AlterNet / By Caryl Rivers
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 297

Discrimination Against the Female Brain

It's not biology, child-rearing demands, or differences in ability that explain slower female advancement in scientific and technical fields. It is discrimination, pure and simple.
September 28, 2006  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 
Recently, a committee of specialists at the University of Miami found that it was not biology, hormones, child-rearing demands, or differences in ability that explained why women were not advancing as fast as they should in scientific and technical fields. It was discrimination, pure and simple. "It is not a lack of talent, but unintended bias that is locking women out," said Donna Shalala, president of the University of Miami and head of the committee that wrote the report. It was sponsored by the prestigious U.S. National Academies of Science and Engineering and the Institute of Medicine.

This is not a new story. People familiar with the research know that for many years, studies have shown few gender differences that would account for women's lack of progress. They also know that the notion that “girls can't do math” starts as early as third grade and gets progressively worse. Harvard's Larry Summers got into trouble because -- as he candidly admitted -- he had gotten the science wrong. A quick check with some of his own faculty members could have saved him a lot of grief.

But the idea that women are uncomfortable with facts and systems dies hard. Cambridge University psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen ("The Essential Difference") says that males are good at leadership, decision making and achievement, while females are suited for "Making friends, mothering, gossiping, and 'reading' your partner." (He has been quoted in the New York Times, in a Newsweek cover story, in a PBS documentary and in many other major media outlets.)

Baron-Cohen bases his claims on one study (done in his lab in 2000) of day-old infants purporting to show that baby boys looked longer at mobiles, while day-old baby girls looked longer at human faces.

Elizabeth Spelke, the co-director of Harvard's Mind, Brain and Behavior Interfaculty Initiative, utterly demolished this study. It has never been replicated, nor has it appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, she reported. Furthermore, the study lacked critical controls against experimenter bias and was not well-designed. Female and male infants were propped up in a parent's lap and shown, side by side, an active person or an inanimate object. Since newborns can't hold their heads up independently, their visual preferences could well have been determined by the way their parents held them. Moreover, there's a long literature flat-out contradicting Baron-Cohen's study, providing evidence that male and female infants tend to respond equally to people and objects.

The idea that women are suited mainly for relationships keeps popping up all over the media. Best-selling author Michael Gurian ("The Wonder of Girls") claims that only 20 percent of girls have "bridge brains" that enable them to do math the way males do, a claim so unscientific it takes your breath away. Gurian also claims that girls will be unhappy if they focus too much on achievement, and that instead their primary goal should be learning to form relationships. Gurian is often cited uncritically in the media and invited to speak to groups of teachers.

The Academies' report found that female performance in high school mathematics now matches that of males. But the media focus is not on female performance, but on female hormones.

“Is chemistry destiny?” New York Times columnist David Brooks recently asked. His answer was a resounding vote in favor of sheer biological determinism. He blithely jettisoned a century's worth of research to chirp that "happiness seems to consist of living in harmony with the patterns that nature and evolution laid down long, long ago."

Long long ago, of course, was when men were in charge of the world and women knew their place.

Brooks was citing a new book titled "The Female Brain" by Louann Brizendine, a neuropsychiatrist at the University of California, San Francisco. The book claims that the female brain is wired for connection. But the author unfortunately makes huge, unsubstantiated leaps. Take, for example, this statement: '"Studies indicate that girls are motivated -- on a molecular and a neurological level -- to ease and even prevent social conflict.'"

But as Robin Marantz Henig points out in her excellent New York Times review, the data for that statement is quite fuzzy. "The endnote lists nine scholarly articles, with no further explanation given. From the titles (which the reader has to look for in the bibliography), we can surmise that one study was on female mice, one on male and female rats, one (apparently) on female rhesus monkeys, and the other six on humans. But only one of those human studies explicitly mentions ‘sex differences’ in the title."

And long ago, "mean girls" were all the rage in media stories. What happened to the make-nice hormones in all those nasty high school kids?

The fact is that human behavior is an extremely complex mix of genes, hormones, environments, relationships, situations, drives, motivations -- a vast, churning stew. There is huge variation among individuals; often, talking about how "men" or "women" behave has little bearing on what real people do. We are all products of both nature and nurture, constantly interacting.

But bits and pieces of this extremely complicated picture are teased out and used in a very simplistic -- and very political -- way. They are employed to argue that women can't do math, shouldn't be in the army, shouldn't be engineers, aren't natural leaders, aren't natural risk takers and so on, endlessly. The more that the actual behavior of women debunks such statements, the more widespread the statements become.

As the science of behavior becomes ever more nuanced and complex, the media notions about it become ever more conservative and simplistic. We should remember that while biology is an important part of who we are, biological determinism has an unscientific -- and unsavory -- past.
  • 1
View as a single page
 
Caryl Rivers is a professor of journalism at Boston University and co-author, with Dr. Rosalind Barnett of Brandeis, of Same Difference: How Gender Myths Are Hurting Our Relationships, Our Children and Our Jobs (Basic).
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email

comments COMMENTS ( 297 )
READ COMMENTS
LOGIN OR REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT
 

Comments are closed-

It just goes to show...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: tanstaafl28 on Sep 28, 2006 12:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that it isn't "official" until some "eggheads" conduct a study to prove it. From where I'm sitting, these conclusions are not terribly surprising.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

brainwashed
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rsaxto on Sep 28, 2006 12:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Men and women have both been brainwashed into believing bullshit about female/male differences because ancient belief systems die hard despite the fact that today's societies are so much different from ancient ones. Dogmas about which sex should do what and about the brain capacity differences are still in force because societies are even slower learners than individuals. Men still hold most of the reins of power simply because many folks have a problem with progressive change because they are addicted to ancient ignorant procedures.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» some anciet societies Posted by: kc4choice
» talk about brainwashing... Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: talk about brainwashing... Posted by: MartianBachelor
» bachelors are just men Posted by: sln70
» RE: wow Posted by: hymalaia
» gotcha, didn't I Posted by: sln70
» RE: yeah you did Posted by: hymalaia
» RE: there's nothing "just" about it Posted by: MartianBachelor
» Hello Martian Bachelor! Posted by: Burton
» RE: Hello Martian Bachelor! Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Hello Martian Bachelor! Posted by: Burton
» RE: brainwashed Posted by: Burton
» RE: brainwashed Posted by: rsaxto
» RE: sued silly Posted by: MartianBachelor

Comments are closed-

The only true answer is that no-one really knows the answer.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Colin on Sep 28, 2006 1:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“We should remember that while biology is an important part of who we are, biological determinism has an unscientific -- and unsavory -- past.”

This article is interesting in that it promises answers but delivers nothing. It is a political essay and that should not be forgotten. It questions the science – which is fair enough – but doesn’t do so scientifically. For example…

“Take, for example, this statement: '"Studies indicate that girls are motivated -- on a molecular and a neurological level -- to ease and even prevent social conflict.'"

But as Robin Marantz Henig points out in her excellent New York Times review, the data for that statement is quite fuzzy. "The endnote lists nine scholarly articles, with no further explanation given. From the titles (which the reader has to look for in the bibliography), we can surmise that one study was on female mice, one on male and female rats, one (apparently) on female rhesus monkeys, and the other six on humans. But only one of those human studies explicitly mentions ‘sex differences’ in the title."”

If this is meant to be a legitimate rebuke to the initial premise then I’m a monkey’s uncle. Are we honestly to believe Robin Marantz Henig (a freelance science writer rather than a specialist in the field) has dismissed the suggestion of the studies indicated by looking at their titles? Funnily enough – I always thought the meat was in the content rather than the title.

There are not yet any concrete answers to the questions being asked. No-one really +knows+. When someone like Baron Cohen (a world renowned psychiatrist at Cambridge University, specialising in autism and behavioural neuroscience and, incidentally, Ali G’s cousin) writes up his research, his first dedication is to presenting the truth. He doesn’t say – “this is the way things are”. He’ll say “this is what the evidence suggests”. The authors of this article makes no such concession. They know it all.

So, take on board what this article has to say, but you’d be an idiot to quote it as gospel.

One last point - I quoted the line at the top of this post for a reason. The author is suggesting biological determinism has an unscientific and unsavoury past. Interesting, then, that she is also a biological determinist. The difference is she’s determining that there is no difference while the others are determining that there is. As I said earlier, the point made is political.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "biological determinism" = straw man Posted by: MartianBachelor

Comments are closed-

I just HAVE to wonder
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Lizmv on Sep 28, 2006 3:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Studies indicate that girls are motivated -- on a molecular and a neurological level -- to ease and even prevent social conflict.'" Yeah, so WHY is that considered weakness? Is creating wars, poverty, hunger and environmental devastation BETTER?

Being a feminist, for me, is not about competing with men to attain the current model of 'success', but creating my own standards of achievement. Being an ecofeminist is not participating in the world of dog-eat-dog, cut throat competition where having more than everyone else makes me the winner, but working toward everyone having enough.

This is just another silly study by a silly man who is unable to understand the difference between strengths and weaknesses. Studies like this are designed to give the desired results and should be ignored.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I just HAVE to wonder Posted by: Annarisse
» RE: I just HAVE to wonder Posted by: WitchyNy
» YES!! Exactly!! Posted by: Loopylafae
» RE: I just HAVE to wonder Posted by: WitchyNy

Comments are closed-

Brains
[Report this comment]
Posted by: talkville on Sep 28, 2006 3:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Brains are found as an organ in, among other species, the human. Being determines consciousness, and we begin and end living in social relations with one another. What Gertrude Stein said about the rose is applicable to the brain. The rest is our learning along the way, which includes wondering about those are doing the teaching and taking responsibility as learners. Each of us has a brain as an organic element in our natural bodies; with consciousness, the plot thickens and 'culture' is snuck in and the 'definitions' begin to pour out in science, theology, social studies, psychology, political economy, etc. etc. etc.

