# Harvard Chief insults women--suggests genetic inferiority.



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 18, 2005)

*Harvard Chief Defends His Talk on Women*

By SAM DILLON 

Published: January 18, 2005


he president of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers, who offended some women at an academic conference last week by suggesting that innate differences in sex may explain why fewer women succeed in science and math careers, stood by his comments yesterday but said he regretted if they were misunderstood.

"I'm sorry for any misunderstanding but believe that raising questions, discussing multiple factors that may explain a difficult problem, and seeking to understand how they interrelate is vitally important," Dr. Summers said in an interview.

Several women who participated in the conference said yesterday that they had been surprised or outraged by Dr. Summers's comments, and Denice D. Denton, the chancellor designate of the University of California, Santa Cruz, questioned Dr. Summers sharply during the conference, saying she needed to "speak truth to power." 

Nancy Hopkins, a professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who once led an investigation of sex discrimination there that led to changes in hiring and promotion, walked out midway through Dr. Summers's remarks.

"When he started talking about innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn't breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill," Dr. Hopkins said. "Let's not forget that people used to say that women couldn't drive an automobile."

Remainder of article at:

http://nytimes.com/2005/01/18/natio...&en=bf850d692ab7cba9&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Note a subscription is required.  It is free.  

Regards,


Steve


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 18, 2005)

Another example of how sexism is alive and well in academia.  

Of *all* the gender studies on girls vs. boys, men vs. women, all the difference that have been found overall (and presumably not due to local environmental influences) are in spatial processing.

Boys - better at absolute direction (i.e., on an overcast day, in the middle of nowhere - "Which way is East?")

Girls - better at direction with landmarks (i.e. "We need to go past the brick building and turn at the strange rock on the side of the road.")

Similar processing differences with math, I believe, but I'll have to check on that.

Gee, reminds me of the time (not just once!) when I had someone who was supposed to be responsible for my education and mentoring sit down and do me the honor of expounding upon why women don't get ahead in science.

It was really inspiring, esp. since his *wife* is the faculty member.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 18, 2005)

I dunno, does that imply women are "inferior"? I always sucked at math myself, does that make me "inferior"? My sister teaches science and can do math in her sleep. I think the guy here is talking about generalization. I always thought it was well known that women were supposed to be "naturally" better at language skills and males at spatial reasoning, math.

I can buy we all have general traits due our genetics, so as long as the guys not saying "dont hire women for math/science jobs" whats the big deal?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jan 18, 2005)

In the name of a fair trial, rather than burning the guy at the stake, the end of the first page of the article reads as follows:

"He discussed several factors that could help explain the underrepresentation of women. The first factor, he said, according to several participants, was that top positions on university math and engineering faculties require extraordinary commitments of time and energy, with many professors working 80-hour weeks in the same punishing schedules pursued by top lawyers, bankers and business executives. Few married women with children are willing to accept such sacrifices, he said."

So it seems that, at least on this record alone, he's not saying anything about women's innate capacities, like claiming their brains are hard-wired against hard sciences, but merely a societal (sociological?) thesis as to why there's less women in the S & E fields.  For the MT board members who usually base their arguments on issues of social roles and dynamics, this shouldn't be that hard to process.  Furthermore, I don't remember reading any conclusions or normative statements on his part about any proper roles for women, just a potential explanation for an employment phenomenon.  

That being said in his defense, I'd really like to know what else he was basing this possible explanation on.  The article listed the above as merely the first factor; first among how many?  And without any study that I saw any concrete reference to, it seems like his presentation was based mostly on conjecture, which you really don't want to bring to an academic conference when you know what you're going to say is going to piss people off.  

I think he screwed up, and shouldn't have gone to the conference with just a "hey, whatdya think" conjecture meant only to ruffle feathers.  However, I didnt read any claims about women's proper roles on his part, and don't think that he should, immediately at any rate, be stamped with the label of sexist.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 18, 2005)

Why would any sensible person assume that any and all differences between sexes are only skin deep? There are real and meaningful differences between the sexes; is it likely those differences are limited to simple appearance variations?

Why is a scientific analysis of gender capabilities an "insult"? Are we so thin skinned that everyone must always be deemed exactly the same? Seems to be so.
If you think this is a fire storm, try it with race.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 18, 2005)

A scientific analysis isn't an insult, of course. Off-the-cuff, unsubstantiated claims that just happenj to recylce the same old geneder stereotypes may very well be. 

As mentioned, it'd be useful to know what this particular academic was basing his remarks upon.

It remains possible that it wasn't much.

Try:

http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/burtaffair.shtml


----------



## Gin-Gin (Jan 18, 2005)

Granted, it could be the spatial processing differences that Feisty mentioned, but a biochemical thing?  I'd have to see some research results before accepting that idea.  However, Dr. Summers' point about the time commitments required for top Math & Engineering faculties sounded a bit more credible.  I know women at work who have cut down on their responsbilities, work at home, work half-days, etc. so that they can spend as much time with their children as possible.  (I'm not saying that ALL working women do that, just some that I know, plus "60 Minutes" did a story a couple of months ago about how more professional women are leaving high-paying/hard-earned careers to have a family.  But that's for another thread...)

As to why fewer women succeed in Math & Engineering careers, I honestly don't know if it's socialization or biology (or both). :idunno:  I'm not an expert, but I understand that the professor was trying to "provoke" the audience into discussion & that the talk was "designed to be off-the-record so that participants could speak candidly without fear of public misunderstanding." IMHO, he *did* stimulate discussion--that's why the NY Times article was written in the first place (& why we're discussing the article now).  Unfortunately, he probably won't hear the end of this for a long time because of the way he made his point.  

Btw, according to the NY Times article he never used the word "inferior."

Just my observations.
:asian:


----------



## bignick (Jan 18, 2005)

Women are so good at everything else, why can't guys at least have math?

 Seriously though, we know that different people learn differently. A person may be able to comperehend one subject better than others. Like someone said earlier, men and women are different. If you look at the science fields there is a predomination of men. The question is where do these differences arise or come from? Is it because men and women are "wired" differently? Or is it due to enviromental and sociological factors and context that cause less women to pursue the science fields. For me, when I was young I developed an intense love of reading. My parents read to me all the time and was encouraged to read on my own when I could. However, my brother who was only 2 and 1/2 years older was raised under the same circumstances and he's not a big fan of books. He's not any less intelligent than me(don't tell him I said though, I'll never hear the end of it).   Why did we end up different, same parents, same circumstances, two very different learning styles and abilities.  The main college entrance exam in my area was the ACT.  It's scored on a scale up to 36 overall and broken into 4 categories Language, Reading & Comprehension, Math, Science Reasoning. Of course, when I took all those "fun" standardized tests I aced the reading & comprehension portions of the test. You would think that I would do well on the Language portion, but that was my worst area. My reading score was a 36, my language was somewhere in the mid to high 20's. I also aced the Science Reasoning with a 35, but my math scores were right around my language scores. Two areas where you would think there would be a correlation, but it just goes to show that people are different. Neither of my parents graduated from college. My dad is honestly probably one of the best people with arithmetic I know. He was a farmer and he had to deal with "simple" math all the time. He can do arithmetic in his head faster and more accurate than just about anybody I've ever met(including math professors). However, my mom is the one that helps out with my younger siblings math homework because of the logic and reasoning involved. She's just a lot better at it than my dad.  Are men naturally better at the processes involved with math and reasoning?  It is possible.  But I doubt it.  I would look more towards it as a result of sociological factors.  Let's face it for the most part of western civilization it has been men that are in control.  It would be interesting to see how people raised in a more matriarchal society do well next to people of similar standing in a normal western society.  But then again, what do I know about any of this....I'm a computer science major...and computers don't care whether your a man or woman, they make your life equally as miserable...


