"There's been a lot of academic research suggesting that men think they know what they're doing, even when they really don't know what they're doing," John Ameriks, the author of the Vanguard study, told the New York Times.
Whoa, wait. So women think they know what they’re doing, and they’re right? It doesn’t seem humanly possible to me that people know what they’re doing, but maybe that’s because I’m a dude. It would be a frightening realization to learn that half of the species knows what they’re doing.
The title of the article is “Why women are better at everything.” (Hat tip: The Door.) Briefly mentioned in the article is a recent book by Dan Abrams called Man Down: Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt That Women Are Better Cops, Drivers, Gamblers, Spies, World Leaders, Beer Tasters, Hedge Fund Managers, and Just About Everything Else.
I have no problem with the statement that women, on average, are better than men at just about everything. That seems right to me. They seem to have the biggest advantage (on average) in the things that matter the most to professional and personal success. Things like social intelligence, empathy, and linguistic prowess. And they seem better at staying out of trouble by avoiding bad habits and heat-of-the-moment escapades.
If we’re not careful, we could deduce that the proper role for males in society is something like that of the housepet. They are best confined to the house so they can protect the fort and stay out of trouble and provide affection and/or sperm cells when needed.
There is some faulty economic logic in that idea, but the biggest problem is failing to account for a certain kind of male that deserves special consideration, and that is the youngish male who is struggling to understand females. This is quite possibly the single most influential animal on the planet: Probably 93% of the great products and culture you consume were the result of this creature scratching around to try to figure out females, so you don’t want to keep these dudes confined to the house. But you also want to be careful about where you let them go because probably most of the wars, rapes, and murders are the responsibility of the same demographic.
My proposal: ankle bracelets. These would come equipped with GPS and actigraphy capabilities, and would be monitored by trained females for warning signs. Every male between the ages of 14 and 42 would be required to wear the ankle bracelet if they scored unsatisfactorily on an annual test assessing their comprehension of females. The test would include questions like,
Which of the following is a female most likely to find ‘sweet’?:
(a) a compliment about her hair
(b) random gifts of beheaded plants or shiny metals
(c) putting the toilet seat down and gently warning her to ‘give it a minute’
(d) coming home to find you wearing nothing but her lingerie
The fellas who answer “(d)” deserve not only our concern but also our support. We need to stop viewing their cluelessness as a fault and instead as an asset. The greatest human creations are typically not the result of genius but of clueless fellas trying with all their might to understand creatures with vaginas. It is our moral responsibility, then, to make sure that we keep them out of trouble while at the same time providing them with the resources needed to make “genius” happen.
Either that or just let females run the place.
