Male - Female

[JerrySeinfeld]

anyway - i digress.

I agree with you, Drea. Woman CAN do anything they want and I'm sure you're great at sales. Many are much better than their male counterparts. But you can't argue with the numbers. Career oriented, focussed, driven corporate leading women are still far less common than men. Sure, It's a generalization with many exceptions, but its also a fact.

True. Perhaps as the next generation reaches their 40's and 50's things will be a tad more equal in that regard.

Sales is actually a very emotional business. People may think they are buying based on logic, but they buy based on emotion. Women are better at reading emotions than men (generalization!) so it stands to reason they are better sales reps.

HA! exactly my point. women ARE better at certain things than men, and vise versa. That's why I originally wrote some of the acid generalizations in my earlier posts: to open that discussion up. We all inherently know this to be true, but people are so politically correct they won't admit it. And there are always exceptions!

Personally I believe sales is about TRUST, which has an emotional component, but certainly I believe it's more about consistency and keeping your promises.

[piercj2]

It is true that some woman are better at certain things than men, and vise versa. I also agree, that if you realistically look at the entire picture you will see that it is still a male dominated society. I am not trying to be sexist, but just think abou it. Only 17 percent of big law firms are female, only like 256 of congress are women, and only like 17 out of a hundred of the senate is female. ALso, just look at politics and see who the really serious candidates are for the next election, and you will see that most of them are male. ALso, large buissnesses, fortune five hundre companies ect.. are still dominated by males (few are female). And, even though medical schools are now fifty percent female, most females go into fields such as pediatrics, obstetrics, gynecology and primary care, which are the lower paying medical fields. While also 45 percent of female docotor are married to male doctors, which often means they can affort to work part time, or not work at all. Also, having gone to the doctor a number of times, when is the last time you remember a female docotr owning her own clinic, most choose to work in groups, work for the poor, or just work flexibal and non sternous hours. In my opinion, over the feminist revolution hurt females. Even though they have come miles in terms of what jobs they can get, it is still harder for them to obtain the highest positions for some reason. And the backlash to this is that less of them get married (some might not want to), marriage is less common, divorce is more prevelent, and relationships aren't always is satisfying. I am not seeing women working is the only reason for this, I am just saying that it is just common knowledge to know that a marriage or relationship is easier to sustain when one partner is working and the other is taking care of children, the home, or other domestic or personal needs

[JerrySeinfeld]

It is true that some woman are better at certain things than men, and vise versa. I also agree, that if you realistically look at the entire picture you will see that it is still a male dominated society. I am not trying to be sexist, but just think abou it. Only 17 percent of big law firms are female, only like 256 of congress are women, and only like 17 out of a hundred of the senate is female. ALso, just look at politics and see who the really serious candidates are for the next election, and you will see that most of them are male. ALso, large buissnesses, fortune five hundre companies ect.. are still dominated by males (few are female). And, even though medical schools are now fifty percent female, most females go into fields such as pediatrics, obstetrics, gynecology and primary care, which are the lower paying medical fields. While also 45 percent of female docotor are married to male doctors, which often means they can affort to work part time, or not work at all. Also, having gone to the doctor a number of times, when is the last time you remember a female docotr owning her own clinic, most choose to work in groups, work for the poor, or just work flexibal and non sternous hours. In my opinion, over the feminist revolution hurt females. Even though they have come miles in terms of what jobs they can get, it is still harder for them to obtain the highest positions for some reason. And the backlash to this is that less of them get married (some might not want to), marriage is less common, divorce is more prevelent, and relationships aren't always is satisfying. I am not seeing women working is the only reason for this, I am just saying that it is just common knowledge to know that a marriage or relationship is easier to sustain when one partner is working and the other is taking care of children, the home, or other domestic or personal needs

Our work lives are male dominated somewhat, but our day to day home lives are female dominated.