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 18, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> In the name of a fair trial, rather than burning the guy at the stake, the end of the first page of the article reads as follows:
> 
> "He discussed several factors that could help explain the underrepresentation of women. The first factor, he said, according to several participants, was that top positions on university math and engineering faculties require extraordinary commitments of time and energy, with many professors working 80-hour weeks in the same punishing schedules pursued by top lawyers, bankers and business executives. Few married women with children are willing to accept such sacrifices, he said."




Not many parents, man or woman, would consider putting in that much time on a job and neglecting their children.  I recall business guro Tom Peters advocating that people put their jobs before their families in order to attain success.  I have reservations about that advice.

In any case, Summers' main antagonist in this fray said she didn't disagree with this premise.  She did take exception to the following:

"In citing a second factor, Dr. Summers cited research showing that more high school boys than girls tend to score at very high and very low levels on standardized math tests, and that it was important to consider the possibility that such differences may stem from biological differences between the sexes."

That does indeed suggest he's citing innate differences between the sexes and its impact on performance.  In presenting this hypothesis to "stimulate" discussion he apparently failed to note that correlation does not equal causation...and now he's doing the "dancing bear" act to try and rationalize his comments.

The issue of innate gender abilities had allready been discussed by others.  In the abstract below Catherine Weinberger at UC Santa Barbara notes that others had suggested innate abilites or lack thereof were influencing participation in engineering, sciences and math (EMS).  Yet she found that men outnumbered women two to one in those areas _even when their test scores were equal_.  She writes (emphasis my own):

"We find, contrary to prevailing theories, that female EMS graduates do not have higher self-confidence, stronger work orientation, weaker family orientation, or lower planned or actual fertility than mathematically talented female college graduates with other majors. _We do find strong evidence that role models affect the participation of mathematically talented women in EMS fields_."

Another web site gives us this:

"Women perform significantly better than men at all levels of education from high school to graduate school, but they do not perform better in general on standardized tests such as the quantitative SAT and GRE tests. Chipman and Thomas (1985) show that gender differences in mathematics performance do not emerge until high school where more men enroll in trigonometry and calculus (26% and 8%, respectively) than do women (20% and 6%, respectively) with the same percent enrollment in algebra (66% men, 69% women) and geometry (54%). _The lower standardized test scores appear to be explained by high school course selection and by demographic and socioeconomic factors and not by genetic differences (Hornig (1987)). _ However, high school grades in mathematics for women are not less than those for men, though men have tended to have more years of preparation in mathematics at the high school level." 

In speaking of the high attrition rates of women in the EMS fields:

"A major factor influencing graduate students' persistence with a degree is the availability of financial aid. Haven and Horch (1972) and the 1981 Survey of Doctorate Recipients showed that women receive less aid than men and Harris (1972) found that women tended to come from wealthier families, presumably because, in the absence of other aid, only these women could afford this education."

Further:

"In a study at the University of Illinois, Berg and Ferber (1983) found that, despite equality of financial inducements, the attrition rate for women was still higher than that for men. They suggested that women students have a lower involvement with faculty and were less likely to be treated as colleagues."



http://www.aera.net/grantsprogram/abstract_list/Abstracts/Abs-RG-00000035.html

http://www.awm-math.org/articles/notices/199107/billard/node2.html

I leave you to Google.  This is a hot topic on the internet--or as our President would say--"the internets".  Type in "women sciences test scores" and you'll have much to point and click at.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Spanner (Jan 19, 2005)

It is interesting to see how much people are influenced by social conditions. My mother went to a fairly traditional all-girls school where they were heavily discouraged from studying 'men's subjects' like maths and science. She duly studied humanities at University, but didn't exactly shine and only just scraped through the course. Years later, she's found that she shines at maths teaching, has done a masters degree in maths ed and now travels round schools, working with other teachers to improve the standards of maths education. My father experienced the exact opposite and was pushed into maths and science subjects that he hated and showed no aptitude for.

 Even though I am quite young, there was still a lot of discrimation when I was at school regarding 'girls and boys' subjects. At primary school (age 8-11) we split off into groups on friday afternoon and the girls did needlework and the boys played on the computer!! And this was only in 1986!! However, I have managed to get over this lack of exposure to BBC B computers and have forged a career in IT .

 At my secondary school (11-16) I remember that the physics teacher was very sexist, although I have only realised it since. He was always making comments about the girls 'not being able to concentrate on this sort of thing'. In retrospect, it seems obvious why no girls ever took physics at higher level. Ironically, when they got a new younger teacher in they ended up with more girls than boys.

 I suspect that maths and science within academia contain a lot of people, male and female, who are roughly the same standard, with only a few who have a really outstanding 'natural' disposition to the subject. The achievements of the majority will mostly be influenced by the quality of tuition and mentoring they have had up until that point, by their own confidence, and by how hard they are prepared to work.


----------



## GAB (Jan 19, 2005)

Hi,

The best thought I could come up with is, it goes back to the 3 R's.

Some of you will think, well it is only one R, where did he get that Idea???

If you have to google and spell check all the time, then you won't get this either. 

Regards, Gary


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 20, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Of *all* the gender studies on girls vs. boys, men vs. women, all the difference that have been found overall (and presumably not due to local environmental influences) are in spatial processing.
> 
> Boys - better at absolute direction (i.e., on an overcast day, in the middle of nowhere - "Which way is East?")
> 
> Girls - better at direction with landmarks (i.e. "We need to go past the brick building and turn at the strange rock on the side of the road.")





Ah!  But did they control for the fact that men will NOT stop to ask for directions?  If not, that could skew the results.

One would think that if men and women combined their senses of absolute direction with direction via landmarks they'd actually avoid getting lost on family trips.  Recall the Gary Larson cartoon of a man and woman driving on the moon, and the woman says "NOW look where the earth is!  Move over and let me drive!"

Regards,


Steve


----------



## AC_Pilot (Jan 20, 2005)

Men tend to have certain genetic abilities 

Women tend to have certain genetic abilities

They are supposed to join and make a yin/yang sort of team.. not fight about their differences. Only *evil *wins when women try to be men and men try to be women. Feminism in it's current distorted form has actually been a *big net loser* for all concerned, including women. This is why we see so many successful career women in their 30s/40s desperately trying, when it's usually too late, to understand men and trying to marry and have a family. They were cheated and lied to by feminism. The early women's rights movement would utterly refute the current *sick* and degenerate argument that women are the same as men and the *lie* that "a woman does not need a man". Women are finding out this truth when it's too late and they are older and alone. In fact they have been taught to intimidate men, and they still don't get why men are not interested in them. Early women's rights activists simply wanted equal rights to property ownership and voting, etc.. the movement was hijacked in the 1960s by women like Betty Friedan, who was an awowed communist


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jan 20, 2005)

Oh now this is going to get interesting...


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jan 20, 2005)

Thank you for that insight AC Pilot.


----------



## Flatlander (Jan 20, 2005)

*AC_Pilot in bold:*

*Men tend to have certain genetic abilities *

*Women tend to have certain genetic abilities*

*They are supposed to join and make a yin/yang sort of team.. not fight about their differences. *
Supposed to?  According to whom?

