Not for the faint hearted

Hey peeps,
To those i promised about the post on female mediocrity. http://thegreatsze.blogspot.com/2007/04/on-female-mediocrity.html
Some excerpts i will paste here. But i think the whole long thing is really worth a read cos quotes always take the writer out of context. In some sense i have always held these kind of views. I said kind of, but not endorse entirely what the writer says. So, pls clarify with me b4 you slag me. Maybe cos we both from Chinese High. MCPs we all are. AHAHA. But read it with an open mind and tell me what you think. The rest of his posts are not really too light-hearted as well if you wondering.

"This is not an exercise in misogyny. Rather, it is a general diatribe against modern society. We - and by this, I mean both men and women - have unconsciously conspired to allow mediocre women to stagnate happily in their mediocrity. I do believe that we are all born mediocre, save for the talented, God-gifted few. All is hard work. Society exerts a positive pressure on men to get good at things, to "deal with it", to yaru (to do with a view to improving). Conversely, however, there is no such expectation on the female in society; the damsel in distress is a stereotype precisely because art imitates life. The woman, the lady, the princess, she is admired for little that she does; she only has to suru (to do, period).

This is not just the fault of the female, though it is arguable that she has let herself down by falling so comfortably into the unchallenging role that society has carved out for her. It is the fault of us all; we prize female beauty to such an extent that all else that she does has no real effect on our judgment of her. It is of course our loss; when an entire gender expects little from its collective self, it is the entire species that suffers."
..."A friend pointed out, during our discussion on this topic, that men and women just perform different roles. Men fix the inanimate (arimasu - non-living things), while women nurture the animated (imasu - living things). But increasingly women have to fulfill neither role. Women are fully entitled to have careers now, in modern society; no one will begrudge a woman who chooses not to have kids. Men, on the other hand, have it thrust upon them to communicate well, to get in touch with their feelings, and yet at the same time fix everything that is mildly technological, to be strong, a bulwark, a pillar of support for the entire family unit. It is no surprise that most men fail in this demanding role.

It is not enough to just say that "Oh, girls are no good with the technical stuff", and "We girls are good at some things, you boys are good at others." What are you good at? Really. What is your demonstration of value? My father, not my mother, used to sew my name into my handkerchiefs when I was a boy. I can cook, poorly, but it is edible and it satisfies me. But what are these mediocre girls good at? And would they do what they are good at on a regular basis, without grumbling? And voluntarily? If I ask a girl to cook for me, will she? If I fix her computer for her, will she bring me a nice steaming bowl of lasagna to me? Or will I simply be laughed away at just having that expectation?"