[piercj2]

I think that what you siad is really why I think about these issues of gender today. I also beleive, that at a woman's heart (even though some don't admit it) she wants to have a husband to support her and a children, however I think men are more independent and content for one night stands and hook ups. When you try to rationalize all this in our society, or any society, really nothing makes pure sense. There are millions of woman out there that can support themselves and do fine alone, but most seem so desperate for a relationship, and/ or a husband, and alot of the time they don't seem like women who are emotionally needy or lonely. I also beleive, that feminism really warped the mind of alot of women, I think millions of women were perfectly happy raising thier family, and a small group of voices overwelmed them into thinking they were not doing real work. Men, I think usually just remain men, and not much is going to change them, they have always been the same and will be, while women change, adapt, and in my opinion never really know exactly who they are (some of them). I mean for billions of years, women's primary job has been to raise and take care of the family, this goes back to biblical times, and now they all the sudden out of now where are career minded? I think outside influence definately had something to do with that. I mean what history book before the 1950s depicted women wanting to be independent, support themselves, and take over society. Exactly, none. I also feel this out of women's nature, they are so indecisive and gullable, that their core heart's desires are often hard to get at. same as other thread

[Drea]

I also feel this out of women's nature, they are so indecisive and gullable, that their core heart's desires are often hard to get at. same as other thread

Of course young people are gullible and indecisive.

You certainly are.

On one hand you say women are taking over society and on the other hand you say women are indecisive.

Which is it?

You seem like the indecisive one pierce.

As you are just a youngin' you can be forgiven for your ignorance.

Instead of jumping in here with your "they are so indecisive and gullible" crap, why not go grow up for a while, come back after you've fallen in love, got a broken heart, found a better relationship, left that one for greener pastures, fallen in love again, out of love again and gained some life experience.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I also feel this out of women's nature, they are so indecisive and gullable, that their core heart's desires are often hard to get at. same as other thread

Of course young people are gullible and indecisive.

You certainly are.

On one hand you say women are taking over society and on the other hand you say women are indecisive.

Which is it?

You seem like the indecisive one pierce.

As you are just a youngin' you can be forgiven for your ignorance.

Instead of jumping in here with your "they are so indecisive and gullible" crap, why not go grow up for a while, come back after you've fallen in love, got a broken heart, found a better relationship, left that one for greener pastures, fallen in love again, out of love again and gained some life experience.

You gotta be careful about that whole experience thing tho, drea. Experience can taint judgement just as easily as lack of it can.

If you define your morals by certain experiences you've had in your individual life, then they will be exlusive to the specific types of experiences YOU have had. Not always a good idea.

[Drea]

You gotta be careful about that whole experience thing tho, drea. Experience can taint judgement just as easily as lack of it can.

If you define your morals by certain experiences you've had in your individual life, then they will be exlusive to the specific types of experiences YOU have had. Not always a good idea.

We all end up defining our lives by our own individual experiences. You, Jer are a confirmed bachelor because of your own life experiences.

IMO the more you experience of life, the better you are in decision making.

"Experience can taint judgement" only applies if you don't "get back on the horse" so-to-speak. If you have one bad relationship you gotta get right back on that relationsip horse and try again -- or, as you say, your one relationship experience will taint your judgement about all relationships.

My first job really sucked. Now, I could have said "that's it, I hate working" but I got right back on that "job experience horse" and tried again, and again and again until I found a job I liked.

Works the same with relationships.

IMO the more you experience the more well-rounded a person you become.

[piercj2]

Drea, I have probably spent more time analyzing our society, and how we as people interact than you have thinking about your own soul. I may be young, but I have opened my eyes and seen what is going on in our society. I know too many girls that are dating, and almost in love with guys who don't even care about them and are cheating on them. Girls are gullable, and are a terrible judge of character. I have this one freind of mine who is a big nice looking guy who has a girl freind and goes out and hooks up with a different girl every night. His girlfreind doesn't know, and doesent think outside the box enough to realize it. Do you realize how much this kind of stuff goes on. I garentee you if you talked to any pro athlete, rock star, or anyone famous he would tell you he cheats on his girlfreind, if he even had one. Can't you see that females cling to money, fame, or a man that has prestige. There are millions of examples of this, for onem I have a freind who plays football at my University (South Eastern Confrence) and he hooks up and has sex with girls all the time. I have met some of these girls, and half of them literally think that he is their boy freind? They don't have the sense to know that girls just throw themselves at him because he is a starting college athlete. I know this other guy who is freinds with a guy who is in a popular local band, (big band) he told me that the lead singer of the band has girls waiting in line to hook up with him after his shows. I know way too many girls out there who really don't even know their own boyfreind, nor themselves well enough to give a striaght judgement call on the guy that there are in a relationship with, and it really is sad. Why do you think at least a third of houselhods in the U.S. are led by single mothers. Guess, what, they probably had sex and got into a relationship with a guy they barely knew, its sad, but it happens all the time. Think about any really famous guy, and then think about the way alot of women just throw themselves at him, how do you think he is going to treat women when he recognizes this?????? think about it. If guys know that they can easily have sex with most girls, do you think he is going to really commit to a relationship. If girls only knew ho a mans mind worked