*Only evil wins when women try to be men and men try to be women. *
Evil?  Define this evil.  How does it win?
*Feminism in it's current distorted form has actually been a big net loser for all concerned, including women. This is why we see so many successful career women in their 30s/40s desperately trying, when it's usually too late, to understand men and trying to marry and have a family. They were cheated and lied to by feminism. *
So, how many women are we talking about here?  Are they personally claiming to have been lied to, (if so, where?), or are you projecting your general "inference"?
*The early women's rights movement would utterly refute the current sick and degenerate argument that women are the same as men and the lie that "a woman does not need a man". *
The implication in this statement is that a woman does need a man.  Would you care to expand on that proposition?
*Women are finding out this truth when it's too late and they are older and alone. In fact they have been taught to intimidate men, and they still don't get why men are not interested in them. Early women's rights activists simply wanted equal rights to property ownership and voting, etc.. the movement was hijacked in the 1960s by women like Betty Friedan, who was an awowed communist*
What is the mechanism through which women have been "taught to intimidate men"?  How does communism relate to this issue?

If it seems as though I'm asking a lot of questions, that would be because in the process of offering this group of unsubstatiated assertions, you've left too many questions, and no answers.  So, please clarify your position.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 20, 2005)

Well, there are obvious physical differences (thank goodness), why is it such a leap to think that there are other inherent differences as well? The problem arises when we try to place value on those differences. "In general" men have more upper body strength than women, that dosent mean that there are no exceptions. It also dosent mean that in the grand scheme of things that it matters very much. However, I doubt the world record in the bench press is going to go to a woman. It wont go to me either. The fact that some woman may take offense to that statement dosent change the genetic fact. It also dosent mean that Im necessarily stronger than she is. We need to separate the emotion and politics from our genetic differences if these studies are going to mean anything.

And on the issue of if women need men, we need them just as much. The world minus either of us would have ended this whole "existence" thing pretty quickly.


----------



## Gin-Gin (Jan 20, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> We need to separate the emotion and politics from our genetic differences if these studies are going to mean anything. And on the issue of if women need men, we need them just as much. The world minus either of us would have ended this whole "existence" thing pretty quickly.


Well said. :asian:


----------



## AC_Pilot (Jan 20, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> *AC_Pilot in bold:*
> 
> *Men tend to have certain genetic abilities *
> 
> ...


No problem, happy to talk about it. Peace, Steve


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 20, 2005)

Show of hands--besides me, who on this forum actually knows anything about feminist discussion and theory?


----------



## Tgace (Jan 20, 2005)

Who on this forum would fit that question on any category.


----------



## bignick (Jan 20, 2005)

Maybe I'm blind, but I re-read all the posts and didn't see any mention of the fact this is the same guy that, in 1991, said we should dump our pollution in third world countries.  

Seems to be a real stand up guy...


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 20, 2005)

bignick said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm blind, but I re-read all the posts and didn't see any mention of the fact this is the same guy that, in 1991, said we should dump our pollution in third world countries.
> 
> Seems to be a real stand up guy...


*applause for bignick*


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 20, 2005)

In other words, you have no idea.

As for the claim about Betty Freidan being some sort of Commie dog, if you're using the source that one suspects you are, you might keep it in mind that Professor Filreis' website quotes it for other purposes than you have in mind. You might also note that at the bottom of his home page, he features a FRIENDS OF THE ABRAHAM LINCOLN BRIGADE button. Look them up. And as it happens, I've met Al Filreis a couple of times--a republican or rightist, he ain't. 

It is also unqualifiedly ludicrous to take an article that refers to David Horowitz as, "a sympathetic leftist," seriously. Mr. Horowitz's career now involves shilling for the conservative right, following the grand tradition of, "I was a Commie, now I'm a decent human being," autobiographies so popular in the 1950s, and later with the John Birch Society crowd of loons. That's why his article on her has a big "Gotcha!" about the fact that her first name was Betty GOLDSTEIN or whatever.

As for the "savethemales," website, let me again note that this guy explicitly sees Communism, feminism, freemasonry, the Illuminati and Jews as the worst enemies of America. 

And not that this'll bother you in the least, but to claim that feminism was a direct product of American communism of the 30s and 40s is just plain loopy. Mary Wollstonecraft, the Catholic Workers' Party, Planned Parenthood, Rosie the Riveter, and Katherine Hepburn are at least as important...

Fer cryin' out loud, drop the Dan Brown novels and at least find out what you're talking about. Here, let me help: look up De Beauvoir, "The Second Sex," and follow her career afterwards as she and Sartre went completely off the deep end and started passing out Maoist brochures from the trunk of their car. Look up the 70s and 80s development of the m/f group in France--big influence here in the States in certain circles. 

Try to lay off imposing your really rather paranoic brand of Christianity on the rest of us, willya? And remember: "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 20, 2005)

"Genetic differences"?? The hell??


----------



## Tgace (Jan 20, 2005)

bignick said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm blind, but I re-read all the posts and didn't see any mention of the fact this is the same guy that, in 1991, said we should dump our pollution in third world countries.
> 
> Seems to be a real stand up guy...


Oh yeah, this guy sounds like a putz. It shouldnt mean that the underlying issue shouldnt be discussed.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 20, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Well, there are obvious physical differences (thank goodness), why is it such a leap to think that there are other inherent differences as well? The problem arises when we try to place value on those differences. "In general" men have more upper body strength than women, that dosent mean that there are no exceptions. It also dosent mean that in the grand scheme of things that it matters very much. However, I doubt the world record in the bench press is going to go to a woman. It wont go to me either. The fact that some woman may take offense to that statement dosent change the genetic fact. It also dosent mean that Im necessarily stronger than she is. We need to separate the emotion and politics from our genetic differences if these studies are going to mean anything.
> 
> And on the issue of if women need men, we need them just as much. The world minus either of us would have ended this whole "existence" thing pretty quickly.


Thank you for that.  (Seriously, I was waiting for someone to say that!  Bless your heart.)

Telling a woman what she "needs" - and how her desires to make her way in the world are "wrong" - is not going to get you anywhere but bad places, AC. 

(raises hand) robertson - I've had a bit of studying the feminist movement(s), though not solidly.  So maybe I'm like 1/2 person here.

(sarcasm)

OH, WAIT A MINUTE... maybe I'm *really* only half a person because someone else said so!  After all, I'm not married, I don't have kids... maybe a total stranger should judge me on that, and not on the complete person I am!

(/end sarcasm)

and tgace, that's just the problem.  When a scientist - esp. someone from Harvard, which name (like other big universities) carries a *lot* of clout with the general public - stands up and says *anything* about biology or especially genetics, people immediately leap to judegements about that trait or traits.

Luckily, most actual well-done science has discovered pros and cons to each gender, so to speak (or should I say, sex, actually).  

But there is a long long LONG history of scientists...and philosophers...and mathematicians...and politicians... trying to come up with reasons ("scientific" or "logical" reasons) why women (or another race) are "inferior".  A famous one was measuring skull volume.  There are others, of course.

AC, feminism doesn't tell women to be one way or another.  The nice thing about me being a woman today is I have more freedom to choose what I would like to do with my time, my body, and my abilities.  Imagine that!  I know plenty of women who gave up their careers - or are trying to juggle their career - for their kids.  Having the choice is the thing.  Telling me that I am incomplete without fulfilling your vision of Happy Fuzzy Land is annoying.  Luckily, I don't *have* to be just one way.  Maybe my Happy Fuzzy Land looks a bit different.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 20, 2005)

Regarding the "notable differences" between men and women...

