|
|
Posted by Els on 10/06/67 11:25
Neredbojias wrote:
>>> That's okay. Everybody knows that women are less mathematically-
>>> inclined and makes allowances accordingly.
>>
>> Generalization. I have no problems understanding maths, yet I'm a
>> woman.
>
> True, it's a generalization. You may be the next Newton for all I know.
Well, no. Not enough time on my hands ;-)
> But on the whole, women as a group are less adept at math than men as a
> group.
Yup, true.
> This is probably because they have less interest in it when they
> are young, daydreaming about boys instead.
If that were the cause, what's the reason for daydreaming and having
less interest? Young girls don't daydream about boys btw, it's about
mothering - interest in boys comes much later. Even I played with
dolls at the age of 4.
I reckon it's mostly genetic, and only partly upbringing and
stimulation.
>>> Hmm, I don't think I've ever heard it said that a woman thinks with
>>> her you-know, but now that you mention it, it's a pretty fair
>>> assumption.
>>
>> I was referring to men, not women. But now that you mention it, we
>> probably do sometimes. Usually we let our reasonable thinking prevail
>> though.
>
> Well that's debatable but I'll admit there's likely to be large
> differences between separate individuals in each of the sexes.
Sure, but comparing as groups again, women are certainly less sexually
orientated than men.
>>> In any case, all such phrases are just "casual" references to *how*
>>> the thinking does or does not transpire. Men's biggest objection
>>> is often simply the lack of such transpiration.
>>
>> Or rather, their *perceived* lack of such transpiration.
>
> How does anyone know anything except by perception? I submit that when
> a women *thinks* she knows what she's doing (whether it's valid or not,)
> she is often oblivious to how and even if it is perceived by others.
The same goes for men.
> Of
> course men can exhibit the same trait, but clueless naivety seems
> primarily a woman's forte.
I doubt that. Even generally speaking.
>>>>> Who discovered and exploited virtually all of the scientific
>>>>> disciplines in the world today? -Men.
>>>>
>>>> I have no problem with that. I'd say that apart from the generally
>>>> more logically working brain, it's also that they have more time
>>>> on their hands.
>>>
>>> What? Up until the most modern generation, men had to go to work
>>> everyday
>>
>> You're saying that all these men who invented all that scientific
>> stuff did so while they were doing their labourous jobs?
>
> Yes, for the most part, because their jobs were as inventors. They had
> the foresight, daring, and determination to risk financial well-being if
> not basic sustenance on something that could very well not pan-out.
> Some were foolhardy, yes, but even some of those had scintillating
> success. -And what was the old lady doing during these times of trial
> and tribulation? At home baking cookies?
Not if her husband was an inventor. Someone had to earn the money to
buy food. In the case her husband was not an inventor, I'd say both
she and her husband were busy raising a family. (which among other
things involves the woman baking cookies, yes)
If she was single, chances are she was not baking cookies, but most
likely teaching schoolkids how to read and write, or working in an
office.
>>> The tide has turned somewhat, but women still have plenty of time
>>> for their feminine foibles.
>>
>> So have men. Well, for their masculine foibles.
>
> Men don't have foibles, they have character.
<g>
>>> Is it men's fault that they use their time less-productively than
>>> their male counterparts?
>>
>> Nope, not at all. I'm just saying that men don't have to multi-task
>> as much as women. They have actual time on their hands when they're
>> doing something. If a man goes work on his car, he takes all
>> afternoon, and does nothing but work on that car.
>
> Complex tasks require undivided attention. Would you dis a man for
> being capable?
Nope.
Nor for working on that car all afternoon without accomplishing
anything.
>> When a woman needs to do a job on the computer at home, she has to
>> simultaneously feed and bathe the kids, talk to the neighbour who
>> wants to borrow some sugar, bring a beer to the husband who's working
>> on his car, answer the telephone, vacuum the floor, do the dishes...
>>
>> Very generally speaking, I know. And most of it is dictated by
>> nature, biologically, but it still means that men have more time for
>> what they are doing.
>
> Well, yes and no. Men "multitask", too, but on a larger scale. Fixing
> the car is equivalent (not equal) to feeding the baby or answering the
> door, etc. However, that doesn't mean they have more time; it may mean
> that their time is sectioned into larger chunks
Which gives them more time to focus on the one job they're doing in
such a time section.
