Differences Between Men and Women


By: Brooks A. Mick

There are just some things that men can understand and women can’t. a) Thermostats. b) Cloth.

Thermostats are easy to comprehend regarding why women can’t understand them. They are electromechanical devices, and women are just not programmed genetically to grasp such things. For example, women think that it will warm up quicker if you change the setting to a much higher than desirable number. If the original setting is 68 degrees Fahrenheit, and the woman is cold, she will crank up the dial to 80 on the theory that she will reach her desired temperature, 74 degrees F, much quicker than if she just set it to 74. Of course this is not true. She will not get to 74 faster; she will just overshoot and become too hot. This may explain hot flashes. She is resetting her internal thermometer in the same manner as that of the room she is in.

But one would think women could comprehend cloth and its proper functions. After all, how much time do women spend shopping in clothing stores? But again, no, they cannot comprehend some simple facts.

Take bath towels for example. Every man knows that an old, rough cotton towel, one that has been washed a kajillion times, feels better after a shower and dries better than a new, “soft” towel, especially one that has been washed in fabric softener. Men, attuned to such things, know that a new, “soft” towel feels rather slick and slimy and doesn’t dry as well as an old, comfortable, worn towel. Yet advertisers have brainwashed women into thinking that new, soft towels are better.

And an old shirt, worn and faded a bit and also washed a kajillion times is more comfortable than a newer, softer, more supple shirt, yet women cannot comprehend why a man continues to grab his old shirt off the hanger and wear it in preference to a newer one.

You might be beginning to wonder what relevance this has on a site mostly devoted to politics. Well now, the point is that women may be more inclined to vote for the “softer, smoother, slicker” candidate, which also is the slimier candidate, rather than one that’s a little more worn and rough around the edges.

How else can one explain that Kathleen Parker and Peggy Noonan went for Obama in the 2008 election cycle, choosing softer and slicker rather than sticking with an old, worn towel that, indeed, had some holes in it, but was more likely to serve its purpose better than the new slick one? And indeed, Obama got a lot of the women’s vote in general, clearly by being slicker. It was not “form follows function,” but surface appearance over any ability to function at all.

Men, on the other hand, did not buy into softer and slicker in nearly as high a percentage as the women.

This might explain why women, even conservative women, don’t cotton to Sarah Palin as much as men do. She’s cut from a decidedly attractive piece of material, but she’s rather rough, not smooth and silky. But doggone it, she’d get the country dry in a hurry after years of economic rainfall.

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.