BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Nirpal Dhaliwal and the great art of men.

 
 
Olulabelle
21:05 / 12.08.06
A really annoying man called Nirpal Dhaliwal has written an article in The Times called Man about the House which I have just read thanks to a link on Our Lady's blog. In this article Dhaliwal claims amongst other outrageous things that Historically, men have generated almost all the great art, science and philosophy; we’re also to blame for almost all the war, carnage and mayhem. The two sides are inextricably linked. If we didn’t have such huge egos to feed, we wouldn’t bother with the arduous labour of writing novels or decoding the genome. We live for glory, be it in sport, music or battle.

Factually is this true? Have men generated almost all the great everythings or is it just that mens contributions have been recognised? Have women had less of a chance to discover things, less chance to be the court painter, to get the glory? If men have generated most great things, then why is that?

See I have a problem with that. It makes me cross because it's sexist clap-trap but then I think about it, and think maybe he's right. Not because I think men are better, but because women were busy, say, doing a shed-load of sewing.

So first, I want to know if he's factually correct and if this is recognised as fact. Then I'd like to commission someone to take him out gangland stylee.
 
 
*
21:24 / 12.08.06
Sure— in the same way that rich people tend to make better real estate investments than poor people.

If you've got a group of people who've been sitting in judgment of what is valued in certain fields defined by them since time immemorial, and then you say "within the field defined by X people, and according to the values X people have established, X people make the best contributions," it's hardly surprising, but also hardly meaningful. Especially when you consider that it is generally only possible to succeed at these fields when you have an abundance of time, sufficient resources to live on, independence, privacy, and access to education, things which have historically been denied to women.

It's not "fact" because "great" cannot be defined factually. Certainly the reason given is incoherent and lacks support. But I think it is a reasonable statement that due to women's relative lack of privilege, we probably have a fraction of the number of great women poets, philosophers, artists, architects, scientists, and mathematicians than we would otherwise have.
 
 
Olulabelle
21:43 / 12.08.06
Well that's very frustrating, because he clearly believes what he is writing. I don't know how the press works; why is he allowed to write something so opinionated? Do his editors have to agree with him or will it just get published if it potentially sells well?

I know there are opinion pages in newspapers but what if you are actually talking bollocks, hmm?
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
23:27 / 13.08.06
I wouldn't dismiss (out of hand) the idea that he could be right (as a general principle; otherwise, he sounds a right muppet*); I don't think we should automatically assume that men, women, and anyone anywhere in between should necessarily think in exactly the same way or have an automatically equal facility in all fields of endeavour.

I'd personally like to believe that was true**, and as far as I know the evidence (when not clouded by cultural bias, which, alas! rules out pretty much all of it) suggests that any differences are minimal. Maybe (probably?) we've no way of reliably establishing whether there are differences short of running a vast number of iterations (say six-seven billion) over a large amount of time (say a couple of thousand years) in bias-free conditions (say when pigs fly) to see what we get.

On a rather nasty note (prompted by my rereading of The Player of Games); presumably it would be possible, even if no significant differences existed to start with, to create differences in ability between people of different sexes, races, or whatever, by eugenic (dysgenic?) manipulation, leading to an imbalance regardless of prevailing cultural conditions. Yuck.

*I trust I can fling this devastating insult without fear of incurring anyone's wrath.
**and every time I hear someone begin "all men are" or "all women are" I feel like screaming at them. This may or may not be common.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
23:46 / 13.08.06
I trust I can fling this devastating insult without fear of incurring anyone's wrath.

Well, Animal might not like it. (joke)

As for the thread-subject, I feel it's probably almost impossible to judge whether women or men are responsible for all / majority of humanity's inventions. (although I think id's an entity thing makes very valid points): i.e. when I think about it, how many developments which we take for granted can be traced back to male/female insight? i.e. who invented soap? (I don't mean which culture, I mean "man or woman"?) And of course, though I have no evidence to support this, who knows if some male inventor's wife was the real brains behind an invention or three? (I keep thinking about George Orwell ["1984"] and how easy it is for someone to write/rewrite history, including those so-called offical sources which have been around for decades and decades...although this line of reasoning means we can trust almost nothing... Hmm... interesting... By the way, did I tell you that I invented freedom?
 
 
alas
23:59 / 13.08.06
Can I make yet another plea for everyone to read Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own? She's exploring EXACTLY these questions, circa 1929, but it's amazing how little things have changed in some ways. This man, Professor Dhaliwal, seems to have basically revised the book that Woolf invents as an amalgam of the things being written by men about women during her time, to wit: "The Mental, Moral, and Physical Inferiority of Women" by Professor von X.

Oh, look! here's a e-version of the chapter in which Woolf introduces us to this professor and makes some of the key arguments that I would love to quote for you here, but really, you should just read it in context, it is so funny and enjoyable.

