Harvard Chief insults women--suggests genetic inferiority.
- Thread starter hardheadjarhead
- Start date
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...
Seems to be a real stand up guy...
*applause for bignick*bignick said:
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
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."
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
Senior Master
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2002
- Messages
- 2,723
- Reaction score
- 60
"Genetic differences"?? The hell??
Thank you for that. (Seriously, I was waiting for someone to say that! Bless your heart.)Tgace said:
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
Senior Master
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2002
- Messages
- 2,723
- Reaction score
- 60
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...
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...
LOL! Oh yeah - and aside from the sex chromosomes (remember, women XX, men XY) - WE ARE GENETICALLY THE SAME! 22 autosomes. No sex.heretic888 said:
Herrie, that bust me up!
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
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.
heretic888
Senior Master
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2002
- Messages
- 2,723
- Reaction score
- 60
"Missing ding-ding"??
Hah!! Vagina envy!! I love it!! :boing2:
Hah!! Vagina envy!! I love it!! :boing2:
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
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
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
LOL! True. It's those differences that we find so intriguing about the other.Tgace said:
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!
I love this.rmcrobertson said:
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.
E
Erik
Guest
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.
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.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Oh, boy.
AC_Pilot
Blue Belt
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2004
- Messages
- 290
- Reaction score
- 4
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
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
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Oh, my goodness.