Outside of obvious stuff like muscle mass and pregnancy, it just really isn't there.

Oh, sure, there _are_ differences. They've just been demonstrated to not be that statistically significant.

Carol Gilligan famously proposed a revision to Lawrence Kohlber's stages of moral development, offering that women move through similar stages --- albeit with a different moral orientation (men emphasize agency/rights, women emphasize care/belonging).

This was bandied around in feminist circles for some time (and still is, among some) until some people actually went out and cross-culturally tested these claims. Turns out, Gilligan was right --- but the actual dichotomy between the two value orientations was far _less_ extreme than she proposed. In fact, there were only minor differentations.

Or, look at aggression. It has always been assumed that the testosterone-laden males were "significantly more" aggressive then women. That was put to the test, and yep, males were demonstrated as being more aggressive on average than females. Unfortunately for the ideologues, the actual differences between the two was less than 5% --- a far more insignificant number than what many masculinists and feminists would like to believe.

So, what's this all tell us?? Are there differences between men and women?? Sure, there just not as big a deal as everyone thinks they are...


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 20, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> "Genetic differences"?? The hell??


LOL!  Oh yeah - and aside from the sex chromosomes (remember, women XX, men XY) - WE ARE GENETICALLY THE SAME!  22 autosomes.  No sex.

Herrie, that bust me up!


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 20, 2005)

One suspects that it isn't the reading that makes women half-a-person. It's the missing ding-ding, a point one raises thinking about guys freaking out.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 20, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> LOL! Oh yeah - and aside from the sex chromosomes (remember, women XX, men XY) - WE ARE GENETICALLY THE SAME! 22 autosomes. No sex.
> 
> Herrie, that bust me up!


Yes, but *Vive* *la* *Différence!!!*


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 20, 2005)

"Missing ding-ding"??

Hah!! Vagina envy!! I love it!!  :boing2:


----------



## Tgace (Jan 20, 2005)

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00018E9D-879D-1D06-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=9http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00018E9D-879D-1D06-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=4&catID=9

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1402/features/hesaidshesaid.htm

Maybe I should have said "chemical differences" instead of genetic.....but that genetic difference is the cause of the chemical....oh whatever.

http://www.womens-health.org/hs/sbb.htm


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 20, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Yes, but *Vive* *la* *Différence!!!*


LOL!  True.  It's those differences that we find so intriguing about the other.

Some of them (many of them?) do stem from social development, some from physiological influences.

But it's nice when people like the differences, too.  Sometimes it's difficult to find people who will like a woman for the person she is - which includes being a woman!


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 20, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> One suspects that it isn't the reading that makes women half-a-person. It's the missing ding-ding, a point one raises thinking about guys freaking out.


I love this.

You know, if it makes guys who feel like women are less than they are better, we can all buy (with the, what is it, about $0.75 to the $1.00 men make, on average, for the same job?) strap-on ding-dings and get involved in the same table-slapping contests of bravado that guys sometimes do with theirs.

I think we'll win with our prothetics, though.

But I'd really just rather be a woman, want to support myself and my family, and have that be OK with other people whom I'm not hurting.


----------



## Erik (Jan 20, 2005)

Great post, AC Pilot.

 Here's another idea for y'all to chew on. I can't say if I believe it or not, but it's something I thought about in school. I have a BA in PoliSci/History and an MS in Computer Science, so I've swam in many different academic pools.

 I often wonder if more women pick easier subjects like liberal arts (yes, it's easier - I've done both) because they are more easily tempted by the idea of finding a man who will be a breadwinner.  I believe that there are enough who quit because they feel they can in a given sample group.

  For guys, there is a lot of pressure.  We _know _that if we don't earn a living, we won't get a girl, and we know that the more $ we earn, the greater likelihood of having a more competitive choice of which woman (or women) we would like to have. 

 Las Vegas strippers hook up with rich engineers, doctors, and lawyers. There are fewer sugar mamas than sugar daddies, and those sugar mamas beyond their "best" years are not as enticing as younger, fresher girls. That's just life.

 For women, there is more of a temptation to quit or do something easier (when it comes to school and career) because, frankly, when the going gets tough, they don't need to be as tough. A part of the female population can just figure they'll find a guy and that their income will be supplimental, so they can do something more fun (instead of math & science) and still, in the long term, afford to eat.

  It's the same idea in MA training, though not gender-linked.  It's tempting to think to oneself that s/he needn't work _that _hard or take _that _many risks as this is just a hobby and means of self-fulfillment as opposed to a survival tool. Because of this, I'll argue, there is a portion of the population that will not try as hard because they are tempted into softness.

  Just an idea.

 I think things are changing now as roles are changing.  Our world is more artificial (human-made, not living in nature), we have the birth control pill for 2 1/2 generations which has changed society.

 My aunt and fiancee are MDs and two of my three sisters are Ivy League superstars, so please don't think that I have _any _doubts whatsoever about how capable women are or how wonderful a woman refined by math and/or science is to be around.

 I just wanted to throw this idea out there to see what people think about it.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 20, 2005)

Oh, boy.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 20, 2005)

Ummm yeah...even I have to agree.


----------



## AC_Pilot (Jan 20, 2005)

Eric,

Sage post.. agreed my friend.

And as far as where I'll go, I am college educated, self employed and have been with my lady for over 26 years. We have a fantastic, strong relationship.. she lets me head the household and in return for this I have given her my undying love. Her counsel and thoughts are important in our planning but I'm in charge. We compliment each other rather than compete. She has a great career with good pay but is not a *modern* "feminist". She once thought she was but her personal experiences turned her completely against it. Although she is too modest to say so, I would match her intelligence, grace and insights with any female I have ever met. Susan is a queen among women. She also has a heart of gold. So where's there to go? :ultracool


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 20, 2005)

Oh, my goodness.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 20, 2005)

AC_Pilot said:
			
		

> it is obvious to anyone who looks at the animal kingdom for parrallels. ... Females cannot properly raise children alone any more than men can. ... Human children always do better when they have a father and mother.


Please look to the reproductive system of reptiles and revisit your assumptions on rearing of offspring.



			
				AC_Pilot said:
			
		

> The *evil *wins because it hates humanity and is seeking to obliterate it.


Please attend a remedial english class. Evil is an adjective, not a noun. *Evil* can not win, *evil* can not lose, *evil* can only describe a person, place, or thing.



			
				AC_Pilot said:
			
		

> Many older successful career women are very, very unhappy


Please describe to us how you measure this state of being 'unhappy'. Please describe how *many* women were in your sample. Please describe how *older* is defined in your sample. Please describe *successful* as used in your measurements. Also, how do you define *career.* 

I understand very clearly what you mean by 'women', but let's nail down what it is you are referring to with those adjectives.

How many women were 'happy'? 
How many were 'very happy'? 
How many were 'very, very happy'?
How many were only 'very unhappy'?
How many were just 'unhappy'?



			
				AC_Pilot said:
			
		

> Does a female wolf need a mate?
> Does a female eagle need a mate?
> A woman without the love of a man can never be happy, no matter how many lies she tells herself.


Does a female wolf need the love of a male wolf to be happy? How do wolves express 'love'?

How do eagle's express truthfulness in selecting a mate? Do eagles wear gold rings around their claw?


