PDA

View Full Version : I'm sick of feminist teachers



Pages : [1] 2

The_Radiation_Specialist
2007-Aug-06, 04:40 PM
Below is my rant on feminist teachers based on my experience. I mean no offence at any ladies in these forums or on the female gender in general.

Once again my English teacher went on about how we live in a "patriarchy" and how she carries her fathers name which was also her grandfathers and so on. Then she goes to talk about how the story "Little red riding hood" is made to ward off girls on exploring things around them and prevent them from venturing into the "unknown".

At other times she takes 15 minutes of class time to question why if a boy has all the ladies he is called "the man" but, when a girl is with many boys she is called the S word.

It makes me sick to have to listen to this nonsense day and day. I wish I could just tell her to shut up about her feminist views and actually teach us something useful instead of trying to divert all the class discussions toward stupid questions. I'm worried about having that bad mark on my report :(

It seems the schools are now being run by mostly extremist feminist women who think they can change young minds by ranting their views on them.

Sad sad sad...

Tucson_Tim
2007-Aug-06, 04:43 PM
Is this High School, College, Adult Ed, . . . ?

The_Radiation_Specialist
2007-Aug-06, 04:46 PM
High school, Australian curriculum.

The thing everyone must take English for some reason.

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-06, 04:50 PM
I mean no offence and any ladies in these forums or on the female gender in general.

Well, you might not "mean" it, but your "rant" sure comes across as "unapologetic".

...and calling them "stupid" questions certainly doesn't "help".

The_Radiation_Specialist
2007-Aug-06, 04:57 PM
...and calling them "stupid" questions certainly doesn't "help".

Certainly a lazy choice of wording.
Should I use the word "inappropriate" or "has-nothing-to-do-with-anything" questions?

Paracelsus
2007-Aug-06, 05:03 PM
That would depend on what work of literature is being analyzed. Certainly such remarks would be less appropriate for, say, Moby Dick, than they would be for Little Women or The Scarlet Letter. Does this teacher just come out with these 'rants' at random, or do they occur in specific contexts?

Damburger
2007-Aug-06, 05:07 PM
Once again my English teacher went on about how we live in a "patriarchy" and how she carries her fathers name which was also her grandfathers and so on. Then she goes to talk about how the story "Little red riding hood" is made to ward off girls on exploring things around them and prevent them from venturing into the "unknown".

I don't think its out of order for an English teacher to discuss a story. I believe what she is suggesting is a fairly popular intepretation of Little Red Riding hood.


At other times she takes 15 minutes of class time to question why if a boy has all the ladies he is called "the man" but, when a girl is with many boys she is called the S word.

Why is this 'nonsense'? In my experience, its true.

Lurker
2007-Aug-06, 05:12 PM
Below is my rant on feminist teachers based on my experience. I mean no offence at any ladies in these forums or on the female gender in general.

You may not mean to give offense, and an Engish class may not be the proper venue to hold such a discussion, but you give offense by ignoring the concerns voiced.




Once again my English teacher went on about how we live in a "patriarchy" and how she carries her fathers name which was also her grandfathers and so on. Then she goes to talk about how the story "Little red riding hood" is made to ward off girls on exploring things around them and prevent them from venturing into the "unknown".

She raises some valid points here. Why is it that the name of the male line is carried forward rather than that of the female line. As to the story of "Little Red Riding Hood", I don't know what the origin or intended moral of the story was suppose to be, but I do think it bears discussion. Does the story discourage young women from exploration and discovery? If it does, should it be discussed in historical context so that young women today do not take that message away from the story?




At other times she takes 15 minutes of class time to question why if a boy has all the ladies he is called "the man" but, when a girl is with many boys she is called the S word.

Here again, while there may be question of whether the venue is appropriate, but I think the questions are quite appropriate for a highschool students. Why is there an asymmetry in the language on this point. A man is often encouraged to "sew his wild oats" while a woman is expected to stay "pure" until she has married. This is not nonsense, it is an asymetry in the acceptable social behavior of men and women. Personally I think it is a rather ugly, disgusting hold over from the past. I think it should be discussed and addressed by high school students. I was appalled that my sisters were treated this way in high school and I am even more appalled that even today my niece is exposed to this same foolishness.



It makes me sick to have to listen to this nonsense day and day. I wish I could just tell her to shut up about her feminist views and actually teach us something useful instead of trying to divert all the class discussions toward stupid questions. I'm worried about having that bad mark on my report :(

It seems the schools are now being run by mostly extremist feminist women who think they can change young minds by ranting their views on them.

Sad sad sad...
I don't think this is nonsense... why should there be such an ugly, dichotomy in the way men and women are viewed as members of society. As I have pointed out, I wonder about the appropriate of an english class for the discussion and I think there should be more give and take rather than lecture, but I see nothing extreme in the views being expressed. I think its time that people like you were exposed to this sort of discussion so that you stopped thinking of such views as nonsense... time to grow up and move forward...

Gillianren
2007-Aug-06, 05:32 PM
I agree that the relevant issue here is context. If you were discussing fairy tales, the "Little Red Riding Hood" interpretation is perfectly relevant. Modern fiction might give the "man" issue relevance, depending on the fiction. Without knowing the context in which the things were said, I can't really say if it's any good or not.

Let me introduce you to an important word, however. That word is "radical." I like people who think women should be just as well-treated as men. (For some mysterious reason!) However, what you're describing doesn't sound all that radical. It's true that we live in a patriarchy; it's true that we use our fathers' names for preference. Why do you think "mother's maiden name" is often used as a password? (And at that, that was her father's name!) It's true that there's a double standard for sexual behaviour. It's true that some fairy tales, not just "Little Red Riding Hood," may harbour meanings involving female oppression.

If the issue is that your class time (and I can explain to you why English is required, if you'd like) is being used for out-of-context, irrelevent discussions, that's a different rant that has nothing to do with the politics involved.

