Issuu on Google+

WHY WOMEN COUNT WHY WOMEN COUNT An essay about understanding by Joe Fisher

I think that it is a thousand times more difficult for a girl to become a woman than it is for a boy to become a man. For a boy to become a man the process seems to entail only him having to suffer some minor physical changes and the mastering of the acquisition of some sort of sustaining abstract belief that ostensibly requires a brief period to accomplish. The more absurd the belief the boy absorbs, the more likelihood there will be of great fame in the prospective man’s future. For a girl to become a woman the physical changes seem to be her having to undergo a regular total body replacement, and the ability for her being able to deal with the dynamic reality of existing in the here and now, and the process appears to take up every potential woman’s lifetime. Nowhere is this difference in the two sexes maturation process better expressed than in the field of education. At one time, had I been asked my opinion of which teachers had had the most influence throughout history, I would have unhesitatingly nominated Aristotle, Jesus Christ, Confucius, Isaac Newton, Bertrand Russell, and probably Albert Einstein as being the ones that I could recall on the spur of the moment. I have never read a word of what any of these eminent deceased men might have written with the exception of a few pages of Bertrand Russell’s Principia Mathematica. I have instead relied on the interpretive assessments and accurate biographies of other male writers, who have also since died, for my determination of the quality of the famous men’s written educational contributions.


WHY WOMEN COUNT 2. Besides being dead, the other trait that these teachers seem to have had in common is that they appear to have directed the preponderance of their sagacious musings primarily toward thoughtful men, and any mention of women in their writings seems to refer to women singularly as being something of a distraction, and collectively as their being a source of intense aggravation, and in both cases, not in the least bit were women ever to be considered competently thoughtful. As far as I can tell, there seems to have been not much of a difference in the relative assessment of the educational proficiency of men and women in ancient societies, nor does there seem to be this divide in any of the few remaining primitive tribes. Education is language. All babies are taught oral language principally by their mothers. I do not know if any studies have ever been conducted concerning whether baby girls are more loquacious than baby boys are; the main point is that both baby boys and girls acquire the ability to use the fundamental skill of effective spoken communication from their mothers. The conundrum as to whether there is a difference between the educational capabilities of men and women gets even more peculiar in that every aspect for the formulation of any written language, from the design of the alphabet, to the dictionaries of the words, or the thesauri, or the formatting and styling of the words, the grammar, the tools used for the writing, and the materials the writing will be expressed upon seems always to have been monopolized by men. It is not only writing. All fabricated methods for human transmitted communication such as printing, typing, semaphoring, radio, television, cinematography; telephony and computerization were all conceived and developed by men. From the use of clay tablets, to the quill, to the laser beamed technology, only men seem to have been involved in the process.


WHY WOMEN COUNT 3. Women are adept at using all of these language-enabling tools, and women always give reliable incontrovertible evidence that they are completely fluent in understanding and using the written language of their respective native land. Why then do women generally appear reluctant to demonstrate that although they understand the principles of mathematics and philosophy, for some mysterious reason, women seem to reject the utility of whatever benefits the science of mathematics and the purpose of philosophy might bestow? Women teach their babies how to talk, they usually also teach tots literacy in kindergarten classes. Typically, a female teacher will write a sentence such as “The cat sat on the mat� on the blackboard. Seems simple enough. To a girl tot the lesson is a fun lesson in the entrancing realm of make belief and she usually attains the ability of reading rapidly. To a boy tot the sentence is the most complex problem that he is ever likely to confront in his entire life. Because even girl tots are aware of what is real, they can easily distinguish between their surroundings in the classroom and the visualization of the imaginary cat. I do not think any boy can do this. In order to master literacy, I think a boy initially subjects himself to deciphering all written language literally. The boy tot vainly tries to explain to himself why a hypothetical cat of a hypothetical color belonging to a hypothetical family of hypothetical nationality would be sat on a hypothetical mat of a hypothetical design in a hypothetical decorated room in a hypothetical house on a hypothetical street in a hypothetical town in a hypothetical country on a hypothetical planet at a hypothetical time on a hypothetical day in a hypothetical year. A year or so before entering a kindergarten class, a child will usually be read a story at bedtime. Here again the story is usually read by the child’s mother, although a considerable