[Drea]

Drea, I have probably spent more time analyzing our society, and how we as people interact than you have thinking about your own soul. I may be young, but I have opened my eyes and seen what is going on in our society. I know too many girls that are dating, and almost in love with guys who don't even care about them and are cheating on them. Girls are gullable, and are a terrible judge of character. I have this one freind of mine who is a big nice looking guy who has a girl freind and goes out and hooks up with a different girl every night. His girlfreind doesn't know, and doesent think outside the box enough to realize it. Do you realize how much this kind of stuff goes on. I garentee you if you talked to any pro athlete, rock star, or anyone famous he would tell you he cheats on his girlfreind, if he even had one. Can't you see that females cling to money, fame, or a man that has prestige. There are millions of examples of this, for onem I have a freind who plays football at my University (South Eastern Confrence) and he hooks up and has sex with girls all the time. I have met some of these girls, and half of them literally think that he is their boy freind? They don't have the sense to know that girls just throw themselves at him because he is a starting college athlete. I know this other guy who is freinds with a guy who is in a popular local band, (big band) he told me that the lead singer of the band has girls waiting in line to hook up with him after his shows. I know way too many girls out there who really don't even know their own boyfreind, nor themselves well enough to give a striaght judgement call on the guy that there are in a relationship with, and it really is sad. Why do you think at least a third of houselhods in the U.S. are led by single mothers. Guess, what, they probably had sex and got into a relationship with a guy they barely knew, its sad, but it happens all the time. Think about any really famous guy, and then think about the way alot of women just throw themselves at him, how do you think he is going to treat women when he recognizes this?????? think about it. If guys know that they can easily have sex with most girls, do you think he is going to really commit to a relationship. If girls only knew ho a mans mind worked

No matter how much "thinking" you have done -- you lack life experience simply due to your age.

1/3 of US households? Got a link to support that statistic?

Where are the fathers? Why are they not staying with these girls after they get pregnant? Why are they not supporting the children they played a part in procreating?

Off screwing some other chick I expect.

Probably because young men are stupid enough to dip their wicks into anything that has 2 legs. Just like young women are stupid enough to let them!

The "girls" you speak of also are young and have no life experience, therefore they are bound to make mistakes (and do stupid things like throw themselves at cute boys), as are you.

[cybercoma]

This is becoming an entire thread about how people perceive themselves, and those around them.

For people who are taken in by the media's portrayal of "ideal" men and/or women, it simply shows a weakness of self-image and independant thought.

If you know who and what you are, and are comfortable with that self-image, then the media bombardment cannot affect you.

Sadly, those most affected are kids who have not yet developed their self-image, and are exploring themselves and their world trying to figure out who and what they are.

Fortunately, most kids these days are media-savvy enough to realize that what they see on TV is not the real world.

As for women stepping into high-profile professions, I say more power to them.

I don't think it shows weakness at all.

I think the message is meant to be overpowering because, well, that's the media's job. They've developed this imagery over the years and kids are born into it now. It's not weakness at all, instead I think it's all that people know nowadays. Single parent children raised by their television sets. Take a look at what's marketed towards those kids. MTV makes me want to vomit. Forget self-respect and values, they're gone. And it's not because people are weak, it's because that's all they know.

[piercj2]

The United States has approximately 9.8 million single mothers and 2.1 million single dads.4 Only 74% of white children, 36% of black children and 64% of Hispanic children live in two-parent households.5 Fifty percent of all white children and 75% of all black children will spend at least part of their childhood living only with their mothers.6 In 1998, single parent households comprised 27% of households with children, up from 24% in 1990 and 11% in 1970.7

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA339.html

It may not be exactly one third of households who are led by mothers at all times, but the percentages are climbing every year, and the way our society is going, I can garentee you by 2025 at least 1/3 will be led by single mothers. If you think about the issue and look around you and tune into the media it is obvious

[piercj2]

"mistakes" (as some would call them) that youth make in thier lifetime is what leads to these trends in our society. Fifty or sixty years ago college was not as demanding, getting a career- med school, law school, grad school was not even compararble in compitition, and it was much easier to stay in the middle class. Example- my dad had a 2.2 when he was in college and got into a decent law school in practicing at a nice firm. My brother had a 3.7 and a good LSAT score and could barely get into OLE MISS law school. Our youth can't affort do make the mistakes they did fifty years ago, our econonmy has gotten tougher, and our society is more demanding, especially school. People just can't act and do whatever the hell they want to in college and end up in well to do jobs, and in great families ecccttt. People are slowly finding this out. Lests all face it, every year it is becoming harder to survive in our society

[Black Dog]

BD come on and admit it. On average, men and women are better at different things. There are women completely able to do any "man's" job and we shouldn't label as such. But you'll always see more male executives, stock brokers and politicans, and you'll probably always see more women in fields like marketing (where women are actually really taking over).