The_Radiation_Specialist
2007-Aug-06, 05:53 PM
I see in your responses how you are all telling me that these sort of discussions are necessary and "part" of the class instead being something out-of-context. FYI, I do like having discussions about issues and regularly take part in them in the classes.

My concern is the amount of emphasis she places on these (gender equality) issues that seem to convey to me and everyone else that there is an agenda.

It's that air of one-sided thinking and the desperation to steer discussions into feministic (sp?) views that puts me off. I mean, there are numerous other topics to discuss, but the trend is recurring.

She is certainly the first person i would like to forget about after finishing school.

farmerjumperdon
2007-Aug-06, 05:55 PM
I don't know what the origin or intended moral of the story was suppose to be, but I do think it bears discussion.

Wrong story; that one stars Goldilocks.

Larry Jacks
2007-Aug-06, 05:58 PM
It all comes down to context. If the teacher is trying to stimulate thinking and discussion on matters relevant to the class then it can be a valid teaching technique. If she is trying to force her opinion on others or is wasting class time by preaching her political opinions on matters unrelated to the class then it is a serious matter that should be brought to the attention of the school administration. This is especially true if she marks down those who disagree with her by giving them lower grades.

You can use this against her, if you wish. I had a strongly feminist teacher in high school back in 1972. That was an election year where the two candidates were Richard Nixon (running for reelection) and George McGovern (a decorated WWII bomber pilot who was a strong Vietnam war opponent). My teacher was the head of the local chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW), a major feminist organization. She did bring up the election from time to time but most of the time it really wasn't outside the bounds of the class. We quickly learned that we could spin her up pretty quickly by saying something against feminism or McGovern. That was usually good for ending class work that day. In her defense, she never retailiated against any students to my knowledge and we did have some good discussions.

I was just about the ultimate outsider back then. I belonged to high school ROTC and often went to class wearing a military uniform - you couldn't be more of an outsider than to do that during Vietnam. Ms. Heath and I got along fine. Her younger sister was one of my classmates and was also in ROTC. You should've seen her turn pale when we were discussing the meaning of the word "sortee" during Operation Linebacker II (the bombing campaign against North Vietnam ordered by Nixon after the election). "One sortee means one bomb, right?" "Well, no. A single B-52 might carry over 40,000 pounds of bombs during that one sortee." She had no clue.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Aug-06, 05:59 PM
As you sit in this class and get angry just be aware that girls/women sat thru classes for years and years and were told that they would never have a career and would/should never do anything but get married, have children, and stay home and take care of them. Relax.

farmerjumperdon
2007-Aug-06, 06:02 PM
In general, it is not fair.

From a historical perspective, it is perfectly understandable.

It is a remnant of historical behavior. It goes to show how hard some ideas die. Kind of like women and children first.

Personally, I am a bit chivalrous. I'll almost always hold a door open and let a woman pass through first (for a man I often hold it open, but pass through first myself). I've never met a woman that was offended by such an act. It's not a big deal though. If someone made a big deal of it either way I'd probably just ignore them.

EDITED to add "either way."

Lurker
2007-Aug-06, 06:05 PM
<snip>

My concern is the amount of emphasis she places on these (gender equality) issues that seem to convey to me and everyone else that there is an agenda.

It's that air of one-sided thinking and the desperation to steer discussions into feministic (sp?) views that puts me off. I mean, there are numerous other topics to discuss, but the trend is recurring.

She is certainly the first person i would like to forget about after finishing school.
Of course there is an emphasis on this issue... and well there should be. There is an agemda here, it is pointing out that the significant gender inequality in this country and it is just flat out wrong!! What is wrong with such an agenda???

Where is the one sided thinking in asking why men and women should be treated equal... where is the one sided thinking in asking why women must give up their family name when they marry... It seems to me that it is more a case of one sided thinking to feel that there is something desperate and one sided in feeling that the question of women being called sluts while men are considered "the man" if simply feminist.

You can forget this woman if you wish, but you may find, when you get out of school, that your manager is a woman... that, in grad school, your professor is a woman. You might want consider proper etiquette in such situations, sexual harassment can be an ugly and long lasting stain on one's record.

Lurker
2007-Aug-06, 06:08 PM
It all comes down to context. If the teacher is trying to stimulate thinking and discussion on matters relevant to the class then it can be a valid teaching technique. If she is trying to force her opinion on others or is wasting class time by preaching her political opinions on matters unrelated to the class then it is a serious matter that should be brought to the attention of the school administration. This is especially true if she marks down those who disagree with her by giving them lower grades.

You can use this against her, if you wish. I had a strongly feminist teacher in high school back in 1972. That was an election year where the two candidates were Richard Nixon (running for reelection) and George McGovern (a decorated WWII bomber pilot who was a strong Vietnam war opponent). My teacher was the head of the local chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW), a major feminist organization. She did bring up the election from time to time but most of the time it really wasn't outside the bounds of the class. We quickly learned that we could spin her up pretty quickly by saying something against feminism or McGovern. That was usually good for ending class work that day. In her defense, she never retailiated against any students to my knowledge and we did have some good discussions.

I was just about the ultimate outsider back then. I belonged to high school ROTC and often went to class wearing a military uniform - you couldn't be more of an outsider than to do that during Vietnam. Ms. Heath and I got along fine. Her younger sister was one of my classmates and was also in ROTC. You should've seen her turn pale when we were discussing the meaning of the word "sortee" during Operation Linebacker II (the bombing campaign against North Vietnam ordered by Nixon after the election). "One sortee means one bomb, right?" "Well, no. A single B-52 might carry over 40,000 pounds of bombs during that one sortee." She had no clue.
Uh... I don't think that equal treatment for women is just an opinion any more... it's sort of the law. In addition, I haven't read anything here indicating that anything she is saying is false. As Gillianren points out the things she points out are true. Perhaps a bit more give and take is in order, but gender equality isn't just a good idea, it has become in most cases the law.