You are mixing social society with scientific language and ideas. In this you create an error. Animals (even humans) can mate without an emotional bond, it is a function of biology.

Aside from that, maybe some women find your attitude attractive. Good for you.

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 20, 2005)

Erik said:
			
		

> Great post, AC Pilot.
> 
> Here's another idea for y'all to chew on. I can't say if I believe it or not, but it's something I thought about in school. I have a BA in PoliSci/History and an MS in Computer Science, so I've swam in many different academic pools.
> 
> ...


I'm wondering what your mother would think of this post?

michaeledward


----------



## bignick (Jan 20, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Oh yeah, this guy sounds like a putz. It shouldnt mean that the underlying issue shouldnt be discussed.


 You're right...there's always room for healthy and reasonable discussion...

 Regardless, my statement didn't slow anything down anyways...


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jan 21, 2005)

> A part of the female population can just figure they'll find a guy and that their income will be supplimental, so they can do something more fun (instead of math & science) and still, in the long term, afford to eat.


This argument is so old, that I can't believe it's still being talked about!  This is the year 2005.  It is not the 1950s.  Women's incomes are not "supplemental," they are essential for survival.  (We're not even really talking about "women's" incomes, we're talking about second incomes.)

Where I live, the median individual pre-tax income is about $40,000/year.  The median monthly mortgage payment is $2000/month.  Get it?  You need TWO incomes.

And by the way, let's not forget about divorce.  With a 50% divorce rate, and lifetime alimony gone the way of the dinosaur (as it should) NO ONE can count on being supported anymore.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 21, 2005)

Erik said:
			
		

> Great post, AC Pilot.
> 
> Here's another idea for y'all to chew on. I can't say if I believe it or not, but it's something I thought about in school. I have a BA in PoliSci/History and an MS in Computer Science, so I've swam in many different academic pools.
> 
> ...


when robertson, tgace, and I all line up on something, I think there's gotta be something there. 

Erik, let me be the first woman to let you know how offended I was by the very old and very tired accusations that women don't have it as hard as men.  This is as old as the stones, but not as wise, unfortunately.  Some of us work twice as hard as a man for the same job, just to survive.  I don't see men dropping out of the sky, offering me a life of ease and luxury.  As Phoenix already mentioned, in today's economy, most households have 2 incomes to get by.  

And let's not forget the thankless years that moms put in.  Or the joy of women working in business who know that they make less money than a male coworker, whilst they are doing the same job.  Or the excitement of knowing that some men you meet (yourself and AC included, I guess) really seem to think that women - that includes me - are second-class citizens.  Especially if we're not beautiful or clever or crafty or ...whatever...enough to "catch a man".  

BTW, do you think "sugar daddies" are any older than "sugar mamas"?  

And the amazing assumption that you think all of liberal arts are easier than math and science, based solely on your experience tells me - a scientist - that you find some topics easier, but you may not speak for your entire sex. 

Don't be posting something about a woman's place, or how easy it is for women, and then excuse it with saying you know women who are involved with math and science are nice to be around.  I'm sure your sisters would love the comment that they have it easier, because they can always find a man to support them.


----------



## Erik (Jan 21, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I'm wondering what your mother would think of this post? michaeledward


She, a PhD psychologist from Johns Hopkins (and former PA with an undergraduate biology background), is the one who came up with the idea in the first place.

 She mentions periodically it to my sisters (one's pre-med and kicking butt, the other still undeclared) to keep them motivated when they would rather be doing something other than balancing redox reactions and titrating God-knows-what.



			
				Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> This argument is so old, that I can't believe it's still being talked about! This is the year 2005. It is not the 1950s.


That is not a counter-argument.

 And I still see it all the time. "I'll just find someone rich instead of study hard..." I've heard this many, many times when teaching computer science at the university and bouncing at bars on the weekends.

 I'm not saying it's an accurate view of reality, but I think it's in the back of some women's minds, enough to lower the percentage of those who complete their educations by a statistical chunk.

 Think of all those times when one decides to challenge him/herself and either sticks with it or not - be it running around a track, in a hard fight in the ring, studying, whatever. 

 My argument is that in all challenging endeavors there's a little voice trying to convince you (or me) to quit that gets louder the more fatigued one gets.

 In the case of math and science educations (which are required for such careers, unlike sales, for example), I think that this idea bleeds off some of them while their male counterparts do not have the same temptation.



			
				Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Women's incomes are not "supplemental," they are essential for survival. (We're not even really talking about "women's" incomes, we're talking about second incomes.)


This is true but it is not usually what kids think about when picking an academic subject to study or a career path. 

 The start of the thread had to do with women electing to pursue math and science educations, right? If so, then we must look at what they are thinking at different points along the path to explain their behavior. 

 You and I, out of school and in the world, understand life a little better than a kid in college who hasn't started a career yet.



			
				Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Where I live, the median individual pre-tax income is about $40,000/year. The median monthly mortgage payment is $2000/month. Get it? You need TWO incomes.


I'm moving there! That's really inexpensive compared to Silicon Valley, where I live.



			
				Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> And by the way, let's not forget about divorce. With a 50% divorce rate, and lifetime alimony gone the way of the dinosaur (as it should) NO ONE can count on being supported anymore.


Again, that's reality, not what 14 year old kids or 18 year old teenagers usually think when picking an academic discipline. I wish it were, though.

  Feisty Mouse - I don't think you read or understood a single word that I wrote in my first post.



			
				Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> ...some men you meet (yourself and AC included, I guess) really seem to think that women - that includes me - are second-class citizens. Especially if we're not beautiful or clever or crafty or ...whatever...enough to "catch a man".
> 
> Don't be posting something about a woman's place, or how easy it is for women, and then excuse it with saying you know women who are involved with math and science are nice to be around. I'm sure your sisters would love the comment that they have it easier, because they can always find a man to support them.


I wrote nothing of the sort. Please read a post before making up its text yourself.

 I would not be marrying a doctor, someone I barely even get to see during the week, if I considered women (especially scientists) second class and if I did not believe in her and her calling. I'm voting with my feet (and my remaining years and, for the next several years, almost every penny I earn to pay her school debts).

  Again, for the umpteenth time, the post was addressing the question of _why there are fewer women in math and science_ and I was arguing that _there exists a statistical chunk of women who are lured away from the fields while their male equivalents (those in the sample who are experiencing the same desire to quit) are pressured to stay in._ 

 So, my question to you folks is the following: do you believe that such a statistical chunk exists in the population of students who would otherwise have math and science educations? Yes or no, with some supporting argumentation, please.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 21, 2005)

1. That, "little voice," Erik? Ever wonder where it comes from? Ever wonder WHY women sometimes think, "Ah, the hell with it?" Sometimes, too, it's not such a little voice.

2. Gee...I dunno...PATRIARCHY? Several thousand years of systematic indoctrination, most recently from groups like the Promise Keepers, who tell women that they're second-class citizens, ordered by God to be submissive and fulfill their wifely role?

3. The present consensus seems to be that while there are statistical differences between the sexes in terms of issues like math ability, it's very clear that social and cultural conditions are at least as significant. Incidentally, anecdotal remarks about, "I've heard this many, many times," mean very little, in terms of all that science stuff you're talking about. Why, if they did, all the misogyny, sexist jokes, and whining one hears from guys would suggest rather strongly that they hate and fear women, want to keep them in their place, and insist on maintaining their self-indulgent, narcissistic little-boy's privileges. Or to quote Buffy speaking to Caleb, "You ought to watch what you say about women. Somebody might get the idea that you're a woman-hating jerk."