Like every human activity, science too can operate as a pretext and excuse. Meanwhile, we continue living together in our definitions; that's when our responsibilites as learners come in - and we question authority.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

more nature nurture debate
[Report this comment]
Posted by: insulaparadigm on Sep 28, 2006 3:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
google pinker spelke for a good debate of nature vrs. nuture on this matter. Edge has a big page and video of it available too. Both noted harvard psychs I side more with spelke afterwards.
Should be noted that plasticity and change are important in both devolopment and function of the brain. If I remember correctly as babies / children we have more neurons and devolopment is mostly neural competition and synaptic pruning.
also read some Searle (not related just throwing that in)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: more nature nurture debate Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: more nature nurture debate Posted by: insulaparadigm
» RE: more nature nurture debate Posted by: insulaparadigm
» RE: more nature nurture debate Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: more nature nurture debate Posted by: insulaparadigm
» RE:...and the emotional abuse of males Posted by: MartianBachelor
» more smugness Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: more smugness Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: more smugness Posted by: Burton
» RE: more smugness Posted by: Aussie Kim

Comments are closed-

A little bias goes a long way
[Report this comment]
Posted by: YogiBear on Sep 28, 2006 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wasn't bothered by the outcry against Harvard President Larry Summers, because he really was letting his own bias overrule the science. I was bothered by the decisions to censure him, because everyone, even the president of Harvard, ought to be able to speak their mind. Universities ought not be the kind of places where free speech is quashed.

But he was wrong, and looking at his original remarks here, one can see pretty easily how he allowed his ideology to overrule his intellect. The Q&A session after is the msot telling; the audience by and large disagrees with his points, and he seems to dismiss them because his mind was made up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» So it's no big deal Posted by: sln70
» RE: So it's no big deal Posted by: MartianBachelor
» Amateurish Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Larry, the Unstable Guy Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
» Two wrongs... Posted by: YogiBear

Comments are closed-

The Power of Folkways
[Report this comment]
Posted by: NoPCZone on Sep 28, 2006 7:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Folkways affect people both internally and externally and hold a powerful sway. It is amazing how profound an effect they can have even in a home where such nonsense is actively opposed. Ultimately, the choice is going to be in the hands of women themselves.

Think back to high school and how many of the brilliant math and science students were young women. Then think back to college at how few became software engineers, scientists, etc. The only real exception to this that I remember is medicine, where women dominate virtually all of the fields except the M.D. position and that is quickly coming into a balance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

There is nothing "pure and simple" about any of this.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JDJD on Sep 28, 2006 7:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article declares itself to be rubbish in its second sentence: "It is discrimination, pure and simple". There is nothing pure and simple about any of this, if there were, it would have been settled years ago.

There are differences between men and women, this ought to be a given for anyone with an ounce of grey matter. Some of those differences are cognitive, science is a highly cerebral affair so there will, at the very least, be differences between the way that men and women do science, or even differences between what they view as science in the first place. But science is a search for verifiable truth and requires a final check with reality, regardless of how it is done or what the questions are that the scientist seeks to answer. This has nothing to do with the gender of the scientist, but we must always be open to the possibility that one gender, in general, may be more adept in any given discipline. It would be unscientific not to be. And that phrase "in general" lies at the core of the argument, because the statistical trend is irrelevent in the face of an individual investigator.

The science research program that does not hire the most capable investigator regardless of genetic makeup, is doing itself a disfavor and is ultimately hypocritical.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I LOVE my power tools! Posted by: Lizmv
» RE: I LOVE my power tools! Posted by: Burton
» Say what?! Posted by: MartianBachelor
» OK- Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: OK- Posted by: JDJD
» RE: OK- Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: OK- Posted by: JDJD
» RE: OK- Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: OK- Posted by: JDJD
» RE: OK- Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: OK- Posted by: Burton
» RE: OK- Posted by: JDJD
» RE: OK- Posted by: WitchyNy
» Read this. Posted by: WitchyNy

Comments are closed-

luzmejor
[Report this comment]
Posted by: luzmejor on Sep 28, 2006 8:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When people set out to find extreme differences between the sexes, you can bet your bottom dollar they will find what they seek.

I would respect more a researcher who was looking for what causes differences among individuals a lot more.

I seriously question anyone who believes that kind of behavioral study is scientific in the first place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Thank god - another gender study!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JCR on Sep 28, 2006 10:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Recently, a committee of specialists at the University of Miami found that it was not biology, hormones, child-rearing demands, or differences in ability that explained why women were not advancing as fast as they should in scientific and technical fields. It was discrimination, pure and simple. "It is not a lack of talent, but unintended bias that is locking women out,"

These types of studies have always been interesting in that they will be conducted to disprove the theory that men have an inherent aptitude/advantage in math and the sciences yet there is absolutely no problem carrying out studies with the express intent of proving that men are "deficient, lacking or less developed" in areas in which women "inherently" excel. However, I do recognize that some studies were probably necessary in order to combat the historic stereotype that men were superior in every way prior to now. I will concede that much but the trend seems to have reversed itself as of late.

Most "studies" have no compunction for stating that women handle pain better, are more flexible (open to alternatives) and that they excel in verbal communication. Similarly, they are better at recognizing faces, and of course, listen better and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Time and again female advantages in these and many other areas are attributed to biology, mostly brain wiring. Anyway, it's just curious that women are ALWAYS the equal of men in every area except physical strength, but men are inferior to women in so many ways - all stated with the blessing of science.

Of course those of us who are not such warm and fuzzy liberals (usually the same ones that think assigning "grades" in school is cruel and damaging to self-esteem), it is possible to sift through this crap and realize what is likely true: men probably excel in math and science as women clearly excel in verbal skills and relating to other people. Put simply, men and women differ in brain size, hemispheral communication, neuron activation, etc. Why then is it so hard to believe that men might actually be better in math and science the same way it is accepted that women are better communicators? We know why - because of "wonderful" studies like these. Maybe we could just leave the damn studies out of it and treat one another on a case by case basis rather than justify entire studies to prove that one sex is inherently superior than the other . . . But that doesn't attract as many readers now does it? Way to play the gender card once again Alternet - nicely done!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

One Word...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jobie1kno on Sep 28, 2006 10:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religion

I believe that humanity has been moulded by all powerful religions today, to feed the belief that women are of a secondary class. Every framework that exists as a basis for our societies (government, education etc) has a religious basis, and this is one of the results of such. Imagine if we lived in a world that worshipped female gods, and where women were the sole preachers/storytellers. Would men have received such a raw deal along the way? I'm sure that this article would not have needed to be written, from either a male or female perspective...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: One Word... well several, actually Posted by: MartianBachelor
» Wah wah Posted by: Burton
» RE: One Word... well several, actually Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: One Word... Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: One Word... Posted by: Burton

Comments are closed-

Sad state of affairs
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ScottP on Sep 28, 2006 11:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's too bad the author takes such a superficial view of a serious topic. Stooping to giving credit to talking heads on TV and pundits writing for the NYT does more to propagate myths than to illuminate real issues.

As an engineering student in the 70's, I really thought the wave of women engineers I was with was the start of making engineering and science truly co-ed fields. But the sad truth is that little progress has been made in the 30 years since then, even though most of us in the professions would like to have more diversity, not only among sexes, but also among races, sexual orientations, ages, and all the other aspects that make people unique and interesting. ACM studied the problem, and as I recall found that in computer science college programs, one issue was that the male students were driving females out by their following pop culture sexism. Many of us in the professions have completely detached from pop culture in disgust of its worshipping of celebrity, sexism, violence, and ignorance, so we can't even say whether or not pop culture might be a factor.

From my experience, women who are professional engineers and scientists get the same fulfillment from the field as anyone else. Not only that, but engineers and scientists who don't "advance" in the fields to become visible to the public also get as much fulfillment as ones who do. So the issue of whether or not one group or another gets "promotions" is also in fact a distraction that's interesting for the general public but not too interesting for professionals. Take your promotion, and the result is that you end up spending more time dealing with budgets and have less time time to practice your trade.

Oh well, I'm not sure why I dropped in, I guess it was a catchy title. The author does not sound like a scientist or engineer, I'm not sure why she's writing about us. I do hope that those of you who have female children will encourage them to pursue science and engineering if they have appropriate talent. Please make sure they understand that it's not the easy road, but with the challenges there can be a sense of achievement that is hard to equal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the crux of the matter Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: the crux of the matter Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: the crux of the matter Posted by: Burton
» RE: "stay the course"? Posted by: MartianBachelor

Comments are closed-

Bizarre Reasoning
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Gatsby on Sep 28, 2006 11:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To me, this essay written by Caryl Rivers, and many of the comments posted about it, are truly bizarre.

The process, not progress, of evolution creates limitless diversity. Literally, no two things or events are ever exactly alike. All things and events exist in a constant state of flux seeking a kind-of temporal harmony NOT a state of balance or equality.

The concepts of balance and equality are based in a fragmented, dualistic frame of reasoning that creates still points for our manipulation and control ... as in the nature / nurture arguments. Every horror can be justified through biological determinism and cultural mores.

As it is, every human brain, whether possessed by a male or female, is unique from every other human brain that has ever existed (or will ever exist). Isn't that marvelous!

It's our genotype, phenotype, socialization, opportunities and random chance that determine the outcome to our lives, and, of course, every judgment constructed about our lives is based in someone else's perception and biases.