Paul Beardsley
2007-Aug-06, 06:14 PM
Below is my rant on feminist teachers based on my experience. I mean no offence at any ladies in these forums or on the female gender in general.
I have some sympathy. And I think it's worth pointing out that this clearly isn't an anti-women rant.

When I was a student at Higher Education college, we had a rabid feminist lecturer who would attack essays with her red pen whenever somebody made a reference to "man" or "men". On one occasion, somebody had (appropriately) quoted a line from the Bible which happened to mention that God created "Man" - so that got the red pen treatment.


At other times she takes 15 minutes of class time to question why if a boy has all the ladies he is called "the man" but, when a girl is with many boys she is called the S word.
The answer to this is very very obvious, from a Darwinian perspective. Men and women both have the built-in compulsion to spread their genes, but for men, the cost is very small, whereas for women the cost is very large. Therefore, on a purely biological basis, a "successful" man will be promiscuous and largely indiscriminate, whereas a "successful" woman will be very choosy.

I've found that when a certain kind of feminist is confronted with this sort of argument, she will retort that we are not slaves to our biology. These people are the gender-studies equivalent of Hoax Believers - they take as their starting point that men are evil and the cause of all the world's problems, and they manage to twist all reasoning and evidence to support this view. But such rabid feminists do not represent all feminists, let alone all women.

Larry Jacks
2007-Aug-06, 06:22 PM
The OP isn't about whether gender inequality is bad or not. The original poster is writing from Australia and I have no idea about their laws on that matter.

The OP was about whether his english teacher was wasting class time discussing the issue. If she is using the class time to try and indoctrinate her students to her opinions, then that is an abuse of her position.

As for "Little Red Riding Hood", it has been a long LONG time since I read it. From what I remember, it seemed to be more anti-wolf than about scaring girls from exploring. The wolf was the bad guy in the story (eating grandma and all of that). It seems like more than a bit of a stretch to equate that to scaring girls from exploring the world but some people seem to want to project their worldview onto every topic. It gets rather boring, truth be told.

As for equal pay for equal work and all of that, it's not only the law but it's the right thing to do. However, I sometimes think that one of the reasons why the Equal Rights Amendment failed was the early attempts to change the language (political correctness before the term was even coined, or so it seems) that opened them up to ridicule.

I believe radical feminists actually do a lot to hurt their cause. It's like the discussion on another thread where some radical feminists claim that "all men are potential rapists." They can't imagine the hatred such proclaimations generate against them and no amount of rationalization on their part will suffice.

Lurker
2007-Aug-06, 06:23 PM
<snip>


The answer to this is very very obvious, from a Darwinian perspective. Men and women both have the built-in compulsion to spread their genes, but for men, the cost is very small, whereas for women the cost is very large. Therefore, on a purely biological basis, a "successful" man will be promiscuous and largely indiscriminate, whereas a "successful" woman will be very choosy.

I've found that when a certain kind of feminist is confronted with this sort of argument, she will retort that we are not slaves to our biology. These people are the gender-studies equivalent of Hoax Believers - they take as their starting point that men are evil and the cause of all the world's problems, and they manage to twist all reasoning and evidence to support this view. But such rabid feminists do not represent all feminists, let alone all women.
It seems to me that the core issue here is that men and women should be not treated any differently as they go about the process of "spreading their genes". I agree that there are extreme positions in this discussion, but then this is the case for most discussions. In the examples presented by The_Radiation_Specialist I see no extremism. As far the "Darwinian perspective" I don't think it consititutes a very good reason for using offensive language to refer to a woman who has multiple lovers while praising a man who conducts himself in a similar fashion. We are all , in fact, not slaves to biology and have the ability to show a bit of respect and polite behavor toward the opposite gender

snarkophilus
2007-Aug-06, 06:30 PM
Wrong story; that one stars Goldilocks.
That was beautiful.

To the topic at hand, I'm going to come out and say that I don't believe there really ought to be gender equality. I'll go even further and suggest that no one else really does, either.

Of course, that requires clarification. Should men and women, all else being equal, have the same opportunities for jobs, get same pay, ride the same buses, et cetera? Of course. In that sense, go feminism (and in some cases, masculinism, because there is discrimination against men, too)... but in that sense only, and no further.

All else is not necessarily equal. I find it ridiculous that the army admission physical (in Canada) is easier for women than for men. Same for firefighters and police officers. It's all in the name of equality: women are smaller, so they can't be expected to do as many pushups. There are some jobs where the best person is needed, period, and speaking of equal opportunities in those situations is ridiculous. If you're stuck in a burning building, you probably want your rescuer to actually be able to lift you out, regardless of your views on feminism.

In the social arena, let's face it, men and women are different. By and large, women enjoy being pampered, and men enjoy pampering. It makes them feel womanly, and it makes us feel manly. Why mess with a good thing? There are different roles in those relationships, and they're fun roles, but it's only fun when there actually is a difference. I see no appeal in androgyny.

Most of the arguments for why women are oppressed seem really silly (though living in Canada is obviously different from living in, say, Iran). Does anyone in North America still believe that women shouldn't have sex before marriage? Not many around here. Has any girl under the age of 30 ever heard that she must not take a job, but bear children instead? I've never heard of it. Is your last name really a significant part of your identity? Seems pretty trivial, and you can keep it if you care that much.

The_Radiation_Specialist
2007-Aug-06, 06:39 PM
Wow! So many responses...


Of course there is an emphasis on this issue... and well there should be. There is an agemda here, it is pointing out that the significant gender inequality in this country and it is just flat out wrong!! What is wrong with such an agenda???


I think you need to upgrade your facts. The feminist movement has achieved most if not all of its goals. The battle is won.

And besides, I do not remember taking a Women's Studies course. It is supposed to be an English class.


Where is the one sided thinking in asking why men and women should be treated equal... where is the one sided thinking in asking why women must give up their family name when they marry... It seems to me that it is more a case of one sided thinking to feel that there is something desperate and one sided in feeling that the question of women being called sluts while men are considered "the man" if simply feminist.