That's circular reasoning If I've ever seen it. How anyone can discuss women's place in the workplace and society and completely ignore the social aspects of gender is beyond me. There's whole areas of scholarship devoted to the subject. Terms like the "glass ceiling" and the "pink collar ghetto" exist for a reason. But some people seem more interested in circular, self-affirming tautologies (not you geoffery; you're alright).

[August1991]

How anyone can discuss women's place in the workplace and society and completely ignore the social aspects of gender is beyond me.

And what would those social aspects be, BD?

Pick two very competitive fields: real estate brokers and stock brokers. It is relatively easy to get into either occupation, and one's success is largely based on how well one performs. Women are now a majority of real estate brokers, and men stock brokers. Why?

If firms were deliberately keeping women out of the stock broking business, or making women uncomfortable in it, a smart brokerage would hire women and have a competitive advantage. It appears this happened in the real estate market in the past 30 years or so.

Despite some absolutley ridiculous posts, this thread is interesting, and goes well beyond the workplace.

Our definition of female and male largely falls to what one brings to the reproductive process. In all species that rely on sexual reproduction, the female makes a larger commitment than the male. There is a difference bewteen men and women and to understand it, I would look to this difference in commitment and how it affects the strategies of the two genders.

To make a comparison, it is like a game of poker but women are always the first to bet (and hence commit). This means that women have different strategies from men.

[Renegade]

Fundamentally the issue is whether there are intrinsic diferences between men and women. If you accept that there are innate differences beyond just the physical, then you would have to logically accept that some roles are better suited for men and some for women because of these differences.

Now these are are generalizations and there will be men or women exceptions in every case.

So why is this a big deal? As long as barriers to entry to a profession are relatively equal, there will be a natural migration of one gender to certain professions. So what? Let those migrations occur natually and you will have the best suited people for the role.

[August1991]

Now these are are generalizations and there will be men or women exceptions in every case.

So why is this a big deal? As long as barriers to entry to a profession are relatively equal, there will be a natural migration of one gender to certain professions. So what? Let those migrations occur natually and you will have the best suited people for the role.

I have to agree strongly with you Renegade. I happen to think that there are differences between women and men, and I suppose there are differences between Jews and Gentiles. I mean, what is the point of having a religion, or a language, unless it is shared with some and makes one different from others?

How individuals manage these differences is their own affair but the State must be indifferent to them. I am not surprised at all to learn that librarians tend to be quiet people and rock singers tend to be loud.

Fundamentally the issue is whether there are intrinsic diferences between men and women. If you accept that there are innate differences beyond just the physical, then you would have to logically accept that some roles are better suited for men and some for women because of these differences.

I think the thread was started as an attempt to understand those innate differences.

[Renegade]

Fundamentally the issue is whether there are intrinsic diferences between men and women. If you accept that there are innate differences beyond just the physical, then you would have to logically accept that some roles are better suited for men and some for women because of these differences.

I think the thread was started as an attempt to understand those innate differences.

Unfortunately August, not everyone even accepts that there are gender differences which would lead to a dominance of one gender over the other in certain roles. They attribute the different representations of genders to societal and economic pressures. Because of that reasoning, they advocate for artificial incentives and barriers in order to equalize representation. Their wrong premise leads them to wrong conclusions and thus to implement measures which are both unfair and futile.

[uOttawaMan]

Fundamentally the issue is whether there are intrinsic diferences between men and women. If you accept that there are innate differences beyond just the physical, then you would have to logically accept that some roles are better suited for men and some for women because of these differences.

I think the thread was started as an attempt to understand those innate differences.

Unfortunately August, not everyone even accepts that there are gender differences which would lead to a dominance of one gender over the other in certain roles. They attribute the different representations of genders to societal and economic pressures. Because of that reasoning, they advocate for artificial incentives and barriers in order to equalize representation. Their wrong premise leads them to wrong conclusions and thus to implement measures which are both unfair and futile.

