Harvard Chief insults women--suggests genetic inferiority.

[michaeledward]

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.

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.

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'?

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]

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.

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

michaeledward

 

[bignick]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...THERE ya go!

 

[RandomPhantom700]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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-