Is there a communication breakdown here?
I am not debating on the issue of feminism but merely on the fact that it seems to pop up way more than randomly on her discussions , references and examples. Its like getting annoyed half of what someone talks to you about is about black people being discriminated.


You can forget this woman if you wish, but you may find, when you get out of school, that your manager is a woman... that, in grad school, your professor is a woman. You might want consider proper etiquette in such situations, sexual harassment can be an ugly and long lasting stain on one's record.

I must've missed the sarcasm in that or maybe a wink face ;)
How did you connect the dot to me ranting about feminist extremist teachers to seeing me as a potential sexual harasser?


I have some sympathy. And I think it's worth pointing out that this clearly isn't an anti-women rant.

Thank you. :)

Delvo
2007-Aug-06, 06:43 PM
A big part of the problem, aside from agenda-preaching and context, is that teachers who do this kind of thing always incorporate falsehoods that nobody's allowed to admit are false. One example here is the claim that our society is a patriarchy. That word means something specific, and our culture doesn't fit the definition; it's just something people like to spout off when ranting. Another example is the claim that promiscuity is praised in males and condemned in females, but that illusion can only be maintained if you put one person's words side by side with another person's words, because normally the one who condemns females for it also condemns males and the one who praises males for it also praises females; half of each person's beliefs about it doesn't add up to a real whole or prove hypocrisy on either person's part.

I'm reminded of a bunch of other incidents like it when it with teachers and politics. It's not always about gender issues, but it does seem to always be from the left. A recent example in a psychology class I'm taking right now was about race, and the professor claimed that a certain book said something it simply doesn't say; she probably presumed none of the students had actually read the book, but I had, so at least there was one person she couldn't fool with her lies.

"Teaching" false stuff is worse than not teaching at all.

Lurker
2007-Aug-06, 06:52 PM
<snip>
Of course, that requires clarification. Should men and women, all else being equal, have the same opportunities for jobs, get same pay, ride the same buses, et cetera? Of course. In that sense, go feminism (and in some cases, masculinism, because there is discrimination against men, too)... but in that sense only, and no further.

All else is not necessarily equal. I find it ridiculous that the army admission physical (in Canada) is easier for women than for men. Same for firefighters and police officers. It's all in the name of equality: women are smaller, so they can't be expected to do as many pushups. There are some jobs where the best person is needed, period, and speaking of equal opportunities in those situations is ridiculous. If you're stuck in a burning building, you probably want your rescuer to actually be able to lift you out, regardless of your views on feminism.

In this case the question is one of ability. It is not one of gender equality, it is one of qualification. There are women who are able to meet the minimum requirements to be a fire fighter and there are men who cannot. That should be the soul deciding factor. In addition, the quallifications should be designed as necessary for the job and not simply to exclude. I am not saying design for exclusion happens, I am saying that it should never be allowed to happen.


In the social arena, let's face it, men and women are different. By and large, women enjoy being pampered, and men enjoy pampering. It makes them feel womanly, and it makes us feel manly. Why mess with a good thing? There are different roles in those relationships, and they're fun roles, but it's only fun when there actually is a difference. I see no appeal in androgyny.

This is utter nonsense.... I am male and I thoroughly enjoy being pampered and don't feel that it threatens my masculinity in any way. What makes you think that this has anything to do with gender or that it will lead to androgyny. The woman I loved was very different from me and very appealing. I did not need gender roles for this, I liked her as she was.




Most of the arguments for why women are oppressed seem really silly (though living in Canada is obviously different from living in, say, Iran). Does anyone in North America still believe that women shouldn't have sex before marriage? Not many around here. Has any girl under the age of 30 ever heard that she must not take a job, but bear children instead? I've never heard of it. Is your last name really a significant part of your identity? Seems pretty trivial, and you can keep it if you care that much.
It is not for you to decide what is significant or not significant. Equal pay for equal work is significant to many. Not being called a slut when men who behave in a similar way may be significant to many. Being thought of as wanting to be pampered simply because your gender is female may be offensive to others.

Perhaps it's time you listened to what women were thinking and saying rather than explaining to them what they should be thinking and saying.

Paul Beardsley
2007-Aug-06, 06:58 PM
It seems to me that the core issue here is that men and women should be not treated any differently as they go about the process of "spreading their genes".
By "treated" I assume you are talking about the attitude people should hold towards them. Obviously "treatment" in the broader sense cannot be the same for both sexes. The fact that women have to go through a pregnancy to spread their genes, whereas men do not, is a not insignificant difference.


I agree that there are extreme positions in this discussion, but then this is the case for most discussions. In the examples presented by The_Radiation_Specialist I see no extremism.
Agreed. I think he comes across as well balanced.


As far the "Darwinian perspective" I don't think it consititutes a very good reason for using offensive language to refer to a woman who has multiple lovers while praising a man who conducts himself in a similar fashion.
In this day and age, with the development of reliable contraception, there is much less "justification" for the offensive language.

But let's see it in the (recent) historical perspective. Any woman who risked getting pregnant by the first man who happened to fancy her was a fool. This isn't offensive language; this is statement of fact. Whereas a woman who held back until she was sure that the suitor in question was healthy, fit, and decent - by which I mean was likely to stick around and support her and be a good father and prepared to face up to his responsibilities - was clearly wise.

Whereas a man who had succeeded in "planting" offspring in various locations was probably admired in a grudging sort of way, because that's what the biological imperative tells all of us to do, but most of us are unable to achieve it.


We are all , in fact, not slaves to biology and have the ability to show a bit of respect and polite behavor toward the opposite gender
I think the statement "we are not slaves to biology" is about as true as the statement, "we are not slaves to gravity". And yeah, we can buy tickets to travel by jet, and we can spend time hang-gliding, but at the end of the day we live on the ground.