Hey! Don't let the eggheads, politicos, gender-bashers, do-gooders, racists, conservatives nor progressives load you down with all their fears and desire to control your life. : )

Gatsby

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bizarre Reasoning Posted by: Burton
» RE: Bizarre Reasoning Posted by: ethanay
» RE: Bizarre Reasoning Posted by: Gatsby
» RE: Bizarre Reasoning Posted by: Burton

Comments are closed-

This is just like pretty much every other discrimination...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Lord Ichmael on Sep 28, 2006 12:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Discrimination against women, just like discrimination against gays, various religious beliefs, (lack of) wealth, ethnicity, and all that other stuff, is based on ancient myths and superstitions blended in with shameless demagoguery. It's very well hammered into most people's minds; I'll give a (true) example (and I'm a guy). Among other guys I am not all that rarely ridiculed for treating women like equals rather then pieces of meat whose only role is to be manipulated and seduced for solely sexual reasons. So I'm punished for not being a shallow bigot. Being ridiculed about that doesn't effect me at all personally, but it makes me feel pretty depressed to see so many people acting like females are sub-humans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

History
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Lesha on Sep 28, 2006 12:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not in a woman's nature or instincts to be as efficient in science and math as men are.Women aren't equip to be inventive in the field of technology because they are not wired that way.Everything we use dating back as far back in time as we can go was invented by men.Historically women weren't at the forefront to build the great monuments we have throughout the world along with the super structures of today,pave the roads we drive on,invent cars,computers, perfect aerodynamics,invent medicine to cure people,and list other things.Historically although most societies were dominated by men,in some parts of world women have had the opportunity to participate in these fields but choose not to.Even today with the passing of the women's right bill you don't see women in droves trying to be mechanics, construction workers,engineers,airplane pilots,picking up garbage,along with a list of other complicated topics.Women can participate in these fields but they are not as efficient in these fields as men are.Most women choose fields were they don't have to get dirty or stress themselves out or work their way up the latter,they would rather to get to the top without suffering like most men do.Not all women but most women aren't going work two and three jobs,live in a single apartment,survive off of Top Ramen Noodles to support themselves until they excel in their field of study to make a living off of.Most women want it the easy way regardless of how much they talk about being independent.Women should just stick to what they are good at and that is,nurturing and teaching our children,keeping the house clean,cooking,and providing the Man with peaceful enviorment to home to.Oh yeah and dont talk too much.With the following blue print the world will be a better place for all of us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: History Posted by: clthompson
» RE: History Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: History Posted by: krystal
» RE: History Posted by: Lesha
» RE: History Posted by: morticia
» RE: History Posted by: ecoMamaNY
» RE: History Posted by: anechoic
» RE: History Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: History Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: History Posted by: Logic's Edge

Comments are closed-

Why it doesn't matter either way....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: supercrisp on Sep 28, 2006 12:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Given the tremendous variation among invididuals in intellect, ability, and interest, it doesn't matter to me practically if someone someday finds out that men and women differ to some slight degree, and it would have to be slight or it'd be obvious. Individual variation means that I can't assume a man or woman is better at math or whatever. I have to wait and learn the abilities of each new person I encounter. I don't see why people have such a hard time getting their heads around this simple antidote to arguments for prejudice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Women talk too much
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JockoSchmoko on Sep 28, 2006 12:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who can explain it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Women talk too much Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Women talk too much Posted by: fork
» Correction: Women jabber too much Posted by: MartianBachelor
» Speaking of jabbering..... Posted by: morticia

Comments are closed-

race and gender politics--how the Right & FakeLeft divide and Rule the workers
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rebel_pig on Sep 28, 2006 2:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
distract distract distract

the rich pay the nonprofits, which pay the fakeLeft activists
year in and year out they grind out the propaganda that converts the trueLeft populist economics (focused on prograssive taxation and universal healthcare which is broadly favored by all working class Americans) into the fakeleft identity politics ( which focuses on dividing working class Americans into identity groups).

Guess where Alternet is?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» troll troll troll. Posted by: may261989
» RE: troll troll troll. Posted by: Burton

Comments are closed-

Overlap doesn't mean equal
[Report this comment]
Posted by: medstudgeek on Sep 28, 2006 6:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some women are taller than some men. That doesn't mean there are no overall height differences between women and men.

Some women like science, engineering, math, computers, computer games, and the game with the heavy books and the funny dice more than some men. That doesn't mean there are no overall differences in this area between women and men, as I sadly came to realize after a long and virginal adolescence.

The question is, of course, nurture or nature? I would tend to believe it's a mixture of both, simply because every important difference seems to be some of both, and because a small difference between genders that occurs due to nature will be reinforced due to nurture as men like to prove themselves manly to attract women, and women like to prove themselves womanly to attract men.

Of course some people don't fit this mold; some people have 'inappropriate' interests for their gender, and others are not interested in the other gender but in the same gender (or both), and many of them like to read Alternet. I would be willing to bet that the experience of alienation is one thing that can produce lefties.

To be honest with you, I really don't see the desire to push women into science and engineering. Business and law, OK, these are power track professions and not having access to them is a definite injustice any self-respecting lefty should worry about, as they affect income distributions and such things. But science and engineering? They don't even pay that well, they require a huge investment of time and money, and they are prone to be outsourced to India. Only people who truly love it go into it anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Overlap doesn't mean equal Posted by: ecoMamaNY
» what do we mean? Posted by: Burton
» RE: what do we mean? Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: what do we mean? Posted by: Burton
» RE: what do we mean? Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Overlap doesn't mean equal Posted by: medstudgeek

Comments are closed-

Ideology vs Science
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Burton on Sep 28, 2006 7:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real issue here is whether or not the claim that men and women are the same regarding science is a matter of ideology or science. Are claims of equality coming from feminists who advance a political agenda regardless of its connection to reality? If it were to be demonstrated scientifically that there are differences between the sexes in this regard, would feminists still reject such reality owing to ideology? (Or vice versa among the critics?)

The claim that "discrimination" keeps women from competing in science does not seem to hold up:

1) All great scientific advances were made in the face of repression and opposition. Take a look at Giordano Brno and Galileo. No one is going to burn a woman at the stake if she advances science these days. If men could overcome such repression during the Renaissance, then why not women when there is no such repression today?

2) Other groups than women were discriminated against yet made incredible scientific advances. Alan Turing, the founder of modern cybernetics, was a homosexual at a time when homosexuality was a crime. He was arrested for homosexuality, yet he created modern computer science.

3) Same for Jews (or, for that matter, Catholics in Protestant countries, or Protestants in Catholic countries, until the Enlightenment). Right up until the 1960s, ivy league universities had quotas restricting the number of Jews who could attend. Despite the discrimination, Jews have provided a large number of scientific advances. And we can look at the proud record of black scientific achievement even during the worst days of segregation.

4) Women are in a favored position in today’s universities: affirmative action, Title IX, womyn's studies programs, etc. More women than men can be found on many campuses. Women are also protected by “sexual harassment” laws. Yet women still choose to NOT take scientific and engineering courses in the numbers that men do. In the last computer programming course I took, there was a 3 to 1 ratio of men to women, and most of the women were from Asia. If American women CHOOSE to not take science/engineering courses, then that is their choice and perhaps it does reflect something deeper.

In any event, most scientific advances have been made by a small number of people. So “discrimination” can hardly be a factor when most men do not go into science, either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ideology vs Science Posted by: sasha40
» RE: Ideology vs Science Posted by: Burton
» RE: Ideology vs Science Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
» RE: Ideology vs Science Posted by: Burton
» more: Ideology vs Science Posted by: Burton
» RE: more: Ideology vs Science Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
» RE: more: Ideology vs Science Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
» RE: more: Ideology vs Science Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
» I resemble that remark... Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: I resemble that remark... Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
» have to close out Posted by: Burton
» RE: have to close out Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
» RE: Hrdy - my reply, finally Posted by: MartianBachelor

Comments are closed-

A question on women's studies programs
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Burton on Sep 28, 2006 7:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We've had several decades of women's (or "womyn's" if you like) studies programs. Could anyone tell me what scientific developments have come out of them?

That is, since there is no anti-female discrimination in these programs, I would assume they are producing an endless number of advances in science to rival "male" science departments:

new mathematical theorems?

quantum leaps in computer technology?

rocket science to rival NASA?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Feminist Studies Posted by: MartianBachelor

Comments are closed-

Darn.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: morticia on Sep 28, 2006 7:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On purpose, I held off looking at this article until evening. I made a little bet with myself about how many comments there would be when I finally tuned in. The recent Susie Bright piece, about guys choosing burgers over sex, generated a 600-plus avalanche in one day, inspiring AlterNet to shut it down, definitely unprecedented. The number I expected to see was around 269. This 80-something is anemic! A lot of the usual suspects are here, but I was heartbroken to find my main man, Kuber, entirely absent. I have a new poem for you, Kube! Please come back!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: yawn. Posted by: hymalaia
» RE: yawn. Posted by: ethanay
» RE: snore... Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: funny how... Posted by: hymalaia
» RE: actually. Posted by: hymalaia
» RE: yawn. Posted by: krystal
» RE: yawn. Posted by: hymalaia
» Yawn and yawn. Posted by: Burton

Comments are closed-

OK, look....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: J. C. Miller on Sep 28, 2006 9:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1.) It is incontrovertible that there are significant differences between the sexes and among racial groups in biological traits and predispositions
2.) “Intelligence” is a purely arbitrary construct with no particularly useful meaning, but great practical value for those who constructed it.
3.) Traits and predispositions are not determinative and do not significantly limit potential. As noted in this thread, “determinism” is a straw man here.
4.) The dignity, worth, value, potential and right to equal treatment, compassion, self-determination, opportunity and respect of each human is not lessened by any differences in traits or predispositions – how could it ever be?
5.) Because points 1-4 are not generally fully appreciated, many individuals are threatened by and react reflexively and defensively to solid and insightful work (such as Louann Brizendine’s, whatever shortcomings can be found), in the process doing significant harm to our understanding of ourselves.

Our real differences don’t provide justification for discrimination or gender roles nor do they preclude growth and transcending of predispositions. What is more likely to block growth and potential is reactively and defensively denying and disowning the differences (for example, if as a male, I defensively deny a predisposition to use aggression and control to solve problems, then I’m not likely to work out more adaptive approaches).
It’s all good, including the differences. So just chill.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: OK, look.... Posted by: ethanay
» RE: OK, look.... Posted by: YogiBear

Comments are closed-

pop culture patriarchy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ethanay on Sep 28, 2006 11:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Based on this article it would be interesting if someone traced the various trends in arguments through, say, 50 or 100 years' time, that are used to justify the suppression of women's progress and compared it to both trends in science and the overriding social structure of the day

e.g., the rise of genetics: "women are genetically predisposed to be stay at home gossipy mothers"

the recent rise of physiological chemistry: "women's hormonal dispositions drive them to become stay at home gossipy mothers"

etc etc...I'm sure that the message has varied more than the above examples show, but the basic subtext remains the same: There will always be another apparent reason to support the historical status quo if we try hard enough...

Remember how Rachel Carson was attacked after writing her book Silent Spring? Male scientists assailed her for "being a women in over her head"--inherently incapable of conducting a rigorous interpretation of data and synthetic analysis BECAUSE she was a woman, let alone one rigorously calling the establishment on its bullshit (that's a double threat!). They didn't have to even READ the book to know it was bunk because, hey, a woman wrote it...!