WHY WOMEN COUNT 4. number of fathers also carries out this chore. Whether it is an actual reading of one of the classical stories of Aesop, or the Brothers Grimm, or Hans Christian Andersen, or whether it is a parental interpretation from memorization of the story, it is well to keep in mind that either way, the ideas in the story were first expressed by a person long since dead. Here again, I think that a girl might interpret the reading of a bedtime story differently than a boy would. I do not think that a girl would relinquish her ability to know that she was in her own bed, and that either of her parents could read a page from the telephone book, or recite some of the disquieting information from the recent utility bill and the girl would still be contented with the parent’s narrative skills. Alternatively, the boy has to be beguiled by the story. The boy has to be filled with the vicarious pleasure that the exploits of the protagonists in the story exude. The boy has to pay sharp attention to the story because the precise language in the story differs from the mundane spoken language that his mother has used on him daily for the past two or three years, and it is vitally important that the boy get the point of the story. My wife, as is the case with most women, often complains bitterly that I never listen to her. Of course I don’t. I have been trained from infancy to pay more heed to all written information because written language is vastly superior in clarity and truth, and speakers working from a script are more likely to use the language flawlessly. I do not quite listen to any of the spontaneous utterances that any female would be capable of directing toward me, even the conversational gems from my wife whom I love dearly and whom I would never consciously hurt, than I do as intently as the transmitted political themed outpourings of Doctor Rachel Maddow of WNBC.


WHY WOMEN COUNT 5. Women know all about this fact of life. Any Woman in the world over knows that written language is more important to a man than it will ever be to her, and that it is imperative that her son learns the magical code that written language is. The only way that this language inculcation can be properly done is by her sacrificing her maternal importance and pragmatic knowledge of the reality of the spoken here and now by letting her son escape into the abstract confines of the alluring there and then that all written languages affords. There is a good probability that the evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke and John may have been real people, however, the matter cannot be adequately proven. What can be proven is that all the stories in both testaments of the Bible were authored by men.i Although it seems unlikely that Muhammad wrote any of the Quran seeing that he was illiterate, as best as anyone can know, all the stories in the Quran were authored by men.ii Nobody knows who wrote the Talmud. The only fact known about it is that the word Talmud means oral teaching, and all of this written instruction in the Talmud was authored by men.iii It is evident that all of the principal written material concerning the various forms of Hinduism including Buddhism, Mimamsa, Vedanta, and Samkhya was scripted by men.iv As for the religious texts of Africa and Australia, all of the acceptable ones were drafted by men.v Although it might seem puzzling to some why various all knowing worldly Deities would have impatiently chosen to make symbolic local appearances before a sparse few illiterate people rather than waiting until more reliable methods of communication had been perfected, and there would have been a far bigger better educated audience to be inspired with their Godly helpful pronouncements, it is not as baffling as the absence of women from engaging


WHY WOMEN COUNT 6. in any of the reporting of any of these ancient prophetic events. Setting aside for a moment the apparent commendable universal inclination toward the obtaining of literacy exhibited by the adherents of all of the world’s major religions, one cannot help but be astonished as to why there seems to be the lack of written input from women. It is not as if women were in any way deficient in understanding and cogently expressing themselves in any language that they are familiar with. While it might seem that women treat of language as it being primarily a piquant fashionable accoutrement that is handy for communicated civilized intimacy, they may actually use language a lot more honestly than men do. For instance, when asked what 1 plus 1 is, a woman will invariably answer 1 plus 1 makes two. This is actually a correct answer. A man on the other hand will probably reply, 1 plus 1 equals two. Although this answer is theoretically true, it is pragmatically incorrect. Just as no identical snowflakesvi of the trillions fallen have ever been recorded yet, although there have been multiple instances of indistinguishable appearance; each snowflake would appear to have a unique molecular structure. This uniqueness also seems to apply to Deoxyribonucleic acid, (DNA) fingerprints, ballistics evidence, people, porpoises, planets, stars, 1’s, and everything real or imagined. It does not seem too outlandish to suggest that every 1 in this essay has a different number of pixels in its makeup than any other 1 would have when viewed on any computer screen. This applies to all number 1’s on every computer screen ever seen. Not only that, I think that each of the pixels in any of the number 1’s when examined microscopically would also differ in some minute way from any other pixel anywhere else.