That does not mean we cannot show respect to the other gender. But I still believe that it is idiotic (in the correct meaning of the word) to think that the differences between the genders are nonexistent, or just a societal construct.

And Lurker, I do not think that is what you are saying.

Lurker
2007-Aug-06, 07:00 PM
A big part of the problem, aside from agenda-preaching and context, is that teachers who do this kind of thing always incorporate falsehoods that nobody's allowed to admit are false.

Woah... no broad, meaningless generalization there...



One example here is the claim that our society is a patriarchy. That word means something specific, and our culture doesn't fit the definition; it's just something people like to spout off when ranting.

Well, there seems to be a difference of opinion on this point... perhaps rather than telling us this you should discuss the issue with Gillianren to see why she believes it to be true. While she and I don't see eye to eye on all things { she's still wrong about inviting ghost hunters to colleges to speak ;) } I have never found her to be either radical or one to rant.



Another example is the claim that promiscuity is praised in males and condemned in females, but that illusion can only be maintained if you put one person's words side by side with another person's words, because normally the one who condemns females for it also condemns males and the one who praises males for it also praises females; half of each person's beliefs about it doesn't add up to a real whole or prove hypocrisy on either person's part.

I suggest you hang around more water coolers my friend. I have heard just this sort of talk. In fact it seems to be rather common in many of the "locker room" discussions I have over heard.

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-06, 07:06 PM
I am not debating on the issue of feminism but merely on the fact that it seems to pop up way more than randomly on her discussions , references and examples.

See, but you lose the point you're trying to make when you say "stuff" like (emphasis mine) "It makes me sick to have to listen to this nonsense day after day".

My advice, quit while you're ahead...


Its like getting annoyed half of what someone talks to you about is about black people being discriminated.

Ooooo...I guess I was too late with my "advice".

Ilya
2007-Aug-06, 07:08 PM
Once again my English teacher went on about how we live in a "patriarchy" and how she carries her fathers name which was also her grandfathers and so on. Then she goes to talk about how the story "Little red riding hood" is made to ward off girls on exploring things around them and prevent them from venturing into the "unknown".

I don't think its out of order for an English teacher to discuss a story. I believe what she is suggesting is a fairly popular intepretation of Little Red Riding hood.


Actually, I would say that "ward off girls (and boys) from exploring things around them and prevent them from venturing into the unknown" is the whole point of MOST fairy tales. Bad things happen in them to those who stick their noses out -- even if there is a happy ending (and original fairy tales mostly did not have happy endings).

Lurker
2007-Aug-06, 07:18 PM
By "treated" I assume you are talking about the attitude people should hold towards them. Obviously "treatment" in the broader sense cannot be the same for both sexes. The fact that women have to go through a pregnancy to spread their genes, whereas men do not, is a not insignificant difference.

Perhaps you should enlighten me as to how they should be treated inequally. Certainly men do not need the traditional gynecological exams that women do... and men do not give birth... what other ways do you see that "treatment" should differ.



Agreed. I think he comes across as well balanced.


In this day and age, with the development of reliable contraception, there is much less "justification" for the offensive language.

But let's see it in the (recent) historical perspective. Any woman who risked getting pregnant by the first man who happened to fancy her was a fool. This isn't offensive language; this is statement of fact. Whereas a woman who held back until she was sure that the suitor in question was healthy, fit, and decent - by which I mean was likely to stick around and support her and be a good father and prepared to face up to his responsibilities - was clearly wise.

Hmmmm... so this would seem to assume that a male partner is needed in the raising of a child. Perhaps the woman chooses not to have such a partner, does this make her "unwise"... untraditional certainly, but unwise?? Perhaps she is not interested in being "supported" or raising her child with the biological father.

If this is the case, or if she is simply unwise, is this reason to call her a" slut"?? god above and below... I should hope not...




Whereas a man who had succeeded in "planting" offspring in various locations was probably admired in a grudging sort of way, because that's what the biological imperative tells all of us to do, but most of us are unable to achieve it.

And the fact that he does not stay around to accept responsibility is admired grudgingly or otherwise. This nonsense about "biological imperative" is so tiresome. We have a "biological imperative" toward self-preservation, but we still admire the hero who sacrifices for the good of the many and distain as coward the person who acts purely on the basis of "self-preservation". It seems to me that we drag this tired old argument out as an excuse when we don't want to do something. There is certainly no case to be made that a "biological imperative" cannot be considered a weakness when desired. The hero is the prime example.



I think the statement "we are not slaves to biology" is about as true as the statement, "we are not slaves to gravity". And yeah, we can buy tickets to travel by jet, and we can spend time hang-gliding, but at the end of the day we live on the ground.

That does not mean we cannot show respect to the other gender. But I still believe that it is idiotic (in the correct meaning of the word) to think that the differences between the genders are nonexistent, or just a societal construct.

I did not say they were just a social construct, I said that I don't see how they factor in to many of the social inequalities that we use them for.



And Lurker, I do not think that is what you are saying.
And Paul Beardsley, I would ask you to do the same...

Click Ticker
2007-Aug-06, 07:18 PM
Ooooo...I guess I was too late with my "advice".

I understand your reaction to this comment, but at the same time I can see where the OP is going with it. We have a local radio talk show host (sports talk) who reverts to this every summer during the dog days of the baseball season. When American Football, Basketball, Hockey, and other sports aren't in full swing - the guy gets bored and rants on racial imbalance in the various sports. I won't get into his opinions here - it's just annoying that he can't find something else to talk about. Try international sports, or off-season developments, anything else really. I don't care to hear the same rant every day over every summer.

I don't really listen any more during the summer (best way to vote, I know) - but every once in a while I'll check in and it's the same old thing. It's not even about my agreeing or disagreeing with the opinions stated. It's just that if I wanted to hear that discussion - I'd tune in to an appropriate format.

But I do agree - if it's not about the OP's personal views - than language should be used that avoids injecting those views into the post.