> but even these chunks
> can be subdivided into smaller bits by such things as domestic
> exigencies and uncooperative wives/significant_others.
In which case it's unlikely they'll invent any difficult scientific
things during such subdivided times.
> And no, it's not men's fault that women don't
>> have that (in general). It's just a simple fact.
>
> Women's tasks are generally smaller in scope and extent, that's all.
> This is not to say they are less important, particularly when linked
> together. Each single part of the act of raising a child may be
> trivial, but the conglomerate whole is the racial primary.
True.
> It was a man who said, "Oh woe is me." He was undoubtedly married.
:-)
>> I was actually thinking in terms of all that both men and women need,
>> not necessarily from each other. This includes, but isn't limited to,
>> food, drink, a roof over their head, love, sex, opportunities and
>> freedom. You may pick whichever from that list to put in the "wants"
>> list if you like though.
>
> You forgot cigarettes.
They're a definite want. No need. People don't die of nicotine
deprivation.
>> As for 'equal opportunities': I think women should have the same
>> opportunities as men, and vice versa. This does not mean they have to
>> strive to be in a man's position. If a woman happens to be the best
>> person for a job, give her the job. If there's a male candidate
>> that's better, give him the job.
>
> I couldn't agree with you more on this one. Fairness necessitates
> fairness to all, not just those who have been treated unfairly in the
> past. Having someone promoted "over your head" when you are better-
> qualified creates resentment and resentment breeds child processes not
> very conducive to the ideal of fairness or its pragmatic application.
> Perhaps the "powers that be" don't see this, but I really think they do
> and consider it a political liability.
Indeed.
>> Personally I don't agree with the
>> "positive discrimination" to get more women to the "top".
>
> Well... I'm not that familiar with feminist issues but have been
> involved in racial ones and have seen instances in which I could at
> least somewhat agree with giving a minority a bit of a boost in the
> positive direction, so to speak. This might sound like anathema to the
> ideal of fairness but when the situation was analyzed, it proved
> otherwise. Still, cases like these are rare, -the exception, not the
> rule, and corporate- or governmental-policy do *not* establish equitable
> guidelines under which they should be handled.
Indeed.
>> I also don't agree with the pushing of women into having careers.
>> They make it sound like a career is better than caring for a family
>> with kids at home. If a woman wants a career, she can have one. IMO
>> there is no need to try and convince women that a well paid job is
>> the ultimate goal in life.
>
> Maybe as a man, I'm an exception in this, but I believe there is nothing
> as important as raising a family. Nothing. Oh, yeah, men can
> rationalize thusly: "Well, if I work harder and longer hours, I can
> make more money and eventually get a better job or higher position and
> provide for my family a better standard of living and eventually have to
> work less hours and eventually blah blah blah blah blah."
>
> That's all crap. If you *really* want a family, you make time for them.
> Lots of time. I'm saying "family" now, not mate || lover || vacuum
> cleaner. Of course, as with anything, most people are somewhere between
> the apex and the base on the slopes of this analogical mountain but it
> is the highest mountain in the universe.
Amen.
>> That's one of the reasons I don't voice my opinion on the subject
>> here.
>
> I can understand. Besides, it always gives me a little thrill when a
> woman stifles herself.
It's good that you left that last remark in context.
>>> Oh, I wasn't talking about me but my ancestors. 'Don't like to
>>> talk about myself much; people usually think I'm bragging...
>>
>> Try me ;-)
>
> Well, this is a bit awkward, but, you see, I'm God. Yes, I said God.
> Oh, I don't have any supernatural powers or anything, nor do I behave in
> a particularly divine or saintly way, but I didn't set Adam and Eve in a
> garden naked and expect them not to "eat of the forbidden tree", either.
> Still, I'm God. Well...let me qualify that. I'm part God, part of God,
> and will always be no matter what the future has in store. Now you know
> who I am.
I don't think 'bragging' is the right word for what you just said.
>>> A man doesn't change his mind that often but it may take him
>>> forever to make it up.
>>
>> Definitely.
>
> No - indefinitely.
Good point.
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|