Men are from Mars.. women from Venus.. however you'd be making a large mistake to ignore social and economic pressures on the roles of men and women. Those pressures are a very large part of the picture. There is nothing in the gender differences (which although obviously physical largely translate into different ways of solving problems and expressing emotions) that would cause women and men to equally rise to the top of most professions. But somehow it does not happen... the reason? Those same social and economic pressures and constraints.

[piercj2]

I was just coming back to this post, since I am the one who started it. Of course there are intrinsic differences between men and woman. Does anyone out there have brothers or sisters. I have a couple of each- how many times have you seen your brothers cry or become hurt by something or backdown, now ask the same questin about your sister(s). In my eperience, and in most experiences that I have seen or heard of women are usually more emotional, get hurt easier, not as driven for physical activity, often not as driven in general and are more sensitive and caring. Besides for the physical differences in strenrth that a man posseses, most men are by in large more driven to compete and rule and are more forcefull in expressing thier emotions and getting what they want or need. I mean how is this denyable and why in the hell did men rule society for all of civilization until the mid 21st century? Of course men have different goals and values or there would have always been more of an equal share of power and ability between the sexes over time. Isn't it just obvious to people that woman by in large just are not as harsh, forcefull and confrontational. Isn't it easy to recognize when a woman is trying to act bold or intimidating like they try to in the media- it is hilarious- watch fox news and look for Julie Vanderez, or Megan Kendall, or Kimberly Gilfoule (something like that). It is just so out of character and out of nature when these woman try to act hard, it really makes Fox News look ridiculous sometimes. When I really think about it, and my point of writing this was just to get reaction and see what other people thought about how the genders are perceived. I personally beleive it is just ignorant to think there are absolutely no intrinsic differences between males and females and they are exactly the same on the inside- it is just ridiculous. Feminists, the media, equal rights groups and other people hard pressed for equality amongst the genders have pressed this issue so much that it has made it rewarding, or more accepted for a woman to act like a man and acheive a career. Most of the women I know really just want to be happy, and almost all of them long for a signifigant other. To suggest that really what females want is to be independent and career oreinted just is not true-find a woman in her mid thirties or over and see how hard pressed she is to find a relationship on the average, then rethink what women really want. Our society has become so hard pressed and stressed about compitition and who is better and who is worse that we even managed to turn both genders in competing agaoinst eachother. The confuses notion that there is not difference between both genders has already led to a more people being single, a stressed relationship between the genders, more divorce, and more single parent households. Who knows what it will do in time

[betsy]

I think that what you siad is really why I think about these issues of gender today. I also beleive, that at a woman's heart (even though some don't admit it) she wants to have a husband to support her and a children, however I think men are more independent and content for one night stands and hook ups. When you try to rationalize all this in our society, or any society, really nothing makes pure sense. There are millions of woman out there that can support themselves and do fine alone, but most seem so desperate for a relationship, and/ or a husband, and alot of the time they don't seem like women who are emotionally needy or lonely. I also beleive, that feminism really warped the mind of alot of women, I think millions of women were perfectly happy raising thier family, and a small group of voices overwelmed them into thinking they were not doing real work. Men, I think usually just remain men, and not much is going to change them, they have always been the same and will be, while women change, adapt, and in my opinion never really know exactly who they are (some of them). I mean for billions of years, women's primary job has been to raise and take care of the family, this goes back to biblical times, and now they all the sudden out of now where are career minded? I think outside influence definately had something to do with that. I mean what history book before the 1950s depicted women wanting to be independent, support themselves, and take over society. Exactly, none. I also feel this out of women's nature, they are so indecisive and gullable, that their core heart's desires are often hard to get at. same as other thread

I agree. Feminism had accomplished some good points...but nevertheless, also messed things up.

[August1991]

I think I have an opinion about this thread and this blog entry below but I'll reserve judgment for awhile. The blog entry is a fun, interesting read, in the American pop, French pseudo-analytical style.

In yesterday's post I said I've felt for a long time that women have easier lives than men. Being a man in today's world strikes me as a most difficult position. A friend wrote asking for clarification of both points.

The main reason I believe that women have easier lives than men is that I've had an easier life as a woman than my brother has had as a man. I can not, and will not, go into details, so you'll just have to take my word on this. However, I have a hypothesis on why men's lives are more difficult nowadays

There are three main trends why being a man in today's world strikes me as a most difficult position:

1. The Church of Oprah

2. Sex and the City

3. Teen girl media

Fausta

[Charles Anthony]

I will take a stab at this puzzle now!