Peptron
2007-Aug-06, 07:26 PM
What some of you said reminds me of two videos we've been shown while in highschool. Both were about feminism, but ohhh god they were totally different. One was about what I'd call the "good and healthy" feminism, and the other was extreme, radical and "man = evil" kind of feminism.

The 1st one, the "healthy", shown how feminism helped women to get the right to vote, the right to get careers, and in general the same freedoms of movement and living than men had. They never implied that men in general were "evil", and that in fact a lot of the improvements of the women situation had men taking part.

The 2nd one was, IMHO, purely hate speech. In one segment, they shown "normal" man and woman behaviors, and how the "man" one was defacto evil, and the "woman" one was defacto good. It was so counter productive in its presentation that one was wondering if it was a feminist video or an anti-feminist one.
IE of the ideas of one of the segments:
-A woman taking care of a baby is doing that out of love and care, and a natural mothering instinct.
-A man taking care of a baby is doing that out of desire of control and domination, and out of delight of knowing oneself superior to another form of life.
They also compared the reasons for having sex (woman = love, man = domination and control, NO EXCEPTIONS), reasons for self-defense (woman = defense, man = attack, (there is no context in which a man can be considered to defend), reasons for helping somebody else and saving another person's life (woman = love, man = domination over another human/life-form, (yeah, they found a way to "demonize" firemen jobs, linking it to the thirst of power built in every man, no exceptions, including newborn boys).


The class was actually more about extremism than feminism, and it concluded with the teacher explaining that when somebody talks about feminism, make sure of which "flavor" he is talking about. Same thing with pretty much everything else, like politics, religion, treatments of groups, etc.

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-06, 07:31 PM
if it's not about the OP's personal views - than language should be used that avoids injecting those views into the post.

It's too late for that now. This thread is destined to follow the same "path" as a religious of political thread...until it is locked.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Aug-06, 07:36 PM
It's too late for that now. This thread is destined to follow the same "path" as a religious of political thread...until it is locked.

It's Hitler's fault!

Lurker
2007-Aug-06, 07:38 PM
R.A.F.
It's too late for that now. This thread is destined to follow the same "path" as a religious of political thread...until it is locked.

I find that so unfortunate... I don't see anything offensive in the teachers remarks, but so much that is offensive in the distinctions that have others have attempted to draw between men and women.

NEOWatcher
2007-Aug-06, 07:40 PM
It's Hitler's fault!
I know that was meant tongue-in-cheek, but my mother actually says the same thing.

She says the issue wasn't really there until after the war when women were forced into the workplace. So, she does blame Hitler.

The Supreme Canuck
2007-Aug-06, 07:41 PM
Peptron - quite right. This is why I dislike the terms "feminism" and "masculism." They're simply too broad. Really, I think they should be redefined:

Feminism: the movement to advance women's issues only.
Masculism: the movement to advance men's issues only.
Gender equality: self-descriptive. The "healthy feminism" described by Peptron.

That way, misunderstandings (like some I have seen in this thread, unfortunately) can be avoided.

Lurker
2007-Aug-06, 07:51 PM
I know that was meant tongue-in-cheek, but my mother actually says the same thing.

She says the issue wasn't really there until after the war when women were forced into the workplace. So, she does blame Hitler.

Ahhhh... but views on this differ. My mother was not "forced" into the work place either during or after the war. She, and many others, saw it as a chance to have a job and a pay check. She felt it improved her self respect and gave her a freedom she had never known before. In fact, she found that after WWII when so many men returned, it was much harder to get a job and she felt pressured to leave a job she liked very much and return to a domestic life she was not as interested in anymore.

Paul Beardsley
2007-Aug-06, 07:51 PM
Perhaps you should enlighten me as to how they should be treated inequally. Certainly men do not need the traditional gynecological exams that women do... and men do not give birth... what other ways do you see that "treatment" should differ.
Does there need to be other ways?


Hmmmm... so this would seem to assume that a male partner is needed in the raising of a child. Perhaps the woman chooses not to have such a partner, does this make her "unwise"... untraditional certainly, but unwise?? Perhaps she is not interested in being "supported" or raising her child with the biological father.
She has the option now. But I don't think the choice was so simple in the not-so-distant past. 100 years ago, a woman who "chose" not to have a male partner did not have disposable nappies, or the various mod-cons that make life pretty easy now.


If this is the case, or if she is simply unwise, is this reason to call her a" slut"?? god above and below... I should hope not...
So what does the word "slut" actually signify? And what does "unwise" actually signify?

Nowadays, we have no end of safety nets. We can be aggressively stupid in our life choices - we can get away with idiotic behaviour and still live. In my last job, I encountered a young man who not only found himself homeless, he went on to be extremely obnoxious to anybody who made any effort to help him.

100 years ago, he'd have died.

If you call someone "unwise" now, it sounds like a very mild criticism. But what does it really mean? It is "unwise" to cross the road without checking for traffic. It is "unwise" to change a light bulb without checking that the power is off. In other words, unwise=idiotic.


And the fact that he does not stay around to accept responsibility is admired grudgingly or otherwise. This nonsense about "biological imperative" is so tiresome. We have a "biological imperative" toward self-preservation, but we still admire the hero who sacrifices for the good of the many and distain as coward the person who acts purely on the basis of "self-preservation". It seems to me that we drag this tired old argument out as an excuse when we don't want to do something. There is certainly no case to be made that a "biological imperative" cannot be considered a weakness when desired. The hero is the prime example.
Granted, there are some real-life heroes, but in fiction they usually get to survive anyway.

I think "biological imperative" accounts for about 99% of everything we do. To dismiss it as "nonsense" or "tiresome" is, er, unwise.


And Paul Beardsley, I would ask you to do the same...
I might have been wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt. But I hope I am wrong.

Lurker
2007-Aug-06, 07:58 PM
Does there need to be other ways?

well... so we don't give men such exams... I don't see a problem.




