this proposition is nonsense, is that it assumes that men and women are interchangeable, and are exactly the same in every way.  Yet we know perfectly well that is not true.  Tests have shown that the average IQ of men and women is the same, but there are big differences in distribution and in specific abilities.  Men’s IQs have a much wider range than women’s.  In other words, idiots and geniuses tend to be men, while women’s IQs are closer to the average.  As far as specific abilities are concerned, on tests involving words, women do very well – better than men.  But on tests involving spatial relations, for example, they do not do well at all.  That is why there are very few women engineers.  It is not that they are not allowed to be engineers – it is that they are not good at it.  Similarly, it was mentioned in the press recently that women are not nearly as good as men at bridge, even though more women play bridge than men.  Similarly, women are not nearly as good at chess.  At big bridge tournaments, there is always a separate women’s section, because the women cannot play with the men.  Similarly, in chess, there is only one lady who appears in the top 100 players.  So if men and women do not have the same abilities, why should there be any specific percentage of women in any activity?
But the most telling argument against this pernicious proposition is that it is a restriction on individual freedom.  People who run companies should be free to employ – or not employ – anyone that they wish.  Any limitation of this freedom exists only in a dictatorship.  And yet our government wishes to impose it on us.


Two Italian ladies

Dear Ladies,

Your article in the Herald Tribune last Saturday, raises some interesting points. Unfortunately, there is one thing that you have not touched on, and it is the most important thing in life, namely freedom – the freedom to live one’s life as one wishes.  Now, you and I have the right to find Mr Berlusconi very vulgar, and we have the right not to vote for him.  But we do not have the right to tell him how many parties he is allowed to have, and we do not have the right to tell him whom he can invite.  If we live in a free country, he is allowed to arrange his social life as he pleases.  You complain that his parties reveal a society in which women are “not taken seriously”. That is like blaming the mirror, if you see things in it you do not like. Berlusconi has not created this society. If his parties show women as weak, that is because they are weak.  No one forces them to come, they come willingly, and wander around half naked. Indeed this does not happen only in Italy.  It is what the whole world has become. Berlusconi is just the new Elsa Maxwell.

You say that Italian men look at women as if they were “interchangeable goods”.  But, by embracing promiscuity, women today have chosen to become interchangeable goods.  Promiscuity, by definition, makes women interchangeable goods.  You also complain about “affronts” to the “dignity of women”.  But no one is entitled to dignity or respect. Dignity and respect must be earned.  When women embraced promiscuity, and started wearing skirts up to their crotch, with their boobs falling out, they gave up both dignity and respect.  There is a basic rule in life that you cannot have it both ways.  Women must choose.  You mention the case of a lady government minister who used to be a showgirl, and is, therefore, never taken seriously.  That is another rule of life.  “Once a tart, always a tart”.

There is also another important reason why women do not receive respect from men.  That is because men only respect manly qualities, and women do not have manly qualities.  A few years ago, Japan appointed a lady as Foreign Minister. It was the first time that this had happened and there was a huge fanfare about it in Japan.   The lady was intelligent, her father had been Prime Minister, and she had spent her life in politics.  Unfortunately, within a fortnight, when a civil servant was rude to her, she burst into tears.  After a few days she was quietly removed from office.  Not a manly quality.  Alessandra Mussolini and another lady Member of Parliament recently had a screaming row, and were shouting at, and insulting each other like two Neapolitan washerwomen.  Do you think men were impressed by that?   Mme Sarkozy accused, in public, a French lady Minister of wanting to sleep with her husband. This is a woman whose preparation for being the wife of the President of France was to have a very active love life, followed by becoming pregnant by a married man, and being an unwed mother.  Manly qualities?  Mrs Merkel says something different every day.  Her nickname in Germany is Frau Teflon, because she never sticks to anything.  She also thinks that by wearing trousers she looks like a man. In fact she only looks like a hippopotamus.  At least Mrs Thatcher had the sense to only wear only skirts.

There is also considerable confusion about the meaning of the frequently used word “macho”.  The word “macho” simply means “manly” in Spanish.  Don’t all men wish to be manly? Of course they do.  It is a compliment, not an insult.  Those who do not succeed in being manly are wimps. Now if a woman wishes to have a wimp in her life (perhaps in order to do the cooking and ironing), she is perfectly free to have one.  But what she is not free to do is to try to impose her views on the rest of the world, and in particular on men.  Indeed most women who choose wimps find out after a few years that they do not respect them, and have to get rid of them.  It is human nature for men to be manly. What you ladies are suggesting is not only against human nature, but also against Christianity.  In the beginning of the Bible, Genesis says “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”.  In the Christian wedding ceremony, women are asked to swear to “obey” their husbands.  In the New Testament, St Paul says, “But suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man”.  You are free not to agree, but you are not free to attack those who do, i.e. Christian men. 

The other point that you refuse to address is that marriage is a voluntary affair. Men are not obliged to marry women, and unless they are very stupid, they will not marry a woman who is not prepared to please them, and who will not do what they ask.  Like everything else in life, marriage is not a level playing field, because men do not need wives, but women need husbands, not only to support them and be fathers to their children, but also for emotional security.  Women like to see the same face when they come home every night. But men are not interested in seeing the same face every night. Men are interested in sexual excitement, and they are happy to see a different face every night, as long as it is an attractive face. 