My opinion is that the original post is a hodge-podge confusion resulting from various things such as:

kids being compelled by parents to study what the parents want them to study;

reconciling the cultural phenomenon of pre-planned marriages and hence, the futility of dating;

general teenage angst and jealousy;

maybe toss in some sexual identity crisis to spice things up.

I think I have an opinion about this thread

To me, the original post just sounds like a final vent or a belittle-fest, i.e. a desire to criticize rather than a desire to discuss.

and this blog entry below but I'll reserve judgment for awhile.

The blog seems like a more realistic discussion of modern gender dynamics.

Is it just me? What I find the most bizarre is that I do not ever recall caring to critically analyze any complicated gender issues when I was in school.

[Figleaf]

mm

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf

[Black Dog]

Is it just me? What I find the most bizarre is that I do not ever recall caring to critically analyze any complicated gender issues when I was in school.

You're a male, Chuck. Males aren't supposed to explore gender issues, lest it expose some rather unpleasent realities about male dominance and gender-as-a-social-construct.

The blog entry is a fun, interesting read, in the American pop, French pseudo-analytical style.

Hmmm....let's take a look

So we have a whole industry (network and cable TV, magazine, books, seminars) propagating the idea that women are inherently better than men. That's factor #1.

I can't think of a better manifestation of this than the preponderance of primetime sitcoms featuring a fat, dopey (but good-hearted! and white!) slob with an improbably gorgeous, long-suffering wife. The message is men are boys and need a woman to keep them on the straight and narrow, lest they fall victim to their own inherent male buffonary (which is always depicted as charming in its own way). The real losers, of course, are women, who now are expected to do most of the relationship upkeep (in addition to the housework and, of course, being sexually available at all times for their corpulent partners). Sure, men are done a disservice, but women are still the big losers. (Folks with more knowledge of feminist theory than I would point out how this is another example of the patriarchy in action.)

It's insulting to men, but does it make women's lives easier? Nope.

Factor #2 is what I call the Sex and the City syndrome: the assumption that the only reason for men's existence is to pleasure women.

Strange. Only one women on SatC treated men as men treat women (that is: assumed they existed only to pleasure her). The rest spent the bulk of the series trying to find the right man. And, if memory serves, in the end, three end up married (or at least "happily ever after"), while the "slut" character gets cancer.

The end result is that many women nowadays won't want to find intimacy. No matter how great a guy is, if he comes across a woman who will not want intimacy - no matter how great the sex - that relationship can not progress beyond that.

So? Why not just say "dating is hard" and wrap it up? Why pretend this is something that makes men's lives hard?

Now this is more like it:

This modern preoccupation with the Empowerful Woman was funny for a while, but it begins to wear thin. I predict that if a post-patriarchal social history of the New Millennium ever gets written there will be a hilarious chapter on this bizarre, buffoonish construct.

I allude to the confident, photogenic, entirely fictitious female who inhabits TV ads, “Sex in the City,” Oprah, and the popular imagination. Today’s woman isn’t a feminist. She doesn’t need to be, because she’s empowered.

She may only earn 3/4 of what a man earns, but she damn well has the empower to look sexy doing it in her cheapcrap push-up bra from Victoria’s Secret. She has the empower to demand pink products from manufacturers. She has the empower to cry out ‘I did it for me!’ when she gets her boob job; maybe she even has the empower to believe it. The empowerful woman is saucy, yet feminine. Clever, yet feminine. In her early thirties, yet feminine. Heterosexual, yet feminine. Stays in shape eating Lean Cuisine and sweating blue Gatorade while kickboxing in slow motion, yet feminine. Yes, the empowerful woman is many things. Too bad powerful isn’t one of them. That’s because feminine is all of them.

[Charles Anthony]

Strange. Only one women on SatC ---<SNIP>---

You watch "Sex In The City"? Does that make you a wee-man?

I could not resist.

Back to being serious...

I can't think of a better manifestation of this than the preponderance of primetime sitcoms featuring a fat, dopey (but good-hearted! and white!) slob with an improbably gorgeous, long-suffering wife.

Along the same lines, we hear the same dramatic distinctions in radio advertizements: the clueless-doofus husband being mocked by his household-responsible wife. If the roles were reversed, it would be called sexual discrimination.