She has the option now. But I don't think the choice was so simple in the not-so-distant past. 100 years ago, a woman who "chose" not to have a male partner did not have disposable nappies, or the various mod-cons that make life pretty easy now.

There were indeed ways... there was nothing that said that a woman needed to raise a child completely by herself and there were women, even back then, who were able to raise children without "a man".



So what does the word "slut" actually signify? And what does "unwise" actually signify?

You have got to be kidding...



Nowadays, we have no end of safety nets. We can be aggressively stupid in our life choices - we can get away with idiotic behaviour and still live. In my last job, I encountered a young man who not only found himself homeless, he went on to be extremely obnoxious to anybody who made any effort to help him.

100 years ago, he'd have died.

If you call someone "unwise" now, it sounds like a very mild criticism. But what does it really mean? It is "unwise" to cross the road without checking for traffic. It is "unwise" to change a light bulb without checking that the power is off. In other words, unwise=idiotic.

so any woman who does not catch herself a man before she is with child is unwish??



Granted, there are some real-life heroes, but in fiction they usually get to survive anyway.

I think "biological imperative" accounts for about 99% of everything we do. To dismiss it as "nonsense" or "tiresome" is, er, unwise.

Makes life easy... some say "the one god" or in some "one of the gods" made me do it. For the more rational individual, they can say "the biological imperative" made me do it.

I prefer to take responsibility for my own actions... may your way bring what you wish in this lilfe.


QUOTE=Paul Beardsley]
I might have been wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt. But I hope I am wrong.[/QUOTE]
Well... there's an arrogant statement... we disagree, so I must not be thinking...

NEOWatcher
2007-Aug-06, 08:01 PM
Ahhhh... but views on this differ. My mother was not "forced" into the work place either during or after the war.

I'm sure there were many in this situation.

I was talking "forced" not from an individual view, but of one from society. Society was forced to accept more females into the fold from the lack of a solid workforce. And, yes, many did see that as an opportunity.

Individual results may vary. ;)

Lurker
2007-Aug-06, 08:03 PM
I'm sure there were many in this situation.

I was talking "forced" not from an individual view, but of one from society. Society was forced to accept more females into the fold from the lack of a solid workforce. And, yes, many did see that as an opportunity.

Individual results may vary. ;)
I am not suggesting otherwise... I just think it is interesting that you use the term force. No force was necessary, just choices...

Paul Beardsley
2007-Aug-06, 08:05 PM
What some of you said reminds me of two videos we've been shown while in highschool. Both were about feminism, but ohhh god they were totally different. One was about what I'd call the "good and healthy" feminism, and the other was extreme, radical and "man = evil" kind of feminism.
Yes, I think you've hit the nail on the head here.

Some feminists are reasonable, intelligent, educated people who are trying to make sense of what reality is dishing up.

Others are... not. They include the ones who believe all heterosexual couplings are acts of rape. (And they exist!)

I might duck out of this discussion because it is bringing out some of the most unthinking opinions from BAUTers whom I have previously admired - and may well admire again in the future. But you cannot ignore life as it is.

Anyway, I've got an awful lot of work to get on with in the next few weeks, so perhaps I ought to discipline myself to not get involved.

NEOWatcher
2007-Aug-06, 08:06 PM
I am not suggesting otherwise...
Yep; that's how I took it.

I just think it is interesting that you use the term force. No force was necessary, just choices...
Maybe forced is not the right word, but the other choice was to not have enough personel to get the job done.
So; forced in the manner of speaking that the choice was virtually decided.

Disinfo Agent
2007-Aug-06, 08:06 PM
Once again my English teacher went on about how we live in a "patriarchy" and how she carries her fathers name which was also her grandfathers and so on. Then she goes to talk about how the story "Little red riding hood" is made to ward off girls on exploring things around them and prevent them from venturing into the "unknown".

At other times she takes 15 minutes of class time to question why if a boy has all the ladies he is called "the man" but, when a girl is with many boys she is called the S word.

It makes me sick to have to listen to this nonsense day and day.Sounds all true to me...

(Well, the interpretation of Red Riding Hood is probably speculative, but plausible nonetheless.)

Lurker
2007-Aug-06, 08:08 PM
I am out of here too... I didn't know so much sexism existed among otherwise intelligent people...

Swift
2007-Aug-06, 08:14 PM
A big part of the problem, aside from agenda-preaching and context, is that teachers who do this kind of thing always incorporate falsehoods that nobody's allowed to admit are false.
<snip>
I'm reminded of a bunch of other incidents like it when it with teachers and politics. It's not always about gender issues, but it does seem to always be from the left.

<snip>
"Teaching" false stuff is worse than not teaching at all.
my bold
I had a math teacher in high-school who spent significant amounts of class time discussing political positions that were definitely not from the left. So you may have incorporated your own "falsehood" into your position. But I do agree that teaching false stuff is worse than not teaching.


It all comes down to context. If the teacher is trying to stimulate thinking and discussion on matters relevant to the class then it can be a valid teaching technique. If she is trying to force her opinion on others or is wasting class time by preaching her political opinions on matters unrelated to the class then it is a serious matter that should be brought to the attention of the school administration. This is especially true if she marks down those who disagree with her by giving them lower grades.

I agree absolutely. In my math class case, it was easy to tell what was relevant to the class. It might be harder to tell in this case.

Click Ticker
2007-Aug-06, 08:17 PM
I don't get the Little Red Riding Hood angle. Where was the "exploration of the unknown"? I always thought she was taking a well traveled path to her grandmothers house. Hardly unknown. Just so happens a wolf knew where to find her.

Maybe that should be brought up in class the next time the discussion takes place.

Paul Beardsley
2007-Aug-06, 08:18 PM
I prefer to take responsibility for my own actions... may your way bring what you wish in this lilfe.
The fact that you have said this means you have really, really not understood.

I cannot reiterate this more strongly: you have not understood.

I don't mean this as an insult. It is a comment, rather, on the topic itself. It is at least as likely that I have not expressed myself well. It is way too big a topic to discuss as casually as this.