She uses "Professor von X"'s eminent work to explore her own angry reaction to seeing book after book, by men, making sweeping (and often negative) claims about women. But then she turns to the emotions of the men writing these books, and notes a curious fact:

How explain the anger of the professors? Why were they angry? For when it came to analysing the impression left by these books there was always an element of heat. This heat took many forms; it showed itself in satire, in sentiment, in curiosity, in reprobation. But there was another element which was often present and could not immediately be identified. Anger, I called it. But it was anger that had gone underground and mixed itself with all kinds of other emotions. To judge from its odd effects, it was anger disguised and complex, not anger simple and open.

Her analysis of the workings of power and anger is pretty brilliant, and I've quoted some of it in my books thread (see my first link above). Oh, and lest we think Dhaliwal is a lone professor von x making a trogloditic argument, check out, blergh, the book "Manliness" by Harvard's emeritus professor von X, Harvey Mansfield. That links to an EXCELLENT review, on the Powell's book store site, written by Martha Nussbaum for the New Republic, in which she analyzes such quotations as:

"One has only to think of Jane Austen to be assured that women have a sense of humor, distributed in lesser quantities to lesser brains."

Ah. Well, I have to go spit nails, now.
 
 
Harhoo
10:37 / 14.08.06
There is possibly an interesting debate to be had here.

Rather than do that, I will just derail and point out that Dhaliwal is basically the most comically comical cock in the farmyard.

Apart from having a very meagre talent that only gets exposure due to the success of his wife, he has decided the best way to promote himself and his 100% badly reviewed novel is to foist the details of his immature and odd relationship as if it was a decent paradigm of male/female relations.

The following hardhitting reportage he's brought back from the battleground of the 21st Century Gender War may make you feel many emotions (hilarity, anger, bemusement, shame etc), but it should, hopefully, stop you from bothering to read any more of his hysterically bad and self-obsessed work:

'The female orgasm is the natural mechanism by which men assert dominion over women: a man who appreciates this can negotiate whatever difficulties arise in his relationships with them. Last Christmas, my wife threw me out after discovering I'd been cheating on her. On the night we got back together, I made strong, passionate love to her.

'Unfaithful as I'd been, I was not going to let her have me over a barrel for the rest of our marriage. I needed to keep a sense of self and not allow her to mire me in guilt and a desperate quest of forgiveness. I needed to let her know what she would be missing if we broke up for ever. I gave her a manful bravura performance that night, and at the height of her passion, I asked her: "Who's the boss?"

'The question threw her. Initially she wouldn't give me a reply, but I enticed it from her. "You are," she finally gasped. "You are!"'

[From the Daily Mail's Femail, 4th of August, 2006(2006. Sweet fuck.)]
 
 
Harhoo
10:41 / 14.08.06
[Link to the full Femail/Dhaliwal article]
 
 
Alex's Grandma
11:46 / 14.08.06
Nirpal Dhaliwal is a *professional contrarian* who in an ideal world would no doubt sign off all his articles '11!23!' Pretty much regardless of the rights and wrongs of his views on any given subject (and they're usually fairly tiring, as he knows very well,) it's worth bearing in mind that a)they're designed to irritate, b)he doesn't actually mean them, and that c)if everyone ignored him, he really would just go away. As someone who's broadly to the left of the Tonys Parsons and Blair, Dhaliwal's regular column in the Evening Standard has made my blood boil on a couple of occasions, but that's the point of him really; he has no other.

As with Julie Burchill or whoever, complaining about people like this is like complaining when it rains, but with the added proviso that if everyone stopped complaining, the writing, in fairly short order, would stop getting airtime.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
11:55 / 14.08.06
Historically, men have generated almost all the great art, science and philosophy

There's a gap here between generated and published, generated and exhibited, the ability to get a position as a scientific researcher, to talk to the right men in order to get the right job to generate in the first place. I would like to think this is a mistake in nasty Nirpal's language use but that argument is undermined by if we didn’t have such huge egos to feed, we wouldn’t bother with the arduous labour of writing novels or decoding the genome. This is basically absurd because he's attributing these things to men, when we're all aware that women write novels and engage in the act of decoding the genome.

Basically he's a twit isn't he.
 
 
Sniv
13:36 / 14.08.06
Wow. Can we invite this dude to be on Barbelith just so we can ban him? I was reading his article and just thinking "If I said any of this on the board, I'd be totally fucked,". Let's bring him in for a chat!
 
 
Lurid Archive
14:09 / 14.08.06
I think it is certainly true that in mathematics (I assume the point holds more broadly, but I'm surest here) that the vast majority of progress has historically been the work of rich white men. The reasons for this shouldn't be surprising, since one needs a certain access to resources in order to do this kind of thing, but it makes the statement that men have produced most great things in math somewhat defensible, if for rather particular reasons - from the time women have been allowed into universities, they have also started to contribute a good deal more to scientific research, unsurprisingly.