You also mention that women are judged more for their appearance than for their “brains and souls”. Of course, “brains and souls” are the most important part of a human being, and when one is choosing friends, these things are most important.  But when you have to make love to someone for the rest of your life, the same considerations do not apply.  The fact is that “brains and souls” do not give men erections.  What attracts men to women is quite different.  Nature has made men and women complementary.  Women give men what they lack, and men give women what they lack.  The things that attract men to women are first of all, their looks.  Secondly, how they dress and turn themselves out. Thirdly, their charm.  Fourthly, their sense of humour.  Finally, their femininity.  And, just as men’s masculinity attracts women, so women’s femininity attracts men.  

Yours faithfully,

D P Marchessini


Some players are more equal than others

Letter to The Times

26th January 2011

Dear Mr Syed,

With reference to your article in the Times today, there was a spectacular photograph of the finish of the 100 metre dash at the 1988 Olympics in Korea. The photographer stood behind the finish line, so that all of the eight finalists were running towards the camera.  The interesting thing was that all eight finalists were black.  The odds of this being a coincidence would be in the trillions.  So it is obvious that blacks run faster than whites.  But, of course, we all already knew that, from countless athletic events over many years.  In the United States, only 13% of the population is black, but in the professional basketball league (the NBA), 86% of the players are black.  In the National Football League, again the vast majority of players are black.  Even in college football in America, most of the players are black.  In short, blacks are simply better athletes – they can run faster, they can jump higher, and they are bigger and stronger.

Although this is perfectly obvious, it is never mentioned by Left Wing people, because they are afraid that if blacks are different physically, then they may be different mentally.  The fact is that I.Q.s are not a question of black versus white, as many people think.  Not only does every race have a different I.Q., but every country has a different I.Q. Many I.Q. tests have shown that the Chinese are the most intelligent race.  This is obviously because they have the longest civilisation behind them – 5,000 years.  After them come the Indians and Pakistanis, and after them come the whites.  Among the whites, the cleverest are the Jews.  Among Europeans, the cleverest are the Greeks, because they have the longest civilisation in Europe.  The least intelligent are the Portuguese, who have had a very short civilisation.  Below the whites are the blacks.  The difference between the whites and the blacks is roughly the same as the difference between the whites and the Chinese.  And below the blacks, at the bottom of the ladder, are the Red Indians.

But just as there are differences between races, there are many differences between countries.  Why are most beautiful love songs Spanish?  Have you ever heard of a beautiful Swedish love song?  Why are most of the best operas Italian?  Why are most of the great composers German, and most of the great chess players Slav?  Why are most great novels English, or French.  In the grand hotels in Europe before the War, the waiters in the Dining Room were always Italian, because they were the most charming.  But the waiters in Room Service were all German, because they never forgot anything.  In a recent survey about the incidence of anger among Europeans, the Italians get angry an average 4-5 times a day.  The Danes get angry once every 10 days.  Are they the same nationality?  I would suggest that to pretend there is no difference between races and countries is simply hypocrisy.

Turning to women, the physical differences between men and women are perfectly obvious, and cannot be disguised.  To pretend that they are no differences between men and women, and that they are interchangeable, is ridiculous.  For example, women tennis professionals have talked their way into receiving the same prize money as men at Wimbledon.  But women cannot play with the men.  Chris Evert, many years ago, said that the man ranked No. 1,000 could destroy her.  In a recent unpublicised event, a man, very low on the tennis ladder, defeated both Williams sisters, one after the other.  Many years ago, Billie Jean King played against an American, Gene Scott, in an exhibition set, and she could not even get his serve back.  Forty years ago, Bobby Riggs, a 55-year old man, defeated Margaret Court, the number one women player in the world at the time, in straight sets.  Feminists, of course, never mention this.  They only talk about how in a later match with Billie Jean King, Mr Riggs lost.  Ivan Lendl, who is now in his fifties, has challenged Serena Williams to a match, but she will not play.  Yet everyone pretends that men and women are equal in tennis.

But there are also many mental differences, of which many people are not aware.  The average I.Q. for men and women is exactly the same, but within that, there are many differences.  First of all, men have a much wider distribution of I.Q.s – in other words, idiots and geniuses tend to be men.  Women’s I.Q.s tend to be closer to the mean.  Then there are many differences in specific areas.  Women are very good with words, and in tests involving words they do better than men.  On the other hand, women do not do well in tests involving spatial relations, for example.  That is why there are very few women engineers.  It is not that they are not allowed to be engineers  –  they are just no good at it.  For the same reason, although women have been playing chess for centuries, they are unable to compete with men.  Bridge is another good example.  More women play bridge than men do, but at all the major tournaments, there are two separate categories.  One is the Open Section, and the other is the Women’s Section.  Women are perfectly welcome to play in the Open Section, but they prefer to play against each other, because at the top levels they cannot compete with the men.  Only half-a-dozen women have been able to play with the top men in the history of the game.    Helen Sobel, Rixi Markus and Dorothy Hayden come to mind, and there are a few others.  Dorothy Hayden, a World Champion, had no hesitation in saying that women were not as good as men at the top, and that the difference was their level of concentration.  Women are unable to have the same level of concentration as men.  On the other hand, perhaps because of children, Nature makes women able to do several things at the same time.  Men, on the other hand, can only do one thing at a time.

The truth is neither “sexist” nor “racist”.  The truth is the truth, and anyone who tries to hide from the truth is a hypocrite.

Yours sincerely,

D P Marchessini

Page 1 of 1

If any issues on this site affect you, please leave a comment.

All comments will be responded to appropriately.