Calling it "even"

The news that Barack Obama has selected a woman to be acting head of the CIA’s “spy” division has from some predictable quarters elicited the response that this was inevitable, because women make “better” spies than men. I mean, when has James Bond not been without a female counterpart—usually ending up the sack with her? Of course, 007 would never say that a female spy was “better” than him; but then again, he’s always been a bit of a chauvinist. 

Such attitudes, of course, have always attracted blowback from women’s advocates. Jennifer O'Mahony of the UK’s Telegraph managed to dig-up a former female CIA employee, Lindsay Moran, who says her job was recruiting informants. Moran worked for the CIA for six years and left the service for what she claims were “moral” considerations in 2004. She was not involved in the “hunt” for Osama bin Laden at all, so she could hardly speak to what was purported in the film Zero Dark Thirty, but she did offer her opinion as to why a woman might have been “solely” responsible for the end of bin Laden:

“Women adapted more easily to deploying a range of techniques for extracting information.”

"You have to put aside your ego and whatever your own prejudices are and pretend to like that person"—which women are more apt to do than men.

Women are more likely to make “sources…feel comfortable and happy in (their) company, even as they gave away secrets that could endanger their lives and those of their families.”

“Women were better at getting their work done and seeing nuances in relationships."

Forbes quoted the head of Israel’s Mossad as claiming the following:

“Women have a distinct advantage in secret warfare because of their ability to multitask.”—like Napoleon, who was said to have the ability to jungle numerous thought processes at once by compartmentalizing data in his brain.

“Women are gifted at deciphering situations. Contrary to stereotypes, you see that women’s abilities are superior to men in terms of understanding the territory, reading situations, spatial awareness. When they’re good, they’re very good.”

Sounds like a lot of ego massaging going around to me. 

Now, I’m sure some of their male colleagues will disagree with all of this, and call it media-ready propaganda to create a “positive” public image of intelligence services. Are male agents superior to female agents at anything? That’s right—deafening silence from the media and women’s advocates. It’s OK to offend the sensibilities of men, but its “sexist” to say that they are good at anything; you can say it about individuals, but as a group it is a no-no. Of course, none of this is based on actual evidence in the field, but on opinion meant to make women feel good about themselves—as if they are not naturally inclined to do so by nature.

But it is typical media hyperbole; every now and then TIME and Newsweek magazines have cover stories telling us something else that women are superior over men about, and it is almost always something psychological in nature. Women—or rather, white women—are more likely to be employed in certain positions that require face-to-face interaction not because they are “superior,” but because of the nature of social interactions, especially with men; most men do react positively to a pretty face that smiles back at them (although some may take it as pretension or condescension). Of course, this is not always true in all instances; for example, if one is looking for “expert” opinions rather than simply being smiled at—like, say, at an auto parts store—they would likely trust more the assistance of a male employee. 

I know. Every time a man expresses discontent at being spoken of as if he is dog or worse, feminists cry misogyny, war on women, maintaining the patriarchy and all that other feeling-good-about-feeling-bad stuff.  But let’s be frank about feminist ideology. They will never be satisfied until there is convincing evidence that society is controlled by them and men are all but annihilated. This must be the end game because despite women’s gains in every human arena (particularly white women), until that happens they are still “victims.” Men are so big and bad that women’s gains will never be safe unless men are completely neutered and made inconsequential. Feminists and “end of men” prophets are either guilty of extraordinary conceit or extraordinary sorrow for one’s perceived state—which requires that one must be brought down for another to be brought up, and beyond

Men may be expressing their discontent in subtle ways. According to a Pew Foundation survey last year, only 29 percent of men think that having a successful marriage is, or would be, an important part of their lives. A growing number of men who would be regarded as marriageable material are apparently forgoing marriage altogether, because they don’t want to marry someone who looks like a woman but wants to be treated like a “man.” How boring is that?

The fact of the matter is that everything in the world is relative. Some women are bigger, stronger, smarter than other men, and some men give themselves far more credit than they deserve. But what does that prove? I read something recently about rankings of WNBA players. I think that the Seattle Storm’s Sue Bird was ranked the 15th best player currently or all-time. Frankly I think she is overrated, but that is just an opinion. One thing I am certain of is that she is a better basketball player than I am. In fact, I don’t need to be convinced that she is much better player than I am, particularly since I’ve never played an organized game of basketball in my life, and Byrd plays professional both here and abroad. If we played one-on-one, it would be more competitive if I just sat and watched on the bench while she played by herself. 

But being a better basketball player with a male like me is a useless comparison. It would be a more useful exercise to compare her with other male players in organized settings. Could she compete against any NBA player today, or even in the past when players were hardly the physical specimens they are today, but more skilled in the “art” of basketball? Could most male college players more than hold their own against Byrd? Frankly, I think a championship male high school team might give an team of WNBA all-stars a run for their money. 

I admit that some women seem sharper, more quick-witted than men. On the other hand, some women seem better at sarcasm than reasoned argument. When I was in college, a female student told me that “Men are only good for fixing cars and killing bugs.” She might have add a few other things to the list had she given it more thought—like repairing plumbing, water mains, bridges, roads, electrical grids—even the buildings she works and lives in. The History Channel’s “Life After People” series explored what may happen in abandoned urban areas and infrastructure if humans simply disappeared all at once from the face of the Earth. If just males disappeared, I suspect that this decay might take a little longer, but would be inevitable. In some places it might be more obvious—and not in the low-tech regions of the world. 

Oh sure, women can clean and vacuum as long as the electricity still functions, maybe even paint a wall or hammer a nail once in a while. But that only staves off the inevitable, before everyone eventually lives in grass huts (or so was the opinion of kind-of feminist Camille Paglia). It might be different, of course, if the increase in female enrollment in colleges and universities didn’t coincide with the decrease in graduates in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields. 

And why stop there? We can talk about the great artists, musicians, writers, inventers, builders and all that other nasty stuff that gets in the way. But that’s unfair, and is just another example of the “patriarchy” asserting itself. 

The problem is that too many people (feminists particularly) see an unchanging physical world from one day to the next. Disaster always seems to creep up on them unexpectedly. When it happens, then what? Without men to kick around, are they going to remember that all that “sisterhood” stuff was just a propaganda device, and bicker and banter amongst themselves while the world is falling apart around them? 

Well, now, see what you’ve accomplished by starting this conversation? Why can’t we just say that men are more useful for some things, women more so for other things, and call it even?