A woman I know recently told me that she thinks, if she were a man, she would have a more prestigious job. She didn’t mean that as a man she would able to get a more powerful job, but that she would simply want one more. She thinks that men are under more pressure to be successful – to wear suits and make money and have blackberries – and are therefore more likely to succeed. Women, she thinks, are taught to focus more on their looks, and finding a husband. That’s why they aren’t as ambitious.
This idea reminds me of high school, where all of the incredibly lazy potheads were consistently described as “actually, really, really smart.” Were they, really? Did they really get rejected from Georgetown only because they refused to “play the game”? Or could it be true that not going to class and not doing any work is actually an indication of intelligence and ability to succeed in college? I was always bitter (and can you tell?) that the rest of us, who were both smart and hard-working, often got less recognition from our teachers and our peers.
Life is just so much more interesting when something is oppressing you, isn’t it? Either you are complacent at work because society never pushed you to succeed, or you end up failing P.E. in your senior year of high school because, it’s like, waaaay too stifling to conform to the fascist constraints of a high school gym class. Please. You failed P.E. because smoking pot in the woods behind school was more fun than playing badminton, and you didn’t get promoted at your job because all you do at work is update your blog. Just admit it.
Society did not program you to be less ambitious, or less successful, than your brother or your boyfriend. “The man” did not prevent you from attending Princeton. Jews do not actually control the government and media. George Bush and Dick Cheney did not kill your dog. That is not to say that shit doesn’t happen. Bad things happen to people who deserve better, and some of those problems are products of our government, our society, etc. I'm all for changing things that aren't fair. But, as a recent article in Slate put it: “No one in America can corner the market on suffering. Who the hell wants to spend their life in a corner, anyhow?”
The only answer I can come up with is: most people. Corners can be quite snuggly.
3 comments:
Damn the potheads; I also hated how slackers were assumed to be really smart and just morally above turning in their homework instead of just too dumb to do it. But there is something to the trick: if you're dumb and you work hard only to fail, everyone knows you're dumb. But if you're dumb and never try, no one knows if its the lack of effort or the lack of intelligence that did you in. So I guess it's kind of smart to be dumb in the second way. Still, damn the potheads.
Troublemakers always get more attention. That's why they cause trouble in the first place.
Yes, yes, I know why troublemakers make trouble. I really don't mind if they get more attention by being arrested or suspended, though. I mind that they are praised for their intelligence while being suspended or arrested.
Who failed P.E. senior year? Yeah I hated how girls who skipped class were dumb but boys who got high were "smart"....gender bias, hate it! My boss says she does not hold a double standard with her son. She assumes that even if he was a girl, she would not assume him more responsible. She then told me how she fears him doing hard drugs in high school, I had nothing to add to the conversation, except to say I was way too neurotic in high school.
Which brings me back to the hard working smart female student, is she lame in our society?
Post a Comment