"Brighter boys learn the lesson of female superiority early; dimmer ones may never catch on...."

A reader sent me a rather weird article at Townhall by columnist Paul Greenberg. It is entitled, "Women Know" and initially I thought it was some kind of parody but I think that it's serious. Read it and see what you think.

If it is a real column and not a joke, it is a good example of the silly male chivalry on the right that all of us here should be aware of, and fight back against. Apparently, this author thinks that men are dimwits in need of guidance from women due to their poor ability to think for themselves. Women, to this guy, are smart savvy angels who guide men, sometimes with just a knowing smile and a few words:

I've never been much of a believer in historical theories about the Indispensable Man. There may be some examples -- Washington, Lincoln, Moses -- but they are few. But the indispensable woman, I believe in. Call it Greenberg's Law: Women are the innately superior sex. My theory may not be backed by any scientific evidence, but it's something every man has surely felt. At least if he's got a lick of sense.

You might even call it a prejudice -- in the sense of Edmund Burke's definition of prejudice as the body of judgments passed on as received wisdom from generation to generation, and that need not be proven anew in every age. The word for it in these fecund Southern latitudes is mother wit. Note that nobody ever called that kind of inner knowledge father wit. ...

Every boy soon learns that women seem to know intuitively what the weaker male sex may grasp only by effort and education. Which is why it requires marriage and family to civilize the male animal. He needs a woman's tutelage [my emphasis].

Brighter boys learn the lesson of female superiority early; dimmer ones may never catch on....

What kind of nonsense is this and why is Townhall taking part in perpetuating it? Is it just popular on both the right and left to bash men to get laid or maybe "get out of the doghouse" with his wife like one of the commenters (Sandy) to this article suggested?

What is the point of this ridiculous column? That the writer dislikes men who might compete with him? That he has been brainwashed by the women in his life into believing this nonsense? Or most likely, that he is probably a closet chauvinist himself who has to placate women so they won't go worrying their pretty little heads, lest they actually do something more than "intuit" a situation and feel good about themselves for their lack of real fact-finding? Who knows?

What I do know is that we need to call these "chivalrous" men out when they undercut other men. For what they do is as dangerous as what the left does when they bash and punish men because of their sex, and they should be held just as accountable.