All Talk, No Action

Old news, but The Wench frequently stumbles upon articles citing scientific research that reticence and repression are actually better for you than emoting. For example, Christina Hoff Sommers found that:

A small number of researchers are taking an empirical look at the general assumption that speaking out and declaring one’s feelings is better than holding them in. Jane Bybee, a Suffolk University psychologist, studied a group of high school students, classifying them as either "repressors," "sensitizers" (those keenly aware of their internal states), or "intermediates." She then had the students evaluate themselves and others using these distinctions. She also had the teachers evaluate the students. She found that the "repressors" were less anxious, more confident, and more successful academically and socially. Bybee’s conclusion is tentative: "In our day to day behavior it may be good not to be so emotional and needy. The moods of repressed people may be more balanced."

All of which leads The Wench to believe that her gender's insistence on "venting emotions" is not only misplaced, but ultimately counter-productive.

How many times, The Wench ponders, has she heard the same woman yammer on incessantly about the same issues with her spouse/children/coworkers, with no resolution in sight?

How many times, The Wench ponders, has she herself spent the better part of the day flapping her lips about this worry and that, to no avail?

The Wench believes that female "venting" does not, as the word suggests, expunge anxiety. Rather, venting feeds it. And unchecked, venting can become an uncontrollable nervous obsession.

The Wench further believes that female venting is a substitute for purposeful, useful -- and sometimes difficult -- action.

Here's to put up and shut up.

The Sisterhood of Martyrdom

The Wench finds that many of her sex profess to admire tough, unflappable, uber-competent women. Many of her sex likewise profess to want nothing more than to see tough, unflappable, uber-competent women in positions of power such as the presidency.

Bull-pucky, says The Wench.

There is oft-times a gaping divide between what women say they want and how they really feel. The reality is that most females are uncomfortable with tough, unflappable uber-competent women. They feel threatened by them -- in fact, they're threatened by all women who don't care about being "nice" or about ensuring that no one's feelings are hurt when expressing an opinion.

They do not always want to see a tough, unflappable, uber-competent woman succeed.

Case in point: The female voter who asked the question that drove Hillary Clinton to the brink of tears was actually won over by Hillary's emotional response:

"She's a human being," said Pernold-Young. "I know they say women shouldn't cry and neither should men, but so what?"

Likewise, another female voter declared that she was shifting her support from Obama to Clinton because of Hillary's tears:

"That was the clincher," she said.

The above echoes the meteoric rise in Ms. Clinton's popularity among women following the disclosure of her husband's dalliance with Ms. Lewinsky.

Women don't like strong women so much. They prefer female victims -- the more emotional, the better, but in a pinch, a gal who bravely suffers in silence will do, too.

Ladies, when will we stand behind and celebrate the unsentimental, decidedly un-warm-and-fuzzy battle-axes who can actually lead? Such as:

On Freakily Insane Women, AKA Sexual Harassment Suit Plaintiffs

The Wench recently overheard a male commenting that most females who file sexual harassment lawsuits are "bats*** crazy." Why is that, this male pondered.

The Wench agrees that many --although certainly not all -- women plaintiffs in sexual harassment cases are, indeed, bats*** crazy. Or, at the very least, more inclined to be mentally and emotionally . . . ahem! . . . fragile.

As for why this is so, sir -- why it's as plain as the male member in your shorts! It's simply the nature of the beast. And by "beast", I am not referring to the male member in your shorts. I am referring to the nature of sexual harassment itself.

Let's say you are a male sexual predator, out to grope, fondle, leer over, or otherwise harass a female employee. Do you prey upon the gal who responds to your innuendos by flipping you the bird? The no-nonsense gal who clearly and assertively informs you that she will not put up with your behavior, and that if you so much as touch her, she will gladly take a cheese grater to your scrotum?

No, silly. You prey upon the batsh** crazy gal! The one who's used all of her personal days suffering a nervous breakdown over her recent breakup. The one who spends a lot of time crying in the bathroom stall. The devotee of Marianne Williamson and The Secret, who's trying to work on her "positive energy."

Choose your victim wisely, and the harassment will go just ducky. Although it just might come back to bite you in the ass:
.

The Wench Resolves . . .

. . . to speak to her beloved husband more respectfully and humanely in the coming year.

The Wench did not intend to resolve this. The Wench only intended to lose the extra poundage of lard that clings to her thighs so tenaciously. But then The Wench spent the holiday season listening to various women snapping at their husbands, boyfriends and partners as if they were half-witted puppies, guilty of shitting all over the carpet.

The Wench lost count of the times she witnessed a female scolding her significant (male) other like an incompetent child: "I specifically asked you to do such-and-such . . . did you do it? Why isn't there . . .? Why haven't you . . .?"

It occurs to The Wench that, if the shoe were on the other foot, any male who spoke in the same manner to a female would be accused of bullying, brutishness, and abusiveness.

One cannot expect to be treated with dignity when one addresses one's beloved like a scullery maid. The Wench does not advocate simpering sweetness, nor suffering silence . . . merely civil exchange.