4. Funny how--as with "black," people--women are always The Issue in these discussions. Funny that men--who pretty much run the world, despite all the ha-has about, "behind every man there's a good woman," never seem to be The Issue.


----------



## Erik (Jan 21, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. That, "little voice," Erik? Ever wonder where it comes from? Ever wonder WHY women sometimes think, "Ah, the hell with it?" Sometimes, too, it's not such a little voice.


That's exactly what I mean.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 21, 2005)

Erik said:
			
		

> She, a PhD psychologist from Johns Hopkins (and former PA with an undergraduate biology background), is the one who came up with the idea in the first place.
> 
> She mentions periodically it to my sisters (one's pre-med and kicking butt, the other still undeclared) to keep them motivated when they would rather be doing something other than balancing redox reactions and titrating God-knows-what.


Well, then, I guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, does it?

michaeledward


----------



## Erik (Jan 21, 2005)

Raedyn, 

 Your message to me (see bottom) shows me that you 1) did either did not read or did not understand my posts, 2) got personal while discussing whether there was any validity to this idea, which was the original question, 3) are too immature and insecure to have your narrow little mind challenged.

 If you cannot grasp a conversation with people, and these are posts you can read and re-read at your leasure, then you have no business interacting with people at all.

 I think I have quite a clue, having grown up with many women scientists _who had the fortitude not to quit their studies and therefore challenge the_ _alleged arguement_ of the professor in question, and having taught computer science to both women and men at university.  And clearly, this idea I proposed, having originated with my mother, who quite a bit of experience as a woman in science, makes me _oh so sexist_.  

 You're a joke.  Grow some backbone and talk about ideas instead of getting personal when you clearly _don't even understand the topic in the first place._

 I'll leave now and have dinner.  The Mrs. To Be should be finishing with her last patient right about now.  Seems that I'm just pissing into the wind with you.

 -Erik

 "I didn't realize there were really still people that think this way. Thank you for showing me that complete sexist buffons really do exist. You don't have a clue, obviously. - raedyn"


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 21, 2005)

Let me see now...Freud didn't know what he was talking about; neither did Neil Hertz...and women are The Problem. Riiiight.

Raedyn understood very well indeed...and by the way, "Erik," congrats on lining yourself up with a guy who appears to believe that a) Christ will be returning and killing the unrighteous very soon; b) women need to get, "their biscuits in the overn and their buns in the bed," to quote Kinky Friedman, c) Betty Freidan single-handedly started feminism because she was a Communist Jew.

Still, all the way from the attack on the size of somebody else's...mind, through to the assertion that the big dawg is just, "pissing in the wind," thanks for perhaps the most marvellously symptomatic bit--and one does mean little bit--of writing seen in quite some time.

One often finds that really thinking through one's own situation--interesting, the reiteration of claims about the over-achieving women in the family as a legitimation for one's own anti-feminism--saves a lot of wear and tear all around.

Fortunately, as Jerry Jeff Walker teaches us, "The answer, my friend/Ain't pissin' in the wind/The answer is pissing in the sink."


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jan 21, 2005)

Erik, did it ever occur to you that the women in your life who are scientists and researchers and kickin' pre-med butt are the NORM, and the women who are just waiting around for someone to support them are the EXCEPTIONS?

Lack of ambition isn't a gender issue.  For example, did you ever run into a MALE student who was sure that he was going to be playing in the NBA pretty soon, so why bother studying?  My guess is you probably did.

Granted, some guys DO end up in the NBA, and some women DO marry rich.  But that's not the norm either.

I meet A LOT of people in my work, and I can't even remember meeting a young woman who was merely biding her time in college until she could marry Donald Trump.  And I remember meeting only one young man past the age of 16 who still believed he was going to be a major league pitcher--he's working in construction now.  But he was an exception.


----------



## TSUKIMASTER (Jan 21, 2005)

Well, the good news is that I have found women a bit more adept at the arts.  Better flexibility to start, better listening skills..... anything that happens outside the dojo is pretty much moot. 


 OSU!


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 21, 2005)

...THERE ya go!


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jan 22, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. That, "little voice," Erik? Ever wonder where it comes from? Ever wonder WHY women sometimes think, "Ah, the hell with it?" Sometimes, too, it's not such a little voice.
> 
> 2. Gee...I dunno...PATRIARCHY? Several thousand years of systematic indoctrination, most recently from groups like the Promise Keepers, who tell women that they're second-class citizens, ordered by God to be submissive and fulfill their wifely role?


So you're saying that some/most/all women who choose to quit their jobs to stay at home (and, for grins, I'll also include women who decide to play the stay-at-home role) only do so because they're being patriarchally brainwashed?  There's no way, in other words, that a woman who makes that choice could be doing so independently?


----------



## raedyn (Jan 22, 2005)

Erik said:
			
		

> Your message to me (see bottom) shows me that you 1) did either did not read or did not understand my posts, 2) got personal while discussing whether there was any validity to this idea, which was the original question, 3) are too immature and insecure to have your narrow little mind challenged.


1) I intended to follow up my rep comment to you with a post detailing what, specifically, I believe is incorrect and sexist about your post. Something came up and I was not able to do that at the time. So I'm sorry that you haven't yet been able to hear me articulate my arguement.
2) I stand by my assertion that you are sexist. In a few minutes I will detail why I believe that to be the case. And yes, I sincerely meant thank you for showing me that there are still people who think in this out-moded fashion. It demonstrates to me that women still have a long way to go before they will just be seen as people.
3) An immature and insecure person would not have signed their comment.



			
				Erik said:
			
		

> If you cannot grasp a conversation with people, and these are posts you can read and re-read at your leasure, then you have no business interacting with people at all.


 My posting history here clearly shows that I CAN "grasp a conversation with people". It is out of line for you to suggest that I should shut up. You don't have to like or agree with what I say, but I have a right to say it.



			
				Erik said:
			
		

> And clearly, this idea I proposed, having originated with my mother, who quite a bit of experience as a woman in science, makes me _oh so sexist_.


 So here, your arguement is "because a woman said it, it's not sexist". Let me be the first to tell you that women can hold sexist beliefs as well.
*sex·ism *_n._
1.Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Notice that the definition does not indicate it must be a man's idea or attitude in order to be sexist, merely it must "promote sterotyping ... based on gender". The claims you have made certainly fit that bill.



			
				Erik said:
			
		

> You're a joke. Grow some backbone and talk about ideas instead of getting personal when you clearly _don't even understand the topic in the first place._



As noted above, it's unfortunate that you haven't yet been able to hear what I have to say. It was always my intent to talk about the ideas you proposed, and I will be doing that shortly. Then we can have the conversation. You're right, it's just "pissing in the wind" for you to attack my opinions that you haven't even heard, when I'm not here to defend them.

"I didn't realize there were really still people that think this way. Thank you for showing me that complete sexist buffons really do exist. You don't have a clue, obviously. - raedyn"


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 22, 2005)

RP 700 or whatever:

Please start thinking about context. The post was written in response to a discussion of why it is (supposedly, anyway) that women think that their only option is to go find A Man. Also, please try to think through the propaganda you've heard in life a little better. These sorts of exaggerations are very common whenever anything resembling a "leftist," critique gets brought up--as we see, for example, in all the, "AHA! You hate God!!" posts that appear whenever anybody suggests that maybe state-enforced fundamentalist prayer is not a great idea.