I'm reasonably sure that the pattern for math would also be reproduced in Physics and Chemistry, and many other sciences. I'm rather less sure that that tells you anything at all about gender differences.
 
 
kan
07:36 / 15.08.06
Just wanted to say thanks to alas for prodding me to finally read A room of one's own.
I don't know why but I have avoided it for a long time. There's something about the persona of Virginia Woolf, the combination of V & W? the wolf bit? or maybe a strange link in my head to that Elizabeth Taylor film "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?", (me) -that has made me a bit reluctant about reading her stuff.
I tried Mrs Dalloway last year but got stuck, so this essay was a complete revelation. So fluent, lucid and entertaining, it was like a big drink of water when you're really thirsty but didn't really realise it until you tasted the water.
And the image of Professor von X, all whiskery jowls and red in the face with fury will be a useful one to help me stay calm and laugh in the face of Nirpal Dhaliwal and his like in the future.
Yeah read it dudes.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
10:24 / 15.08.06
There's a third article which advises women that happiness can be found by large groups of them 'sharing' a man between them, who for maximum happiness should be of South Asian extraction. When not sexing him, the women should sex one another, presumably so he can watch.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
17:35 / 10.09.06
Because you're not angry enough...

Fixated feminists and mad men
Evening Standard (London); Sep 6, 2006

THE novelist Fay Weldon is telling women to fake their orgasms and stroke men's egos, because we're so retarded and in need of encouragement we can't tell the difference. But guys always know how well we've done in bed by the extent women are nice to us the following day.

Women who've had their boats floated don't whinge over breakfast about how you forgot to take the trash out the night before.

The more important point is that this latest fuss being made about women's orgasms is another example of the skewed logic and selfobsession that passes for feminism these days.

Men are the ones with the real problems. We are much more prone to be murdered or commit suicide, and we become alcoholics and junkies and succumb to depression and madness at a far higher rate than women. But women are the ones who constantly moan about their lot, despite having made the greatest strides in recent decades.

Men have a real challenge in the modern world, but whenever someone offers the opinion that men need some special consideration, feminist reactionaries will shout them down.

A lot of feminists refuse to concede that men are anything but oppressors, though the prisons and mental institutions are packed full of guys who've completely lost their way.

These feminists lose sight of the fact that men were the victims of patriarchy too.

Patriarchy turned men into repressed, stunted Neanderthals who couldn't navigate their emotional problems. Their traditional roles in society disappeared, but men didn't have the psychological wherewithal to reinvent themselves along constructive lines: hence the heavy drinking, violence and enormous levels of mental illness.

Feminists need to look at the difficulties men face too, because it's women who have to deal with the fallout.

The irresponsibility of mixed-up modern men means that parenting is a task that's largely left to women when men walk out on their families. Because society doesn't define any role for men, a lot of them are happy to play no role at all, even that of father to their kids.

Perhaps this narrowness stems from the fact that most feminist thinkers pontificate from the cushy position of being educated and middleclass.

They, and the women they're speaking to, have careers and the ability to compensate for the shortcomings of men. They're not trapped on a sink estate trying to raise children on their own and can afford the luxury of being a sanctimonious ideologue.

Feminists talk a lot about " empowering" women, but if that empowerment ends up as little but a fixation with achieving orgasm it seems pretty worthless.

Shouldn't these empowered women be using their greater authority to make the world a better place, for everyone?
 
 
stabbystabby
22:36 / 10.09.06
'Unfaithful as I'd been, I was not going to let her have me over a barrel for the rest of our marriage. I needed to keep a sense of self and not allow her to mire me in guilt and a desperate quest of forgiveness. I needed to let her know what she would be missing if we broke up for ever. I gave her a manful bravura performance that night, and at the height of her passion, I asked her: "Who's the boss?"

this is half baked Eddie Murphy. From Eddie Murphy Raw:

Men fool around because of this.



We fool around because we figured women out. We did. See, a lot of you ladies going: “What does he mean, he figured us out?"
And dumb niggas going, "Yeah, what does he mean, we figured them out?"

We figured you out in this sense, and this is true. Anybody's ever done this will agree with what I'm saying. Any woman that's ever had this done to her will agree what I'm gonna say. Those of you who've never done this will go, "I disagree."
But once you make a woman come real hard, once you make a woman say: (ooooooooooo)

No matter how bad you fuck up, no matter what you do wrong, no matter what you say, no matter what you do, as long as you say: "I'm sorry," she will listen to your story. And that's the truth.


We wait on that noise. We waiting on it.

Because we know we can act different as soon as you go: (oooooooooo)

We know we can act the fool then. Remember when your man
couldn't make it, he would call? No more of that shit. He heard you go: (oooo)

Remember he wanted to spend all his free time with you? No more of that.

You made that noise. Your man can act crazy. We know as soon as you go:

Our face is in the pillow like this, "I got this motherfucker now, boy."

Then you start talking to her:
"Whose pussy is this?
Whose pussy is this?"

"Oh, it's your pussy!
It's your pussy!"

And your relationship changes from that moment.
The woman be sitting on the bed, legs shaking:
"Oh, my God.
Oh, I can't believe it.
"I never came like that before.
I can't believe it."


And their man get real cold, saying shit like:

"Why don't you shake your ass home."
"What are you talking about?
Why are you treating me like this?

"We have a relationship."

"You don't own me."

"What do you mean?
We have a relationship.

"I thought that we go together."

"I don't see no rings on your finger."

"But I love you!"

"Well, what have you
done for me lately?"

And y'all put up with it.


if you're gonna be a bonehead sexist, at least be original.
 
  
Add Your Reply