I agree that the relatively small level of sexual dimorphism in our species is grossly exaggerated by our learned gender roles

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: pop culture patriarchy Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: pop culture patriarchy Posted by: Burton
» RE: pop culture patriarchy Posted by: MartianBachelor
» Some thoughts Posted by: Burton
» RE: Some thoughts Posted by: morticia

Comments are closed-

BULLSHIT.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: caitlin on Sep 29, 2006 9:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gurian also claims that girls will be unhappy if they focus too much on achievement, and that instead their primary goal should be learning to form relationships.

Yeah, because if I had decided to spend my high school years solely talking with my friends and trying to find a boyfriend rather than debating, playing varsity sports, taking AP classes, working with my church youth group, having a job, and trying to get into college, I would have been so much happier. Because, you know, focusing on acheivements totally obliterated my social skills, causing me to have no friends or boyfriends at all whatsoever. And of course, things like having good grades, money of my own, a couple of varsity letters, and a full social life - all these things just made me miserable and sad. Thanks, Mr. Gurian, for telling me all about me!

What a fucking douchebag. Who gives these asswipes paychecks for spouting their pathetic opinions in public? Because they are douchebags, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: BULLSHIT. Posted by: Gatsby
» egad Posted by: Burton
» RE: egad Posted by: zedaker
» RE: egad Posted by: Burton
» No, things could change Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: BULLSHIT. Posted by: Logic's Edge

Comments are closed-

Neurobiological differences between men and women are real.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Krotos on Sep 29, 2006 10:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is zero doubt among neuroscientists (as opposed to journalists, economists, scienists from other fields, feminists without strong scientific backgrounds, etc.) that there are significant differences, most likely genetic in origin, in how male and female brains are wired. For example, this study found large differences in the proportions of grey and white matter in male and female brains.


In general, men have approximately 6.5 times the amount of gray matter related to general intelligence than women, and women have nearly 10 times the amount of white matter related to intelligence than men. Gray matter represents information processing centers in the brain, and white matter represents the networking of – or connections between – these processing centers.

This, according to Rex Jung, a UNM neuropsychologist and co-author of the study, may help to explain why men tend to excel in tasks requiring more local processing (like mathematics), while women tend to excel at integrating and assimilating information from distributed gray-matter regions in the brain, such as required for language facility. These two very different neurological pathways and activity centers, however, result in equivalent overall performance on broad measures of cognitive ability, such as those found on intelligence tests.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Duh!!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bookwoman on Sep 29, 2006 10:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And your point is!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Discrimination that favors women is A-OK, though
[Report this comment]
Posted by: H_H on Sep 29, 2006 2:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If there isn't a 50-50 gender-ratio in a given institution- DISCRIMINATION!!!

And if there's a company or department or organization which is 80, 90, even 100% female, that's all perfectly cool.

Isn't equality fun, ladies?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Having been a teacher... Posted by: Burton

Comments are closed-

Private property determinism
[Report this comment]
Posted by: justAnEgg on Sep 29, 2006 5:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe private property caused this distinction between men and women. Private property inexorably means greed, looting and violence, which initially meant good fighting skills, which - again - gave men their prominent role throughout history and, consequently, in contemporary societies. Today, we do not need a club (at individual level) to bring our greed to its fruition, which invites women to become more and more competitive. Erase private property from the board and you'll have an all-encompassing equality again (gender, race, religion, etc.)

It's not a matter of brain cells' inheritance - it's a matter of how we use them. In these contemporary societies we forgot what raised us above other animals: cooperation.

Two richest men in the world - Bill Gates and Warren Buffett - are an excellent illustration. Why would they give away all their wealth for an abstract common cause? What is it they find more worthy then all the fortune they've so frantically faught for all their sorry lives? Did they abruptly become feminine? Or, to counterpoint the question, did Martha Stewart and Oprah Winfrey all of a sudden become alpha males? How much math they can do?

Private property - wealth - deceives us into believing that we are larger than we are. And, unfortunately, both men and women are prone to cave in before that pressure - which proves that we are equal, both biologically and societally. Physiological differences do not matter in this context, for we are talking about societal in/differences between men and women, caused by biological determinism.

And, yes, I'm a male - which is irrelevant, since my name determines me: vonHabenichts (The Has Naught One, genuflecting.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Private property determinism Posted by: MartianBachelor
» Replies Posted by: MartianBachelor
» reply - II Posted by: MartianBachelor

Comments are closed-

Sooooo
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Phenix on Sep 30, 2006 1:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can we finally put to rest that old and sorry notion that the world would be a utopia a peace if women were in charge? If we can then I think we can actually move on and discuss ways that people can live together with out fighting for land, water, and other vital natural resources.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: oooooh Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Sooooo Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: Sooooo Posted by: WitchyNy
» No guns? Posted by: Burton
» RE: No guns? Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: No guns? Posted by: Burton
» RE: No guns? Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Sooooo Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Sooooo Posted by: Burton
» RE: Sooooo Posted by: Aussie Kim

Comments are closed-

100% Discrimination
[Report this comment]
Posted by: glorybe on Oct 1, 2006 9:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People who complain about discrimination in hiring practices poorly define the issue. The entire process of hiring revolves around correct discrimination. The employer simply seeks the person that will make the most money for him without causing problems. It's that simple. If one personality or ability list or even appearance will attract customers and cayse sales then that person is the one to be hired. If the employer feels that a woman may miss work to have a baby then she becomes a poor choice. If the applicant's race is unpoular with the clients then that applicant is a poor choice. If the person has a health issue or an educational issue then the employer is likely to want someone else.
Those types of discrimination are exactly what should happen in hiring. What we want to punish is employers who discriminate out of evil intentions not those that simply wish to hire the best person for the purpose of making money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 100% Discrimination Posted by: Burton

Comments are closed-

Seems to me.....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: morticia on Oct 1, 2006 11:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that the backstory here is the pain and difficulty of sex/intimacy/"love," which could be defined as the excess beyond the evolutionary expedient of breeding and dying. I'd wager that 99.99% of us posting here are heterosexual. If we were all gay, the tone and flavor in response to this selfsame article would be very different indeed. It would take something else entirely to draw such a torrent of bitterness and vituperation from both genders.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Plus ca change...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Aussie Kim on Oct 2, 2006 12:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...the more they stay the same.

In the 1800's, scientists declared that women were less intelligent than men because their brains weighed less, on average.

Someone then pointed out that women's brains were larger than men's when compared with their body size. ie: women's brains were smaller, but their bodies were even smaller than men's bodies, hence their brains were fairly big.

The scientists then declared that women were therefore "infantile" because babies' heads are _very_ big in comparison with their body size.

?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!

We can't win. (Or draw, or even come second, I reckon...)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Plus ca change... Posted by: Burton
» RE: Plus ca change... Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Plus ca change... Posted by: MartianBachelor

Comments are closed-

HeLa cells
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Aussie Kim on Oct 2, 2006 1:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Google "hela cells".

A black woman has been saving lives and helping scientists since she died in 1951 - and the scientists and their societies were so stupid for many years that they were not even allowed to know she was black! Otherwise they would never have used her cells in their work.

F*ck-knuckles...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: HeLa cells Posted by: medstudgeek

Comments are closed-

Gee...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Blue Heron on Oct 2, 2006 12:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We've got an awful lot of men posting here. Where on earth are the women? Or are they just tired of the men pouncing on all the feminist articles like rabid wolves? I suspect this must be the case. But if men hate reading about feminist issues so much, Alternet truly is not the place for them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Gee... Posted by: Burton
» RE: Gee... Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: H Posted by: MartianBachelor

Comments are closed-

Know Your Role
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Lesha on Oct 2, 2006 12:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The women of this post seem to be missing the point of why they are not equip to lead the world in technological fields of study or research let alone people.The following doesn't suggest that women are dumb and are not smart in these fields but that they lack the physical ability and of course the will to make these things happen on their own.

For the women who brag about their numbers growing in college courses related to technology,math and science,I don't believe we have any data where these groups have INDEPENDENTLY built anything on their own without men to support them to solidify any thesis of being equal to men mentally.Men and women mentally function for reasons that are not necessarily against each other but are meant to complement each other in different ways.Men naturally are leaders,providers,and protectors of their prospective civilizations.Women are supporters and nurturers of civilization.

The women of this post and in general are confuse and have convince themselves through their imagination that they are discriminated against in fields that they generally don't excel in despite the related fields being open to them.If women instinctively don't pursue the same kind goals in fields related to building societies along with technological advancements,then perhaps they are working against their own nature.

According multiple studies,since the period of women being allowed to participate in areas usually dominated by men.With women out of the home to tend to the children,each on coming generation has become dumber and dumber with the current generation being the dumbest since 1776 and if you don't believe me take a look at our current public school system(What a sad sight).The following is not the fault of women but them being out place has contributed greatly to this downfall of the IQ of today's generation (especially men).The following is the real reason women numbers have increased in college courses and why men have decreased and has nothing to do with women being smarter or equal (nothing in the universe is equal).

Last I would like to ad that some wars are fought in self defense and some are aggressive but with that being said if women in this society or any other society believe in their prospective culture regardless of the region,then I don't think any of the women of this post or in general would be against men defending that belief system if it comes under attack by a foreign entity.War is good if you are defending yourself but is evil if you are looking to take from others for selfish reasons.Historically rape and murder was more popular with Europeans than with other people even though you had cases of this in other parts of the world(historicly speaking).So this claim has some limitations to it and should not include all men or even most men in a general sense.Women are just as responsible as men are when it comes to murder and rape because they help produce these types and in some cases protect them especially if its their son or daughter.

Women need to understand that men will always control the destiny of society even the rights women exercise today.Women have rights to say what they want and do what they want because men allow them to.If society wanted to they could treat women the same way they do in Afghanistan regardless to how smart you are.If men didn't decide to give you so-called equal rights then you wouldn't have them and there would nothing you could do about it.Just the fact that men could rule on force alone should let you who's in charge not to mention logic and reason.I believe women should be respected and treated justify and with care but also women should recognize that men are in control and for better or for worse and will always rule the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh, we are 'confuse' are we? Posted by: Blue Heron
» It's spelled 'nit-picking' Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: Know Your Role Posted by: Burton
» RE: Know Your Role Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Know Your Role Posted by: Burton
» Girls 'n' science Posted by: morticia
» RE: Know Your Role Posted by: morticia
» RE: Know Your Role Posted by: Burton
» RE: Know Your Role Posted by: morticia
» RE: Know Your Role Posted by: Lesha
» RE: Know Your Role Posted by: morticia

Comments are closed-

Discrimination against men
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Don, the 14%er on Oct 2, 2006 5:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I want to know is when are they going to investigate the outright discrimination against male public school teachers? The fact that there are so few men in the elementary grades shows tremendous prejudice. I am still awaiting the outcry from the U.S. National Academies of Science and Engineering and the Institute of Medicine.