WHY WOMEN COUNT 7. Indeed, it is impossible to fault any woman for skillfully using her common unwritten feminine logic rather than her relying on the more renowned, specialized, protracted, meticulously written, utterly implausible logic usually employed by men. For instance, in all of history and in every country of the world not one woman has ever considered herself to be lost. Wherever it is that she is on the planet, she reasons, must be the exact place she intended to be, otherwise, she would not be in that particular place would she? This same irrefutable remorseless simple feminine logic applies even more so when an explanation of a woman’s motivation and methodology for her activity is sort. Whatever it is that she is doing at any one time, it must be what she fully intended to be doing, or else she would not be doing it, would she? This thoughtful feminine creed is outstanding in that it is mercifully brief, it can be easily memorized so there is no need for it to be written down, and above all, it is a set of instructions that only concern a living woman and that can only be rightfully applied currently. Compare this terse, delightful, truly human, real, reassuring, reaffirming feminine logic with the grotesque, inane, alien dominated, boring, absurd, abstract, DEAD, written down logic believed in only by men. No aspect of reality could ever be written down because all written statements are abstractions that have no pragmatic proof. The foundation of masculine logic is mathematics. The foundation of mathematics is that 1 + 1 = 2. Numbers are not real things. It was the Italian mathematician Giuseppe Peanovii who first offered mathematical proof of the number 1 through his postulates of natural numbers that he propounded in his Arithmatices principia nova method


WHY WOMEN COUNT 8. exposita. This proof was cemented by the English philosopher, Bertrand Russell in the threevolume masterwork, Mathematica Principia that he co-wrote with Alfred North Whitehead.viii Reality is a whole. Reality is not a compound of calculable fractional parts. Reality has no shape or size or duration, and women understand this and men do not. It appears to me that in the reality that I am familiar with, opposite states attract, similar states abide, and states on the point of becoming identical first exchange constituencies and then start destroying each other until different states of opposite attraction are attained. As can be seen from a physical examination of snowflakes, no two snowflakes are identical. Yet every scientific system devised by men has at its core the sustaining of identical units or identical parts of units. Inches, meters, grams, degrees, microns, kilograms, liters, nanoseconds, light-years, whatever, all had to be identical. Men have always believed, and will also continue to believe that there is a then and there, a start and an end and there is no proof that can be found that confirms any of these conditions so men futilely speculate about these meaningless matters as they persist in their empty abstract existence. Although women have terrific imaginations, they have no mechanism for dealing with abstraction. Women really live in the real world of the here and now ruled only by themselves only while they are alive. Men somehow exist in the mystical world of the there and then dominated only by others and ruled over by their buried ancestors.


WHY WOMEN COUNT 9. i

Bible Research < Textual Criticism < The Story of the Bible. Chapter 3. How the books of the New Testament were written. (n d) Information retrieved October 24, 2009, from http://www.bibleresearcher.com/kenyon/sotb3.html ii Bible and Quran. Who wrote Quran? By Sherly Isaac, (n d) Information retrieved October 24, 2009, from http://bibleandquran.org/quran-word-of-god9.htm iii Babylonian Talmud, Book 10: History of the Talmud, tr. By Michael L Rodkinson, [1918},at sacred-texts.com. Information retrieved October 24, 2009, from http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t10/ht104.htm iv A view on Buddhism, material furnished by Peter Della Santina. Last updated November 23, 2006. Information retrieved October 25, 2009, from http://www.viewonbuddhism.org/pre_buddhism_history.html v Internet Sacred Text Archive (n d) Information retrieved October 25, 2009, from http://www.sacredtexts.com/about.htm vi About.com:Chemistry. Snowflake chemistry. Answers to Common Questions By Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph. D. (n d) Information retrieved June 24, 2009, from http://chemistry.about.com/od/moleculescompounds/a/snowflake.htm vii Giuseppe Peano. (n d) Information retrieved July 26, 2009, from http://www.gapsystem.org/~history/Biographies/Peano.html viii Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Principia Mathematica, Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell. (article first published Tue. May 21, 1996. Substantive revision Thu. May 1, 2005) Information retrieved June 24, 2009, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/principia-mathematica/#COPM


WHY WOMEN COUNT