User:Gpscholar/Sex-specific Assets
Harvard University's president, Lawrence H. Summers, resigned under pressure after claiming that men are genetically equipped with penises, an endowment which enables them to excel in science, engineering, and top management positions. Equipped with vaginas, women, are more fit, he suggested, to bear children, cook, clean, change diapers, and engage in penile-vaginal sex. In an age characterized by unisex fashion, political correctness, sexual equality, and feminist nonsense notions, Summers' words were not only courageous but also exceedingly stupid. As president of a major university, he should have known that, on American campuses today, there is neither free speech nor academic freedom, and he should have kept his opinions to himself and said only "Pass the mustard, please." Nevertheless, despite the controversy that ensued Summers' ill-considered remarks, Dr. Hugh Mann, founder of Humanism, has conducted a series of studies over the past several decades concerning what he calls entertainers' "sex-specific assets" in an attempt to prove, scientifically, whether men and women are different.
Hair[edit | edit source]
Most Americans believe that women have the edge on men when it comes to hair. After all, more men by far go bald than women do. While he concedes the truth of this situation, Mann disagrees that women otherwise have any advantage over men with regard to hair. "Men have as many hair follicles as women and, in some cases, more, especially if we count not only the pate, but also the rest of the head and, indeed, the entire body," he says. Men and women are more or less equal in regard to how hirsute they are, which, for entertainers, is good, because, "for them," Mann asserts, "hairiness is next to godliness--or goddessness, as the case may be--for hair is considered the crowning attribute of beauty and sexuality."
Eyes[edit | edit source]
For entertainers, the eyes are very important, Mann says, for they, like the other facial features and the entire body, help to communicate emotions. Sometimes they are the only thing on a celebrities face that can communicate emotion due to liberal injections of Botox. (They also help entertainers--other than Ray Charles--to see.) He found that there is more similarity than difference between these assets, as indicated by the eyes of Britney Spears and Boy George. If anything, the scientist declared, Boy's eyes are prettier than Britney's.
Noses[edit | edit source]
A conspicuous proboscis symbolizes strength of character and nosiness, Mann contends, and is regarded as regal. Although folk wisdom suggests that males have more pronounced noses than females, in entertainers, again, this is more the exception than the rule, as indicated by these photographs of Karl Malden (left) and Barbara Streisand (right).
Lips[edit | edit source]
Like the eyes, the lips are especially communicative of entertainers' emotions and help them to convey love, hatred, anger, patience, and a whole range of other intense feelings to the audiences who identify vicariously with them. In fact, the lips are so important in conveying emotions that some entertainers, mostly women, have resorted to having collagen injected into their lips to make them fuller and more sensuous (in their minds, at least) than their own lips would be without such filling. It is believed that women outscore men in having thicker, smoother, more sensuous lips, but this belief also is erroneous, according to Mann's studies.
Chin[edit | edit source]
As the phrase "take it on the chin" implies, this part of the face symbolizes strength, both of physique and of character. Someone with a strong chin is considered to be a person of strong moral fiber who will stand firm on principles. A person with a weak, or "glass," chin, on the other hand, is likely to be easily defeated. Who is likely to have a bolder chin? According to a poll commissioned by Mann as part of his study of entertainers' sex-specific assets, the majority of the public, hands down, believe that men have more dynamic chins than women do. That's not the conclusion that Mann reached after conducting exhaustive studies. Once again, the evidence comes down on the side of unisex fashion, political correctness, sexual equality, and feminist nonsense notions.
Breasts[edit | edit source]
]
Surely, if men and women differ in any respect at all, other than genitally, it must be with regard to their breasts, or boobs, many would argue, since women have them and men don't. "That may once have been the case," Mann agrees, "but that's no longer necessarily true in an age of transsexuals, transvestites, and transgender folk, when women are having mastectomies and undergoing phalloplasty to become men and men are being castrated and having breast implants to become women." According to Mann, about the same percentage of men are becoming women as women are becoming men. “Transwomen and transmen are equal in number; we just hear more about transwomen.” Can men compete against women when it comes to breasts, one of the ultimate badges of femininity? “Pictures don’t lie,” Mann contends.
Genitals[edit | edit source]
See "Breasts."
Buttocks[edit | edit source]
The general population believes that, usually, because of the female skeleton's wider pelvis, women can be expected to have broader, more ample derrieres, but, once again, they are wrong. Science, as conducted by Mann, demonstrates that, overall, there is such a slight disparity between female entertainers' buttocks and their male counterparts' that the difference is negligible. "Men are working out to keep in shape," Man declares, "and to shape their bodies. They are paying more and more attention to not only their arms and chests and thighs and backs, but also to their buttocks. They want shapely bottoms that rival women's, and they're getting them--through hormones or surgical augmentation, if necessary, through exercise and diet, if possible."
Conclusion[edit | edit source]
From his decades-long study of sex-specific assets, Mann concludes that Harvard University's president, Lawrence H. Summers, should have been fired had he not resigned, for "there is not a whit of scientific evidence to warrant the assumption that there is any significant difference between men and women: unisex fashion, political correctness, sexual equality, and feminist nonsense notions are scientifically valid, and free speech and academic freedom must be politically correct, at least as long as scientific research is funded largely by the federal government and it is the government's intention to validate whatever views are politically expedient at any particular period. "If the feds want me to prove that women are superior to men, both in strength, endurance, and intelligence, I'll be happy to do it, even if, next year, they want to demonstrate the opposite, as long as the big bucks continue to flow into my lab," Mann said. "That's what science is all about--proving whatever is most lucrative."