After that, they can study why so few men are employed in the Domestic Violence Industry, and as Nursery Attendants, as Secretaries and Receptionists.

And maybe someday, they will find the time to delve into why so few men receive custody after divorce.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Discrimination against men Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: Discrimination against men Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Discrimination against men Posted by: Aussie Kim
» Aussie Kim Posted by: fork
» RE: Aussie Kim Posted by: Burton
» RE: Discrimination against men Posted by: Logic's Edge

Comments are closed-

I HAVE THE ANSWER!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: WitchyNy on Oct 5, 2006 9:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just used the link posted by Yogi-Bear in his post above.
Read the after speech comments as he suggests.

This guy is really talking about economics. (mabye he does not know it)

As is pointed out in the after speech questions--

People from other coutries... such as France...have great women scientists...who do not work 80 hours a week. Men here are suggesting that such long hours are necessary for a scientist to do great work. Clearly it is not, if France is able to do it.

American business culture just expects it.

So now we are importing Indians and others to America to work these extreme long hours.

I have known many brillant men who were alcoholics. Brilliant in the classroom or lab...but they could not relate to women or their own children.

Poverty is the answer. What is the question?

Americans need a shorter work week. No wonder men are so cranky.
We need to get rid of Bush, and get back on the right path.
Meaningful work, towards the progress of man-womenkind...but also...
with enough time to have meaningful loving relationships with our family and friends as well.

See...it IS simple after all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

It just goes to show...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: tanstaafl28 on Sep 28, 2006 12:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that it isn't "official" until some "eggheads" conduct a study to prove it. From where I'm sitting, these conclusions are not terribly surprising.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

brainwashed
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rsaxto on Sep 28, 2006 12:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Men and women have both been brainwashed into believing bullshit about female/male differences because ancient belief systems die hard despite the fact that today's societies are so much different from ancient ones. Dogmas about which sex should do what and about the brain capacity differences are still in force because societies are even slower learners than individuals. Men still hold most of the reins of power simply because many folks have a problem with progressive change because they are addicted to ancient ignorant procedures.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» some anciet societies Posted by: kc4choice
» talk about brainwashing... Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: talk about brainwashing... Posted by: MartianBachelor
» bachelors are just men Posted by: sln70
» RE: wow Posted by: hymalaia
» gotcha, didn't I Posted by: sln70
» RE: yeah you did Posted by: hymalaia
» RE: there's nothing "just" about it Posted by: MartianBachelor
» Hello Martian Bachelor! Posted by: Burton
» RE: Hello Martian Bachelor! Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Hello Martian Bachelor! Posted by: Burton
» RE: brainwashed Posted by: Burton
» RE: brainwashed Posted by: rsaxto
» RE: sued silly Posted by: MartianBachelor

Comments are closed-

The only true answer is that no-one really knows the answer.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Colin on Sep 28, 2006 1:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“We should remember that while biology is an important part of who we are, biological determinism has an unscientific -- and unsavory -- past.”

This article is interesting in that it promises answers but delivers nothing. It is a political essay and that should not be forgotten. It questions the science – which is fair enough – but doesn’t do so scientifically. For example…

“Take, for example, this statement: '"Studies indicate that girls are motivated -- on a molecular and a neurological level -- to ease and even prevent social conflict.'"

But as Robin Marantz Henig points out in her excellent New York Times review, the data for that statement is quite fuzzy. "The endnote lists nine scholarly articles, with no further explanation given. From the titles (which the reader has to look for in the bibliography), we can surmise that one study was on female mice, one on male and female rats, one (apparently) on female rhesus monkeys, and the other six on humans. But only one of those human studies explicitly mentions ‘sex differences’ in the title."”

If this is meant to be a legitimate rebuke to the initial premise then I’m a monkey’s uncle. Are we honestly to believe Robin Marantz Henig (a freelance science writer rather than a specialist in the field) has dismissed the suggestion of the studies indicated by looking at their titles? Funnily enough – I always thought the meat was in the content rather than the title.

There are not yet any concrete answers to the questions being asked. No-one really +knows+. When someone like Baron Cohen (a world renowned psychiatrist at Cambridge University, specialising in autism and behavioural neuroscience and, incidentally, Ali G’s cousin) writes up his research, his first dedication is to presenting the truth. He doesn’t say – “this is the way things are”. He’ll say “this is what the evidence suggests”. The authors of this article makes no such concession. They know it all.

So, take on board what this article has to say, but you’d be an idiot to quote it as gospel.

One last point - I quoted the line at the top of this post for a reason. The author is suggesting biological determinism has an unscientific and unsavoury past. Interesting, then, that she is also a biological determinist. The difference is she’s determining that there is no difference while the others are determining that there is. As I said earlier, the point made is political.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "biological determinism" = straw man Posted by: MartianBachelor

Comments are closed-

I just HAVE to wonder
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Lizmv on Sep 28, 2006 3:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Studies indicate that girls are motivated -- on a molecular and a neurological level -- to ease and even prevent social conflict.'" Yeah, so WHY is that considered weakness? Is creating wars, poverty, hunger and environmental devastation BETTER?

Being a feminist, for me, is not about competing with men to attain the current model of 'success', but creating my own standards of achievement. Being an ecofeminist is not participating in the world of dog-eat-dog, cut throat competition where having more than everyone else makes me the winner, but working toward everyone having enough.

This is just another silly study by a silly man who is unable to understand the difference between strengths and weaknesses. Studies like this are designed to give the desired results and should be ignored.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I just HAVE to wonder Posted by: Annarisse
» RE: I just HAVE to wonder Posted by: WitchyNy
» YES!! Exactly!! Posted by: Loopylafae
» RE: I just HAVE to wonder Posted by: WitchyNy

Comments are closed-

Brains
[Report this comment]
Posted by: talkville on Sep 28, 2006 3:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Brains are found as an organ in, among other species, the human. Being determines consciousness, and we begin and end living in social relations with one another. What Gertrude Stein said about the rose is applicable to the brain. The rest is our learning along the way, which includes wondering about those are doing the teaching and taking responsibility as learners. Each of us has a brain as an organic element in our natural bodies; with consciousness, the plot thickens and 'culture' is snuck in and the 'definitions' begin to pour out in science, theology, social studies, psychology, political economy, etc. etc. etc.

Like every human activity, science too can operate as a pretext and excuse. Meanwhile, we continue living together in our definitions; that's when our responsibilites as learners come in - and we question authority.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

more nature nurture debate
[Report this comment]
Posted by: insulaparadigm on Sep 28, 2006 3:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
google pinker spelke for a good debate of nature vrs. nuture on this matter. Edge has a big page and video of it available too. Both noted harvard psychs I side more with spelke afterwards.
Should be noted that plasticity and change are important in both devolopment and function of the brain. If I remember correctly as babies / children we have more neurons and devolopment is mostly neural competition and synaptic pruning.
also read some Searle (not related just throwing that in)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: more nature nurture debate Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: more nature nurture debate Posted by: insulaparadigm
» RE: more nature nurture debate Posted by: insulaparadigm
» RE: more nature nurture debate Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: more nature nurture debate Posted by: insulaparadigm
» RE:...and the emotional abuse of males Posted by: MartianBachelor
» more smugness Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: more smugness Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: more smugness Posted by: Burton
» RE: more smugness Posted by: Aussie Kim

Comments are closed-

A little bias goes a long way
[Report this comment]
Posted by: YogiBear on Sep 28, 2006 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wasn't bothered by the outcry against Harvard President Larry Summers, because he really was letting his own bias overrule the science. I was bothered by the decisions to censure him, because everyone, even the president of Harvard, ought to be able to speak their mind. Universities ought not be the kind of places where free speech is quashed.

But he was wrong, and looking at his original remarks here, one can see pretty easily how he allowed his ideology to overrule his intellect. The Q&A session after is the msot telling; the audience by and large disagrees with his points, and he seems to dismiss them because his mind was made up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» So it's no big deal Posted by: sln70
» RE: So it's no big deal Posted by: MartianBachelor
» Amateurish Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Larry, the Unstable Guy Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
» Two wrongs... Posted by: YogiBear

Comments are closed-

The Power of Folkways
[Report this comment]
Posted by: NoPCZone on Sep 28, 2006 7:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Folkways affect people both internally and externally and hold a powerful sway. It is amazing how profound an effect they can have even in a home where such nonsense is actively opposed. Ultimately, the choice is going to be in the hands of women themselves.

Think back to high school and how many of the brilliant math and science students were young women. Then think back to college at how few became software engineers, scientists, etc. The only real exception to this that I remember is medicine, where women dominate virtually all of the fields except the M.D. position and that is quickly coming into a balance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

There is nothing "pure and simple" about any of this.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JDJD on Sep 28, 2006 7:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article declares itself to be rubbish in its second sentence: "It is discrimination, pure and simple". There is nothing pure and simple about any of this, if there were, it would have been settled years ago.

There are differences between men and women, this ought to be a given for anyone with an ounce of grey matter. Some of those differences are cognitive, science is a highly cerebral affair so there will, at the very least, be differences between the way that men and women do science, or even differences between what they view as science in the first place. But science is a search for verifiable truth and requires a final check with reality, regardless of how it is done or what the questions are that the scientist seeks to answer. This has nothing to do with the gender of the scientist, but we must always be open to the possibility that one gender, in general, may be more adept in any given discipline. It would be unscientific not to be. And that phrase "in general" lies at the core of the argument, because the statistical trend is irrelevent in the face of an individual investigator.

The science research program that does not hire the most capable investigator regardless of genetic makeup, is doing itself a disfavor and is ultimately hypocritical.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I LOVE my power tools! Posted by: Lizmv
» RE: I LOVE my power tools! Posted by: Burton
» Say what?! Posted by: MartianBachelor
» OK- Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: OK- Posted by: JDJD
» RE: OK- Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: OK- Posted by: JDJD
» RE: OK- Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: OK- Posted by: JDJD
» RE: OK- Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: OK- Posted by: Burton
» RE: OK- Posted by: JDJD
» RE: OK- Posted by: WitchyNy
» Read this. Posted by: WitchyNy

Comments are closed-

luzmejor
[Report this comment]
Posted by: luzmejor on Sep 28, 2006 8:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When people set out to find extreme differences between the sexes, you can bet your bottom dollar they will find what they seek.