The point is to offer people--not women, just people--as many choices as possible, and to equip them to make those decisions as freely as possible.

Nobody's putting down women who choose to stay at home and be moms. Some of us are putting down a system--patriarchy--that often makes women think, and feel, that they have no other choices. And some of us even deeply object to the recent tidal wave of rightist, fundamentalist propaganda that focuses not upon the family, but upon trying to stuff women back into a 1956 kitchen that never really existed in the first place.

In other words, one of the problems several posters on this thread have is that they think "The Donna Reed Show," was real, and should be again.


----------



## raedyn (Jan 22, 2005)

_I often wonder if more women pick easier subjects like liberal arts (yes, it's easier - I've done both) because they are more easily tempted by the idea of finding a man who will be a breadwinner._
I'm a woman. When selecting my major, my considerations were
- what am I interested in?
- what have I excelled at in the past?
- can I study it locally, or will I have to move in order to study it? Am I willing to move away from my family and friends?
- do the course descriptions of the required courses pique my interest?
- what will my future career prospects be? (ie: is there a good chance of me being able to get a steady, well-paying, personally satisfying job with this field?)

These are the same things all my friends (male AND female) were thinking about at the time. At no point did we wonder if we would meet men in our chosen paths. At no point did we say "oh well, it's okay to study a fluff topic, or to flunk out because my man will support me". In fact, considering our career prospects is *exactly* contrary to that attitude. We were concerned about being independent and able to support *ourselves*.

_For guys, there is a lot of pressure._
And for women there isn't? Don't be ridiculous. In some cases, women face additional pressure than men don't. Ask Feisty Mouse about this one. She's a grad student in biology (her concentration escapes me at the moment) and she has had men professors tell her crap about how she'll just get pregnant and give up, among other stupidity. (I don't recall the details, and it's not my story to tell, so I'll leave it at that, but I know she's got a couple of doozies) So not only does she have the usual pressures of being a grad student in science, but now she's got the pressure to prove that she can succeed even though she is 'just' a woman.
Anytime a woman enters a male-dominated field, her every move is watched, every missstep is a victory for those who are against her. That's pressure that a man in those fields will never experience.

_We know that if we don't earn a living, we won't get a girl,_
I do believe that men feel this pressure, adn that some men believe it to be true. That idea is certainly 'out there', but it is not a fact. If that were true, every unemployed man would be single. That's just not the case. And going to college/university isn't a requirement to getting a job, even a good paying one (certain jobs, yes. jobs in general, no).

_Las Vegas strippers hook up with rich engineers, doctors, and lawyers. There are fewer sugar mamas than sugar daddies, and those sugar mamas beyond their "best" years are not as enticing as younger, fresher girls. That's just life._
I'm really unclear as to what your point is with this statement. Are you saying if women want a secure future they should go take their clothes off in Vegas? Because that's kind of what that sounds like, and if that's what you mean... well... I can't even begin to explain what's wrong with that, and you are obviously a lost cause. But if that's not your point, (and I suspect not, considering your comments on the career-successful women in your life) could you clarify a little so I can make sense of that comment?

_For women, there is more of a temptation to quit or do something easier (when it comes to school and career) because, frankly, when the going gets tough, they don't need to be as tough._
No, no, no! That's utter bull----. Women have to be tough. We have to balance our own needs and wants with the expectations that other people put on us. If we choose to agressively pursue a career (particularly in a non-traditional feild) we have to deal with people who would admonish us for being unladylike and who would tell us we aren't up to the challenge. If we choose to set those goals aside and commit ourselves entirely to having a family, we have to deal with people telling us that we are doing it because patriarchy tell us to, and that we're bad for the women's movement because we're a throw back to day gone by. If we try and do both at once, people accuse us of not being able to do either very well. No matter what we do, it's the wrong answer to somebody, and that somebody will try their damnest to make us feel guilty about our choices.

Your mom is a doctor, right? And your finacee was a doctor in Algeria in where she faced the risk of abduction and other horrors saved specifically for a woman doctor in that country. Go ask them if they think they're tough and if women "frankly, don't need to be as tough" as men. Ask a woman who has been raped if she's ever had to be tough. A woman who has been beaten by her husband. Ask a woman who's given birth. Do you really, truly, think women don't have to be tough?

_A part of the female population can just figure they'll find a guy and that their income will be supplimental, so they can do something more fun (instead of math & science) and still, in the long term, afford to eat._
Slightly off topic but for the record,
- some people (including some women) think math & science are fun.
- math & science aren't the only things you can study and still afford to eat < /offtopic >
I would posit that the segment of the female population that intends to 'let a man take care of them' wouldn't bother to go to university at all.

_My aunt and fiancee are MDs and two of my three sisters are Ivy League superstars, so please don't think that I have any doubts whatsoever about how capable women are or how wonderful a woman refined by math and/or science is to be around._
"refined by"? Is this how you would talk about a man who has studied math or science? Maybe it was just a poor choice of words, but that's exactly the condescending attitude that used to be the norm. Women didn't study real subjects. They went to 'finishing school' to become 'more refined & ladylike' so they could become more 'marriageable' - trained to cater to their husbands needs, take care of their home, and serve their family. The movie Mona Lisa Smile demonstrates these formerly acceptable attitudes quite nicely. Notice I said formerly acceptable.

_I just wanted to throw this idea out there to see what people think about it._
Well, now you see what I think about it. I think it's a bunch of bunk.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 22, 2005)

oooooooohhh myyyyyyyyyy goo'ness!!!

We still have so very far to go. don't we ladies?

Erik, did I ever tell you that though I never studied mechanics nor engineering, I managed a score in the 94th percentile on the ASVAB in Mechanics - that's co-ed?  and in the 91st percentile in Engineering?

When I was 13, I began higher math in school that my father, who was a computer scientist, couldn't even help me with.

I have chosen to stay home with da kids so they can have a parental unit in the residential arena when they arrive home from school.

Please tell your mother (it is even sadder that this misinformation came from an educated, professional female) that I said people who choose the *ahem* "easier" road and seek easier studies when they are clearly talented in other areas are not, in general, females, but are often character-faulty individuals (and this groups consists of both sexes) who are too damn afraid of risking their neck for success or are afraid of success in general - then, of course, there are those who were put on this earth to help us remember the importance of the humanities and the arts in our very human (and in some cases, anamilistic) lives.  So we have, yet again, a generality that is just plain wrong.  Just because some people do seek the easy way doesn't mean everybody in their group does so.

Just look at all the males who run from their paternal duties and refuse to pay child support?  The justifications behind these so-called scientifically-endowed and alledgedly logical males fly in the face of science, logic and finance, yet so many men refuse the stipend.  Why?  Because they choose the easier path of working at jobs that pay far less than their earning ability, and they seek jobs that pay cash under the table so as not to have to report the income.  This is not a gender-based, biophysical or even social argument - this is purely a character flaw.  

Also, as I'm sure any responsible psychologist would agree, the raising of human beings is vital and thankless labor.  So whomever is the best choice at staying home (if it is financially feasible for the family) is truly and unequivocably IN FOR IT.

There is no justification to gender-bash based on anything these days and an individual's experiences, fears, opinions are just that - generalizations are dangerous to make, especially when the species is in flux with stereotypical roles.  

