When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often. But if a man bites a dog, that is news. - John B. Bogart
Though the source of this quote is in dispute (it has also been attributed to Charles Anderson Dana and Lord Northcliffe), few would dispute its general veracity. When something ordinary happens (such as politicians waffling on positions or going back on promises, banks inventing new ways to cheat people or the military scapegoating somebody for a business-as-usual practice which unexpectedly turns into a scandal among civilians), it isn’t really news at all by the “dog bites man” test. Yet as these examples show such things are presented as news every day. Sometimes they become newsworthy because of the unusual size of the dog or the sheer number of people bitten; sometimes it’s just a slow news day, and very often such stories are the equivalent of the patter, lovely assistant and other misdirection used by a conjurer to draw attention away from what he’s actually doing. But in some cases “dog bites man” stories become newsworthy because the media have succeeded in convincing enough people that dogs actually don’t bite men, so when it happens in a public place silly people are either surprised or must at least pretend to be.
Two stories of the latter sort came to my attention last Tuesday (January 4th). Neither of these will come as any great shock to whores, regular readers of this column or people who go through life with their eyes open. But judging by the fact that both were presented as news, and by the commentary following the articles, one must presume that many people either don’t recognize these as examples of “dog bites man” or else believe that dogs do not in fact generally bite men; they therefore react by feigning surprise, denying that the story actually describes an incident of canine aggression, or questioning the veracity of the report.
The first story reports on a study which demonstrates what rational people already know: many if not most women are simply not interested in all-consuming, male-style careers and prefer to “marry up” or take jobs which allow them to enjoy their lives and concentrate on their families rather than forcing them to sell their souls to corporations as so many men do.
…according to Catherine Hakim of the London School of Economics…more women are choosing to marry wealthy men than in the 1940s…she suggests men dominate the top positions because women simply do not want careers in business. “Women’s aspiration to marry up, if they can, to a man who is better-educated and higher-earning persists in most European countries,” she said. “Women thereby continue to use marriage as an alternative or supplement to their employment careers.”
The research…showed that 20 per cent of British women married husbands with a significantly better education than their own in 1949…[but] by the 1990s, the percentage of women deciding to “marry up” had climbed to 38 per cent – with a similar pattern repeated in the rest of Europe, the US and Australia. The report concluded that equal roles in the family, where husband and wife shared employment, childcare and housework, was “not the ideal sought by most couples…it is thus not surprising that wives generally earn less than their husbands, and that most couples rationally decide that it makes sense for her to take on the larger share of child care, and to use most or all the parental leave allowance.” Her report also suggests that many women do not want to admit they want to be housewives – even to their partners. “It has become impossible to say, ‘I wouldn’t mind being a housewife,’ …it is so politically incorrect that a lot of women don’t want to admit it.”
Dr Hakim also accuses feminists of peddling a string of myths and manufacturing “political ammunition for a war that has ended.” She says: “Women today have more choices than men, including real choices between a focus on family work and/or paid employment…Despite this, many politicians and feminists appear disappointed with the slow pace of change in women’s attainment of top jobs. Sex differences are treated as self-evident proof of widespread sex discrimination and sex-role stereotyping rather than the result of personal choices and preferences. Demands for further change rest on faulty assumptions and dated evidence. The latest research shows that most of the theories and ideas built up around gender equality in the last few decades are wrong. Despite feminist claims, the truth is that many men and women have different career aspirations, priorities, and life goals. Policy makers should therefore not expect the same job outcomes.”
Honestly, why does this surprise anyone who has personally known more than two women? Despite three decades of neofeminist propaganda, can anyone who isn’t wholly delusional really believe that the vast majority of women want a masculine career? OK, that’s a rhetorical question; obviously many people outside the Netherlands do indeed believe it, as evidenced by this Jezebel editorial on the study. A few women in the ensuing commentary point out that homemaking is a valid path and that true feminism is about giving women the CHOICE of opportunities, not forcing us all to be bootlicking, clock-punching corporate lackeys. But the rest of them…well, read it yourself. Given this widespread willingness of women to ignore their own feelings and the observed behavior of their friends in favor of neofeminist dogma, is it any wonder so many of them believe the related propaganda about sex work?
The second story is really only interesting because A) the woman is young, and B) she states what she’s looking for so clearly. Other than that, she’s no different from any other woman who’s ever supported a gigolo and not much different from immature women who fantasize about gay guys, androgynous young boys or other non-threatening males. And in her quest for a silly romance-novel fantasy of sexless love, is she really all that different from immature men who pursue a silly porno-movie fantasy of loveless sex? Either way, it’s still dog bites man.