I would respect more a researcher who was looking for what causes differences among individuals a lot more.

I seriously question anyone who believes that kind of behavioral study is scientific in the first place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Thank god - another gender study!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JCR on Sep 28, 2006 10:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Recently, a committee of specialists at the University of Miami found that it was not biology, hormones, child-rearing demands, or differences in ability that explained why women were not advancing as fast as they should in scientific and technical fields. It was discrimination, pure and simple. "It is not a lack of talent, but unintended bias that is locking women out,"

These types of studies have always been interesting in that they will be conducted to disprove the theory that men have an inherent aptitude/advantage in math and the sciences yet there is absolutely no problem carrying out studies with the express intent of proving that men are "deficient, lacking or less developed" in areas in which women "inherently" excel. However, I do recognize that some studies were probably necessary in order to combat the historic stereotype that men were superior in every way prior to now. I will concede that much but the trend seems to have reversed itself as of late.

Most "studies" have no compunction for stating that women handle pain better, are more flexible (open to alternatives) and that they excel in verbal communication. Similarly, they are better at recognizing faces, and of course, listen better and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Time and again female advantages in these and many other areas are attributed to biology, mostly brain wiring. Anyway, it's just curious that women are ALWAYS the equal of men in every area except physical strength, but men are inferior to women in so many ways - all stated with the blessing of science.

Of course those of us who are not such warm and fuzzy liberals (usually the same ones that think assigning "grades" in school is cruel and damaging to self-esteem), it is possible to sift through this crap and realize what is likely true: men probably excel in math and science as women clearly excel in verbal skills and relating to other people. Put simply, men and women differ in brain size, hemispheral communication, neuron activation, etc. Why then is it so hard to believe that men might actually be better in math and science the same way it is accepted that women are better communicators? We know why - because of "wonderful" studies like these. Maybe we could just leave the damn studies out of it and treat one another on a case by case basis rather than justify entire studies to prove that one sex is inherently superior than the other . . . But that doesn't attract as many readers now does it? Way to play the gender card once again Alternet - nicely done!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

One Word...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jobie1kno on Sep 28, 2006 10:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religion

I believe that humanity has been moulded by all powerful religions today, to feed the belief that women are of a secondary class. Every framework that exists as a basis for our societies (government, education etc) has a religious basis, and this is one of the results of such. Imagine if we lived in a world that worshipped female gods, and where women were the sole preachers/storytellers. Would men have received such a raw deal along the way? I'm sure that this article would not have needed to be written, from either a male or female perspective...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: One Word... well several, actually Posted by: MartianBachelor
» Wah wah Posted by: Burton
» RE: One Word... well several, actually Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: One Word... Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: One Word... Posted by: Burton

Comments are closed-

Sad state of affairs
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ScottP on Sep 28, 2006 11:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's too bad the author takes such a superficial view of a serious topic. Stooping to giving credit to talking heads on TV and pundits writing for the NYT does more to propagate myths than to illuminate real issues.

As an engineering student in the 70's, I really thought the wave of women engineers I was with was the start of making engineering and science truly co-ed fields. But the sad truth is that little progress has been made in the 30 years since then, even though most of us in the professions would like to have more diversity, not only among sexes, but also among races, sexual orientations, ages, and all the other aspects that make people unique and interesting. ACM studied the problem, and as I recall found that in computer science college programs, one issue was that the male students were driving females out by their following pop culture sexism. Many of us in the professions have completely detached from pop culture in disgust of its worshipping of celebrity, sexism, violence, and ignorance, so we can't even say whether or not pop culture might be a factor.

From my experience, women who are professional engineers and scientists get the same fulfillment from the field as anyone else. Not only that, but engineers and scientists who don't "advance" in the fields to become visible to the public also get as much fulfillment as ones who do. So the issue of whether or not one group or another gets "promotions" is also in fact a distraction that's interesting for the general public but not too interesting for professionals. Take your promotion, and the result is that you end up spending more time dealing with budgets and have less time time to practice your trade.

Oh well, I'm not sure why I dropped in, I guess it was a catchy title. The author does not sound like a scientist or engineer, I'm not sure why she's writing about us. I do hope that those of you who have female children will encourage them to pursue science and engineering if they have appropriate talent. Please make sure they understand that it's not the easy road, but with the challenges there can be a sense of achievement that is hard to equal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the crux of the matter Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: the crux of the matter Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: the crux of the matter Posted by: Burton
» RE: "stay the course"? Posted by: MartianBachelor

Comments are closed-

Bizarre Reasoning
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Gatsby on Sep 28, 2006 11:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To me, this essay written by Caryl Rivers, and many of the comments posted about it, are truly bizarre.

The process, not progress, of evolution creates limitless diversity. Literally, no two things or events are ever exactly alike. All things and events exist in a constant state of flux seeking a kind-of temporal harmony NOT a state of balance or equality.

The concepts of balance and equality are based in a fragmented, dualistic frame of reasoning that creates still points for our manipulation and control ... as in the nature / nurture arguments. Every horror can be justified through biological determinism and cultural mores.

As it is, every human brain, whether possessed by a male or female, is unique from every other human brain that has ever existed (or will ever exist). Isn't that marvelous!

It's our genotype, phenotype, socialization, opportunities and random chance that determine the outcome to our lives, and, of course, every judgment constructed about our lives is based in someone else's perception and biases.

Hey! Don't let the eggheads, politicos, gender-bashers, do-gooders, racists, conservatives nor progressives load you down with all their fears and desire to control your life. : )

Gatsby

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bizarre Reasoning Posted by: Burton
» RE: Bizarre Reasoning Posted by: ethanay
» RE: Bizarre Reasoning Posted by: Gatsby
» RE: Bizarre Reasoning Posted by: Burton

Comments are closed-

This is just like pretty much every other discrimination...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Lord Ichmael on Sep 28, 2006 12:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Discrimination against women, just like discrimination against gays, various religious beliefs, (lack of) wealth, ethnicity, and all that other stuff, is based on ancient myths and superstitions blended in with shameless demagoguery. It's very well hammered into most people's minds; I'll give a (true) example (and I'm a guy). Among other guys I am not all that rarely ridiculed for treating women like equals rather then pieces of meat whose only role is to be manipulated and seduced for solely sexual reasons. So I'm punished for not being a shallow bigot. Being ridiculed about that doesn't effect me at all personally, but it makes me feel pretty depressed to see so many people acting like females are sub-humans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

History
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Lesha on Sep 28, 2006 12:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not in a woman's nature or instincts to be as efficient in science and math as men are.Women aren't equip to be inventive in the field of technology because they are not wired that way.Everything we use dating back as far back in time as we can go was invented by men.Historically women weren't at the forefront to build the great monuments we have throughout the world along with the super structures of today,pave the roads we drive on,invent cars,computers, perfect aerodynamics,invent medicine to cure people,and list other things.Historically although most societies were dominated by men,in some parts of world women have had the opportunity to participate in these fields but choose not to.Even today with the passing of the women's right bill you don't see women in droves trying to be mechanics, construction workers,engineers,airplane pilots,picking up garbage,along with a list of other complicated topics.Women can participate in these fields but they are not as efficient in these fields as men are.Most women choose fields were they don't have to get dirty or stress themselves out or work their way up the latter,they would rather to get to the top without suffering like most men do.Not all women but most women aren't going work two and three jobs,live in a single apartment,survive off of Top Ramen Noodles to support themselves until they excel in their field of study to make a living off of.Most women want it the easy way regardless of how much they talk about being independent.Women should just stick to what they are good at and that is,nurturing and teaching our children,keeping the house clean,cooking,and providing the Man with peaceful enviorment to home to.Oh yeah and dont talk too much.With the following blue print the world will be a better place for all of us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: History Posted by: clthompson
» RE: History Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: History Posted by: krystal
» RE: History Posted by: Lesha
» RE: History Posted by: morticia
» RE: History Posted by: ecoMamaNY
» RE: History Posted by: anechoic
» RE: History Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: History Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: History Posted by: Logic's Edge

Comments are closed-

Why it doesn't matter either way....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: supercrisp on Sep 28, 2006 12:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Given the tremendous variation among invididuals in intellect, ability, and interest, it doesn't matter to me practically if someone someday finds out that men and women differ to some slight degree, and it would have to be slight or it'd be obvious. Individual variation means that I can't assume a man or woman is better at math or whatever. I have to wait and learn the abilities of each new person I encounter. I don't see why people have such a hard time getting their heads around this simple antidote to arguments for prejudice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Women talk too much
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JockoSchmoko on Sep 28, 2006 12:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who can explain it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Women talk too much Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Women talk too much Posted by: fork
» Correction: Women jabber too much Posted by: MartianBachelor
» Speaking of jabbering..... Posted by: morticia

Comments are closed-

race and gender politics--how the Right & FakeLeft divide and Rule the workers
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rebel_pig on Sep 28, 2006 2:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
distract distract distract

the rich pay the nonprofits, which pay the fakeLeft activists
year in and year out they grind out the propaganda that converts the trueLeft populist economics (focused on prograssive taxation and universal healthcare which is broadly favored by all working class Americans) into the fakeleft identity politics ( which focuses on dividing working class Americans into identity groups).

Guess where Alternet is?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» troll troll troll. Posted by: may261989
» RE: troll troll troll. Posted by: Burton

Comments are closed-

Overlap doesn't mean equal
[Report this comment]
Posted by: medstudgeek on Sep 28, 2006 6:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some women are taller than some men. That doesn't mean there are no overall height differences between women and men.

Some women like science, engineering, math, computers, computer games, and the game with the heavy books and the funny dice more than some men. That doesn't mean there are no overall differences in this area between women and men, as I sadly came to realize after a long and virginal adolescence.

The question is, of course, nurture or nature? I would tend to believe it's a mixture of both, simply because every important difference seems to be some of both, and because a small difference between genders that occurs due to nature will be reinforced due to nurture as men like to prove themselves manly to attract women, and women like to prove themselves womanly to attract men.