Good luck on your, ah, endeavors ... whatever those may be.  Especially in finding a free-thinking, upwardly mobile female.  Ladies in this group might not find a gender-biased individual attractive.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 22, 2005)

*Moderator Note. *
*Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy. **http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314* 

*Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.*

*-TECHNOPUNK*
*-MT Moderator-*


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jan 23, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> RP 700 or whatever:


:321:



> Please start thinking about context. The post was written in response to a discussion of why it is (supposedly, anyway) that women think that their only option is to go find A Man.


Yes, I'm quite aware of that. The question I asked you seems within that context. Is there a point to this?



> Also, please try to think through the propaganda you've heard in life a little better. These sorts of exaggerations are very common whenever anything resembling a "leftist," critique gets brought up--as we see, for example, in all the, "AHA! You hate God!!" posts that appear whenever anybody suggests that maybe state-enforced fundamentalist prayer is not a great idea.


I didn't attack you for being leftist, or jump to any conclusions. I even quoted your own numbered reasoning so you'd see what I was asking about. What I did was ask you to clarify what you meant. I thought "sounds like he means this, but just so I don't jump the gun, let me ask to make sure, cause I could be wrong." As for the propaganda comment, since all I did was ask you to clarify didnt make any presumptions about what you meant, I'll just have to take it as an insult to my intelligence. 



> The point is to offer people--not women, just people--as many choices as possible, and to equip them to make those decisions as freely as possible.
> 
> Nobody's putting down women who choose to stay at home and be moms. Some of us are putting down a system--patriarchy--that often makes women think, and feel, that they have no other choices. And some of us even deeply object to the recent tidal wave of rightist, fundamentalist propaganda that focuses not upon the family, but upon trying to stuff women back into a 1956 kitchen that never really existed in the first place.


Finally, a substantive response. I guess I just didnt see where you made this distinction between women who choose that role freely and women who do so because they think they have no other choice. "The voice", presumably, is one heard by all women in our society, so I figured that meant patriarchy was what drove ALL women who choose to stay at home. Still not positive on how you would decide this one, but at least I know you're making the distinction now. 

As a side, thank you for responding to me this time.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 24, 2005)

See this article in today's NY Times:Gray Matter and Sexes: A Gray Area Scientifically

[Sorry, for some reason MT won't allow me to paste the entire article into a reply.]


----------



## AC_Pilot (Jan 26, 2005)

http://www.rense.com/general62/bad.htm


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 27, 2005)

Welll, THIS just gets worse.

By all means, DO get on the link that, "AC PILOT," gives, and scope out the attempt to describe women as slaves to their hormones. Then, DO get on the home page of this Jeff Rense character, from whose website the article is taken--a talk show host, who probably has ties to assorted new-Nazi groups.

Why would I say this? Could be the UFO calendars he's hawking. Or, more likely, could be the fact that this Rense character has links and info from the Institute For Historical Research (see the article titled, "Auschwitz 60 Years After"), which is neither historical nor researchy.

The IHR is the crowd of nutcakes (see David Irving) who are into, "historical revisionism," with regard to the Holocaust. You know...as in it never happened, the Jews exaggerate everything, there's no evidence the Nazis gassed anybody, anyway others were just as bad...

Tied with "AC Pilot's" earlier out-and-out anti-semitic bizarre readings of the Bible, and this is ugly, ugly, ugly.

P.S.
I took more of a look at this Rense creep's website, and it turns out I was wrong. Things are far worse, and not because he's pushing naturopathic cures and discoveries of space aliens. Because his site has articles that say, among other things, that Zyklon B was merely an insecticide used by the thoughtful Nazis, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were real, rather than an anti-semitic hoax.

This is disgusting. "AC," you should be ashamed of yourself. If you're a, "martial artist," (and I use the quotes because you sure as hell aren't a martial artist in any meaningful sense, with the kids of ideas you espouse), you especially oughta be ashamed. 

In brief, go away. I shall be looking through your posts for further evidence of this ugly, mean-spirited nonsense that you're trying to fob off, and I shall be posting every scummy little bit I can scrape out from under Hitler's toe-nails. 

Shame on you, sir.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 28, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Welll, THIS just gets worse.
> 
> By all means, DO get on the link that, "AC PILOT," gives, and scope out the attempt to describe women as slaves to their hormones. Then, DO get on the home page of this Jeff Rense character, from whose website the article is taken--a talk show host, who probably has ties to assorted new-Nazi groups.
> 
> ...


:asian:


----------



## raedyn (Jan 28, 2005)

Robert has a point here. AC Pilot's source has zero credibilty. I was gonna post links to some of the most disgusting stuff, but I don't wanna give that guy traffic. Then I was going to quote some of the worst, but I can't bring myself to repeat it. Suffice to say his site promotes Hitler, denounces Israel, denounces Zimbabwe & South Africa (saying that whites will be slaughtered by blacks liek Jews were by Hitler), backs Holocaust deniers, says AIDS was a weapon created by the US government, and oh yeah belives in aliens, psychics, and numerology. I'm not trying to lump all those things in together as if they are the same, but considering this stuff is the bulk of content on that guy's site... in context I don't think any of it can be taken seriously other than to realize the site owner is a wing-nut.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 28, 2005)

Oh good. It's not just me...I was beginning to think that I'd completely gone insane, and folks were too tactful to say so...then I reconsidered the idea of a) this likelihood of this crowd remaining tactful, b) the way that there's something glitched on MT, producing the delays and giving the effect of silence.

What's interesting, though, is the way that this guy illustrates the link between misogyny and anti-semitism. Paranoiac structures of knowledge--and, Freud suggests, all structures of knowledge have a paranoaic streak--as they get more and more extreme, reveal more and more of their core in homophilia and the attempt to recoil from homophilia into hyper-masculinity.

So, misogyny allows the threatened male subject to hide from his own attraction to other men and desire to retreat into early boy childhood. 

You know...Nazism...weren't all those rallies just a little too butch? I mean, let's not get too far into the tight uniforms, leather, torches and love of carrying fancy daggers around...with the crowd of women reduced to breeder status as mommies standing around watching approvingly? Then, the only women you see really active in Nazism are Eva Braun (stay-at-home mom), Leni Riefenstahl (the film-maker as mommy, showing all the little boys how GOOD they're being), and types like Hanna what's-er'-name the pilot and Ilsa, She-Wolf Of the SS (mmmm..mommy in leather, whipping errant girls back into line)...

And then the passionate hatred of Jews, the feminine Other with which the Nazis and their heirs and assigns remain endlessly fascinated...the endless blame for modern capitalism, and what's more, ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY, aimed at...at...at...THEM. 

I tell ya, if it ain't women, it's guys named Schwartz or some smartypants college professor or fellow-traveller pointing out that the ur-paranoid Schreber, in "Memoirs of My Nervous Illness," explained in some detail that his fantasies (like all such beliefs) rested on the desperate longing for God to **** him silly, so he could give birth to the New Race of ubermenschen.

Eeeew, ick. gack. But it's all so very simple. As Elwood Blues reminds us..."I hate Illinois Nazis." And look at the Illinois Nazis' last words...

Think of all the misery the world could've avoided if these guys would just go ahead and be happily gay...


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 30, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Oh good. It's not just me...I was beginning to think that I'd completely gone insane, and folks were too tactful to say so...then I reconsidered the idea of a) this likelihood of this crowd remaining tactful, b) the way that there's something glitched on MT, producing the delays and giving the effect of silence.



No... I simply am spending too much time in the darkroom anymore to have come up with an appropriate missive for how completely wretched that rense.com anti-semitic garbage made me feel, particularly during the Auschwitz commemoration.  Thanks for taking care of business.


----------

