Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'competition'.
Found 2 results
There was an interesting article recently by a woman who attempted to start an all female production company. That was her utopian dream. Unfortunately for her, it turned into a nightmare. In my view her failure stands as an object lesson. One should not, of course, jump to conclusions based on a single example. Perhaps the women that worked at the author's company were unusual in some way. Perhaps they were mostly young and immature, though their ages are not given in the article. However, it seems to me that it highlights a feature of the female personality that is often ignored. Women are generally not as cooperative as men. That simple fact has far reaching consequences. One of the features of the left that often attracts women is its calls for more cooperation. In fact, it is a staple of the left to claim (or hope) that a society can be built in which competition is eliminated and people are made to act in purely cooperative ways. So, winners and losers are eliminated from childhood games, at least those led by adults. It is often suggested that grades and grading be eliminated from schools and colleges. In fact, the whole communist/socialist package is based on the utopian notion that competition can and should be eliminated. How ironic it is then, the women seem to be so incapable of cooperating toward a common end. Women are often compared to cats while men are compared to dogs. What are the differences between cats and dogs? Generally, cats go their own way and do their own thing. Dogs (or wolves) cooperate to hunt and are known for their loyalty. Ok, female lions also cooperate so the analogy is not perfect. Still, everyone knows the impossibility of "herding cats." Perhaps it is the fact that women are so constantly in competition with each other that causes them to crave more cooperation. However, if the article is any indication, women need men for more than mere companionship. They need men for their very survival. The women in the article, if left to their own devices, would undoubtedly starve to death in the span of a few years. This is not to say anything about anyone's individual talents or abilities. Women tend to be more talented than men in some respects and less in others. But, survival for a single, lone individual is difficult. It is the capacity for large scale cooperation that makes society and civilization possible. One might argue that these characteristics are not features of all women. There certainly have been remarkable women. Ayn Rand comes to mind. However, Rand's life is not necessarily a rebuke to my argument. Indeed, even she fits the mold. She achieved success largely on her own. She was a loner in many respects. Her most loyal students, followers, and defenders were men. Of course, there have also been famous heads of state that were women: Queen Elizabeth, Catherine the Great, Margaret Thatcher. But again, such women were surrounded by loyal supporters and those supporters were mostly men. It is impossible to know whether they could have achieved greatness without a cooperative base of men. In short, if the world were devoid of men --- if women were somehow able to reproduce without men --- would the sisterhood be able to survive? If the article is any indication, the answer is a resounding, "No!" Darrell