Of course some people don't fit this mold; some people have 'inappropriate' interests for their gender, and others are not interested in the other gender but in the same gender (or both), and many of them like to read Alternet. I would be willing to bet that the experience of alienation is one thing that can produce lefties.

To be honest with you, I really don't see the desire to push women into science and engineering. Business and law, OK, these are power track professions and not having access to them is a definite injustice any self-respecting lefty should worry about, as they affect income distributions and such things. But science and engineering? They don't even pay that well, they require a huge investment of time and money, and they are prone to be outsourced to India. Only people who truly love it go into it anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Overlap doesn't mean equal Posted by: ecoMamaNY
» what do we mean? Posted by: Burton
» RE: what do we mean? Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: what do we mean? Posted by: Burton
» RE: what do we mean? Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Overlap doesn't mean equal Posted by: medstudgeek

Comments are closed-

Ideology vs Science
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Burton on Sep 28, 2006 7:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real issue here is whether or not the claim that men and women are the same regarding science is a matter of ideology or science. Are claims of equality coming from feminists who advance a political agenda regardless of its connection to reality? If it were to be demonstrated scientifically that there are differences between the sexes in this regard, would feminists still reject such reality owing to ideology? (Or vice versa among the critics?)

The claim that "discrimination" keeps women from competing in science does not seem to hold up:

1) All great scientific advances were made in the face of repression and opposition. Take a look at Giordano Brno and Galileo. No one is going to burn a woman at the stake if she advances science these days. If men could overcome such repression during the Renaissance, then why not women when there is no such repression today?

2) Other groups than women were discriminated against yet made incredible scientific advances. Alan Turing, the founder of modern cybernetics, was a homosexual at a time when homosexuality was a crime. He was arrested for homosexuality, yet he created modern computer science.

3) Same for Jews (or, for that matter, Catholics in Protestant countries, or Protestants in Catholic countries, until the Enlightenment). Right up until the 1960s, ivy league universities had quotas restricting the number of Jews who could attend. Despite the discrimination, Jews have provided a large number of scientific advances. And we can look at the proud record of black scientific achievement even during the worst days of segregation.

4) Women are in a favored position in today’s universities: affirmative action, Title IX, womyn's studies programs, etc. More women than men can be found on many campuses. Women are also protected by “sexual harassment” laws. Yet women still choose to NOT take scientific and engineering courses in the numbers that men do. In the last computer programming course I took, there was a 3 to 1 ratio of men to women, and most of the women were from Asia. If American women CHOOSE to not take science/engineering courses, then that is their choice and perhaps it does reflect something deeper.

In any event, most scientific advances have been made by a small number of people. So “discrimination” can hardly be a factor when most men do not go into science, either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ideology vs Science Posted by: sasha40
» RE: Ideology vs Science Posted by: Burton
» RE: Ideology vs Science Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
» RE: Ideology vs Science Posted by: Burton
» more: Ideology vs Science Posted by: Burton
» RE: more: Ideology vs Science Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
» RE: more: Ideology vs Science Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
» RE: more: Ideology vs Science Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
» I resemble that remark... Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: I resemble that remark... Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
» have to close out Posted by: Burton
» RE: have to close out Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
» RE: Hrdy - my reply, finally Posted by: MartianBachelor

Comments are closed-

A question on women's studies programs
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Burton on Sep 28, 2006 7:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We've had several decades of women's (or "womyn's" if you like) studies programs. Could anyone tell me what scientific developments have come out of them?

That is, since there is no anti-female discrimination in these programs, I would assume they are producing an endless number of advances in science to rival "male" science departments:

new mathematical theorems?

quantum leaps in computer technology?

rocket science to rival NASA?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Feminist Studies Posted by: MartianBachelor

Comments are closed-

Darn.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: morticia on Sep 28, 2006 7:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On purpose, I held off looking at this article until evening. I made a little bet with myself about how many comments there would be when I finally tuned in. The recent Susie Bright piece, about guys choosing burgers over sex, generated a 600-plus avalanche in one day, inspiring AlterNet to shut it down, definitely unprecedented. The number I expected to see was around 269. This 80-something is anemic! A lot of the usual suspects are here, but I was heartbroken to find my main man, Kuber, entirely absent. I have a new poem for you, Kube! Please come back!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: yawn. Posted by: hymalaia
» RE: yawn. Posted by: ethanay
» RE: snore... Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: funny how... Posted by: hymalaia
» RE: actually. Posted by: hymalaia
» RE: yawn. Posted by: krystal
» RE: yawn. Posted by: hymalaia
» Yawn and yawn. Posted by: Burton

Comments are closed-

OK, look....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: J. C. Miller on Sep 28, 2006 9:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1.) It is incontrovertible that there are significant differences between the sexes and among racial groups in biological traits and predispositions
2.) “Intelligence” is a purely arbitrary construct with no particularly useful meaning, but great practical value for those who constructed it.
3.) Traits and predispositions are not determinative and do not significantly limit potential. As noted in this thread, “determinism” is a straw man here.
4.) The dignity, worth, value, potential and right to equal treatment, compassion, self-determination, opportunity and respect of each human is not lessened by any differences in traits or predispositions – how could it ever be?
5.) Because points 1-4 are not generally fully appreciated, many individuals are threatened by and react reflexively and defensively to solid and insightful work (such as Louann Brizendine’s, whatever shortcomings can be found), in the process doing significant harm to our understanding of ourselves.

Our real differences don’t provide justification for discrimination or gender roles nor do they preclude growth and transcending of predispositions. What is more likely to block growth and potential is reactively and defensively denying and disowning the differences (for example, if as a male, I defensively deny a predisposition to use aggression and control to solve problems, then I’m not likely to work out more adaptive approaches).
It’s all good, including the differences. So just chill.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: OK, look.... Posted by: ethanay
» RE: OK, look.... Posted by: YogiBear

Comments are closed-

pop culture patriarchy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ethanay on Sep 28, 2006 11:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Based on this article it would be interesting if someone traced the various trends in arguments through, say, 50 or 100 years' time, that are used to justify the suppression of women's progress and compared it to both trends in science and the overriding social structure of the day

e.g., the rise of genetics: "women are genetically predisposed to be stay at home gossipy mothers"

the recent rise of physiological chemistry: "women's hormonal dispositions drive them to become stay at home gossipy mothers"

etc etc...I'm sure that the message has varied more than the above examples show, but the basic subtext remains the same: There will always be another apparent reason to support the historical status quo if we try hard enough...

Remember how Rachel Carson was attacked after writing her book Silent Spring? Male scientists assailed her for "being a women in over her head"--inherently incapable of conducting a rigorous interpretation of data and synthetic analysis BECAUSE she was a woman, let alone one rigorously calling the establishment on its bullshit (that's a double threat!). They didn't have to even READ the book to know it was bunk because, hey, a woman wrote it...!

I agree that the relatively small level of sexual dimorphism in our species is grossly exaggerated by our learned gender roles

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: pop culture patriarchy Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: pop culture patriarchy Posted by: Burton
» RE: pop culture patriarchy Posted by: MartianBachelor
» Some thoughts Posted by: Burton
» RE: Some thoughts Posted by: morticia

Comments are closed-

BULLSHIT.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: caitlin on Sep 29, 2006 9:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gurian also claims that girls will be unhappy if they focus too much on achievement, and that instead their primary goal should be learning to form relationships.

Yeah, because if I had decided to spend my high school years solely talking with my friends and trying to find a boyfriend rather than debating, playing varsity sports, taking AP classes, working with my church youth group, having a job, and trying to get into college, I would have been so much happier. Because, you know, focusing on acheivements totally obliterated my social skills, causing me to have no friends or boyfriends at all whatsoever. And of course, things like having good grades, money of my own, a couple of varsity letters, and a full social life - all these things just made me miserable and sad. Thanks, Mr. Gurian, for telling me all about me!

What a fucking douchebag. Who gives these asswipes paychecks for spouting their pathetic opinions in public? Because they are douchebags, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: BULLSHIT. Posted by: Gatsby
» egad Posted by: Burton
» RE: egad Posted by: zedaker
» RE: egad Posted by: Burton
» No, things could change Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: BULLSHIT. Posted by: Logic's Edge

Comments are closed-

Neurobiological differences between men and women are real.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Krotos on Sep 29, 2006 10:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is zero doubt among neuroscientists (as opposed to journalists, economists, scienists from other fields, feminists without strong scientific backgrounds, etc.) that there are significant differences, most likely genetic in origin, in how male and female brains are wired. For example, this study found large differences in the proportions of grey and white matter in male and female brains.


In general, men have approximately 6.5 times the amount of gray matter related to general intelligence than women, and women have nearly 10 times the amount of white matter related to intelligence than men. Gray matter represents information processing centers in the brain, and white matter represents the networking of – or connections between – these processing centers.

This, according to Rex Jung, a UNM neuropsychologist and co-author of the study, may help to explain why men tend to excel in tasks requiring more local processing (like mathematics), while women tend to excel at integrating and assimilating information from distributed gray-matter regions in the brain, such as required for language facility. These two very different neurological pathways and activity centers, however, result in equivalent overall performance on broad measures of cognitive ability, such as those found on intelligence tests.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Duh!!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bookwoman on Sep 29, 2006 10:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And your point is!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Discrimination that favors women is A-OK, though
[Report this comment]
Posted by: H_H on Sep 29, 2006 2:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If there isn't a 50-50 gender-ratio in a given institution- DISCRIMINATION!!!

And if there's a company or department or organization which is 80, 90, even 100% female, that's all perfectly cool.

Isn't equality fun, ladies?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Having been a teacher... Posted by: Burton

Comments are closed-

Private property determinism
[Report this comment]
Posted by: justAnEgg on Sep 29, 2006 5:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe private property caused this distinction between men and women. Private property inexorably means greed, looting and violence, which initially meant good fighting skills, which - again - gave men their prominent role throughout history and, consequently, in contemporary societies. Today, we do not need a club (at individual level) to bring our greed to its fruition, which invites women to become more and more competitive. Erase private property from the board and you'll have an all-encompassing equality again (gender, race, religion, etc.)

It's not a matter of brain cells' inheritance - it's a matter of how we use them. In these contemporary societies we forgot what raised us above other animals: cooperation.

Two richest men in the world - Bill Gates and Warren Buffett - are an excellent illustration. Why would they give away all their wealth for an abstract common cause? What is it they find more worthy then all the fortune they've so frantically faught for all their sorry lives? Did they abruptly become feminine? Or, to counterpoint the question, did Martha Stewart and Oprah Winfrey all of a sudden become alpha males? How much math they can do?

Private property - wealth - deceives us into believing that we are larger than we are. And, unfortunately, both men and women are prone to cave in before that pressure - which proves that we are equal, both biologically and societally. Physiological differences do not matter in this context, for we are talking about societal in/differences between men and women, caused by biological determinism.

And, yes, I'm a male - which is irrelevant, since my name determines me: vonHabenichts (The Has Naught One, genuflecting.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Private property determinism Posted by: MartianBachelor
» Replies Posted by: MartianBachelor
» reply - II Posted by: MartianBachelor

Comments are closed-

Sooooo
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Phenix on Sep 30, 2006 1:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can we finally put to rest that old and sorry notion that the world would be a utopia a peace if women were in charge? If we can then I think we can actually move on and discuss ways that people can live together with out fighting for land, water, and other vital natural resources.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: oooooh Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Sooooo Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: Sooooo Posted by: WitchyNy
» No guns? Posted by: Burton
» RE: No guns? Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: No guns? Posted by: Burton
» RE: No guns? Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Sooooo Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Sooooo Posted by: Burton
» RE: Sooooo Posted by: Aussie Kim

Comments are closed-

100% Discrimination
[Report this comment]
Posted by: glorybe on Oct 1, 2006 9:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People who complain about discrimination in hiring practices poorly define the issue. The entire process of hiring revolves around correct discrimination. The employer simply seeks the person that will make the most money for him without causing problems. It's that simple. If one personality or ability list or even appearance will attract customers and cayse sales then that person is the one to be hired. If the employer feels that a woman may miss work to have a baby then she becomes a poor choice. If the applicant's race is unpoular with the clients then that applicant is a poor choice. If the person has a health issue or an educational issue then the employer is likely to want someone else.
Those types of discrimination are exactly what should happen in hiring. What we want to punish is employers who discriminate out of evil intentions not those that simply wish to hire the best person for the purpose of making money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 100% Discrimination Posted by: Burton

Comments are closed-

Seems to me.....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: morticia on Oct 1, 2006 11:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that the backstory here is the pain and difficulty of sex/intimacy/"love," which could be defined as the excess beyond the evolutionary expedient of breeding and dying. I'd wager that 99.99% of us posting here are heterosexual. If we were all gay, the tone and flavor in response to this selfsame article would be very different indeed. It would take something else entirely to draw such a torrent of bitterness and vituperation from both genders.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Plus ca change...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Aussie Kim on Oct 2, 2006 12:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...the more they stay the same.

In the 1800's, scientists declared that women were less intelligent than men because their brains weighed less, on average.

Someone then pointed out that women's brains were larger than men's when compared with their body size. ie: women's brains were smaller, but their bodies were even smaller than men's bodies, hence their brains were fairly big.

The scientists then declared that women were therefore "infantile" because babies' heads are _very_ big in comparison with their body size.

?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!

We can't win. (Or draw, or even come second, I reckon...)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Plus ca change... Posted by: Burton
» RE: Plus ca change... Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Plus ca change... Posted by: MartianBachelor

Comments are closed-

HeLa cells
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Aussie Kim on Oct 2, 2006 1:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Google "hela cells".

A black woman has been saving lives and helping scientists since she died in 1951 - and the scientists and their societies were so stupid for many years that they were not even allowed to know she was black! Otherwise they would never have used her cells in their work.

F*ck-knuckles...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: HeLa cells Posted by: medstudgeek

Comments are closed-

Gee...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Blue Heron on Oct 2, 2006 12:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We've got an awful lot of men posting here. Where on earth are the women? Or are they just tired of the men pouncing on all the feminist articles like rabid wolves? I suspect this must be the case. But if men hate reading about feminist issues so much, Alternet truly is not the place for them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Gee... Posted by: Burton
» RE: Gee... Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: H Posted by: MartianBachelor

Comments are closed-

Know Your Role
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Lesha on Oct 2, 2006 12:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The women of this post seem to be missing the point of why they are not equip to lead the world in technological fields of study or research let alone people.The following doesn't suggest that women are dumb and are not smart in these fields but that they lack the physical ability and of course the will to make these things happen on their own.

For the women who brag about their numbers growing in college courses related to technology,math and science,I don't believe we have any data where these groups have INDEPENDENTLY built anything on their own without men to support them to solidify any thesis of being equal to men mentally.Men and women mentally function for reasons that are not necessarily against each other but are meant to complement each other in different ways.Men naturally are leaders,providers,and protectors of their prospective civilizations.Women are supporters and nurturers of civilization.

The women of this post and in general are confuse and have convince themselves through their imagination that they are discriminated against in fields that they generally don't excel in despite the related fields being open to them.If women instinctively don't pursue the same kind goals in fields related to building societies along with technological advancements,then perhaps they are working against their own nature.

According multiple studies,since the period of women being allowed to participate in areas usually dominated by men.With women out of the home to tend to the children,each on coming generation has become dumber and dumber with the current generation being the dumbest since 1776 and if you don't believe me take a look at our current public school system(What a sad sight).The following is not the fault of women but them being out place has contributed greatly to this downfall of the IQ of today's generation (especially men).The following is the real reason women numbers have increased in college courses and why men have decreased and has nothing to do with women being smarter or equal (nothing in the universe is equal).

Last I would like to ad that some wars are fought in self defense and some are aggressive but with that being said if women in this society or any other society believe in their prospective culture regardless of the region,then I don't think any of the women of this post or in general would be against men defending that belief system if it comes under attack by a foreign entity.War is good if you are defending yourself but is evil if you are looking to take from others for selfish reasons.Historically rape and murder was more popular with Europeans than with other people even though you had cases of this in other parts of the world(historicly speaking).So this claim has some limitations to it and should not include all men or even most men in a general sense.Women are just as responsible as men are when it comes to murder and rape because they help produce these types and in some cases protect them especially if its their son or daughter.

Women need to understand that men will always control the destiny of society even the rights women exercise today.Women have rights to say what they want and do what they want because men allow them to.If society wanted to they could treat women the same way they do in Afghanistan regardless to how smart you are.If men didn't decide to give you so-called equal rights then you wouldn't have them and there would nothing you could do about it.Just the fact that men could rule on force alone should let you who's in charge not to mention logic and reason.I believe women should be respected and treated justify and with care but also women should recognize that men are in control and for better or for worse and will always rule the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh, we are 'confuse' are we? Posted by: Blue Heron
» It's spelled 'nit-picking' Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: Know Your Role Posted by: Burton
» RE: Know Your Role Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Know Your Role Posted by: Burton
» Girls 'n' science Posted by: morticia
» RE: Know Your Role Posted by: morticia
» RE: Know Your Role Posted by: Burton
» RE: Know Your Role Posted by: morticia
» RE: Know Your Role Posted by: Lesha
» RE: Know Your Role Posted by: morticia

Comments are closed-

Discrimination against men
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Don, the 14%er on Oct 2, 2006 5:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I want to know is when are they going to investigate the outright discrimination against male public school teachers? The fact that there are so few men in the elementary grades shows tremendous prejudice. I am still awaiting the outcry from the U.S. National Academies of Science and Engineering and the Institute of Medicine.

After that, they can study why so few men are employed in the Domestic Violence Industry, and as Nursery Attendants, as Secretaries and Receptionists.

And maybe someday, they will find the time to delve into why so few men receive custody after divorce.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Discrimination against men Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: Discrimination against men Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Discrimination against men Posted by: Aussie Kim
» Aussie Kim Posted by: fork
» RE: Aussie Kim Posted by: Burton
» RE: Discrimination against men Posted by: Logic's Edge

Comments are closed-

I HAVE THE ANSWER!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: WitchyNy on Oct 5, 2006 9:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just used the link posted by Yogi-Bear in his post above.
Read the after speech comments as he suggests.

This guy is really talking about economics. (mabye he does not know it)

As is pointed out in the after speech questions--

People from other coutries... such as France...have great women scientists...who do not work 80 hours a week. Men here are suggesting that such long hours are necessary for a scientist to do great work. Clearly it is not, if France is able to do it.

American business culture just expects it.

So now we are importing Indians and others to America to work these extreme long hours.

I have known many brillant men who were alcoholics. Brilliant in the classroom or lab...but they could not relate to women or their own children.

Poverty is the answer. What is the question?

Americans need a shorter work week. No wonder men are so cranky.
We need to get rid of Bush, and get back on the right path.
Meaningful work, towards the progress of man-womenkind...but also...
with enough time to have meaningful loving relationships with our family and friends as well.

See...it IS simple after all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
Clownish Far-Right Lawmaker Calls for Another Administration Official to Resign
 
How Fair Are the Criticisms of Rahm Emanuel?
 
The Hollywood Double Standard: Tiger gets cooked, Charlie Sheen gets another free pass
 
Is Greece the New AIG?
 
Confused About Nutrition? Eat Food!
 
Insurer Denies Life-Prolonging Treatment To Five-Year-Old Boy With Cancer
 
Budget Paranoia
 
Why Does the U.S. Assassinate Americans?
 
Jon Stewart: Why Does Sarah Palin Need a Cheat Sheet?
 
We Must Lift the Veil on US Troops in Pakistan
 
MORE 
ALL BLOGS 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
  1. Shadow Elite: How the World's New Power Brokers Are Upending Our Democracy
  2. New Poll Results Are Proof That Republicans Don't Think
  3. White "Savior-Afflicted" Christians, Black Haitian Babies: This Won't End Well
  4. Why I Had to Stop Making Hardcore Porn
  5. Sarah Palin Aims to Bust Up the Republican Party -- And the Tea Party Movement
  6. One Company Thinks They've Created Fast Food With a Conscience -- Are They Right?
  7. The Newest Diet Trend: What Would Jesus Eat?
  8. Could Your Cell Phone End Up Killing You?
  9. Half-Naked Hot Chicks and Beer: The Sexist Guyland of the Super Bowl Beer Commercial
  10. Top 10 Problems with America Killing Its Own Citizens
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
ABOUT DIGG