Lurker, I have read your posts in the past and I have never had any problem with anything you have said. I respect you. I do not want this thread to change that.

Disinfo Agent
2007-Aug-06, 08:23 PM
I don't get the Little Red Riding Hood angle. Where was the "exploration of the unknown"? I always thought she was taking a well traveled path to her grandmothers house. Hardly unknown. Just so happens a wolf new where to find her.Maybe she was told not to stray from her path and she did so to talk to the wolf in some versions of the story. I don't know.

Anyway, it was clearly a story to instill fear in the hearts of little girls who went out into the forest alone.

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-06, 08:26 PM
I cannot reiterate this more strongly: you have not understood.

I don't mean this as an insult.

It's not "aimed" at me, yet I don't see how Lurker could take it as anything BUT an insult.

Swift
2007-Aug-06, 08:31 PM
Not to take this thread off in a completely different direction (though maybe that would be a good thing), but the lessons that folk tales are trying to teach are very interesting. I had an sociology course in college where we spent a lot of time on this (sorry, it was almost 30 years ago and I don't remember most of the particulars). One of the points of that course work was that such lessons have to be taken within the context of the society where they were created, and that they sometimes get misinterpreted or reinterpreted when the folk tales are moved to a different society.

The Supreme Canuck
2007-Aug-06, 08:35 PM
Good point. That's the case with all primary-source historical documents. You lose meaning if you don't consider the wider picture.

Paul Beardsley
2007-Aug-06, 08:35 PM
It's not "aimed" at me, yet I don't see how Lurker could take it as anything BUT an insult.
Read the rest of the post, please, R.A.F..

Lurker's comment, "I prefer to take responsibility for my own actions."

Implying that I don't.

Now, imagine for a moment that someone told you that they prefer to take responsibility for their own actions.

I am not trying to score points here - least of all from regular BAUTers whom I respect, which include both you and Lurker.

I am trying to understand how the dymamic works.

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-06, 08:40 PM
...and I'm trying to understand why such a contentious thread is allowed to continue...

That's all...

Paul Beardsley
2007-Aug-06, 08:48 PM
Maybe some of us thought that BAUT was the one place in the entire Internet where such a subject could be discussed without anyone drawing the worst possible inferences from anyone else.

That is what I thought, and I am dismayed to discover I was wrong.

This thread could have been so civilised.

Disinfo Agent
2007-Aug-06, 08:57 PM
Anyone else ever seen Marta Meszaros (http://www.hollywood.com/movie/Bye_Bye_Red_Riding_Hood/162424)' Bye, bye, Red Riding Hood (http://www.frvmedia.com/4-productions.php?xlang=en&xmode=all&xid=234&xtri=1)?

Paracelsus
2007-Aug-06, 09:14 PM
In this case the question is one of ability. It is not one of gender equality, it is one of qualification. There are women who are able to meet the minimum requirements to be a fire fighter and there are men who cannot. That should be the soul deciding factor. In addition, the quallifications should be designed as necessary for the job and not simply to exclude. I am not saying design for exclusion happens, I am saying that it should never be allowed to happen.

This is utter nonsense.... I am male and I thoroughly enjoy being pampered and don't feel that it threatens my masculinity in any way. What makes you think that this has anything to do with gender or that it will lead to androgyny. The woman I loved was very different from me and very appealing. I did not need gender roles for this, I liked her as she was.



It is not for you to decide what is significant or not significant. Equal pay for equal work is significant to many. Not being called a slut when men who behave in a similar way may be significant to many. Being thought of as wanting to be pampered simply because your gender is female may be offensive to others.

Perhaps it's time you listened to what women were thinking and saying rather than explaining to them what they should be thinking and saying.

Lurker, you are my hero for the day!!! Those are very lovely and perceptive comments, and you've said everything that I would have wanted to say in reply to this thread. :)

Paracelsus
2007-Aug-06, 09:29 PM
Yes, I think you've hit the nail on the head here.

Some feminists are reasonable, intelligent, educated people who are trying to make sense of what reality is dishing up.

Others are... not. They include the ones who believe all heterosexual couplings are acts of rape. (And they exist!)

I might duck out of this discussion because it is bringing out some of the most unthinking opinions from BAUTers whom I have previously admired - and may well admire again in the future. But you cannot ignore life as it is.

Anyway, I've got an awful lot of work to get on with in the next few weeks, so perhaps I ought to discipline myself to not get involved.

You're still here, Paul Beardsley, which indicates to my feminine mind that you are still interested in debating these points.

Yes, there are extremists among feminists, and I don't like them either. However, The_Radiation_Specialist has said nothing about his teacher that would indicate that she is one of them.

I need to give hubby a proper welcome home right now. Will continue this tomorrow, provided the thread is still open. :)

snarkophilus
2007-Aug-06, 11:16 PM
Peptron - quite right. This is why I dislike the terms "feminism" and "masculism." They're simply too broad. Really, I think they should be redefined:
I'll take it even further and suggest that all such labels should be abandoned, because there's far too much baggage attached to them. Take the word "equality." There are different flavours of equality. The term is too ambiguous to have useful meaning in any discussion, which I think I effectively illustrated before, what with Lurker's response to my first post (in which he misinterpreted much of what I said, just because of my objection to that word).

Rather than promoting feminism or equality or whatever other cause, it would be much better to pick specific issues and deal with those directly. Is it true that women in corporate environments make less money than equally qualified and experienced men? If yes, then we should fix that. Put in those terms, the problem can be analyzed and appropriate action taken. Put in terms of feminism and patriarchy and oppression, nothing useful will ever get done.

By abandoning buzzwords and being specific about complaints, we can also separate the trivial complaints from the real ones. I'm sorry, but claiming oppression because of the custom that a woman changes her last name upon marriage qualifies as a trivial complaint. We can also avoid the whole over-reaction thing, too, in which women unfairly are given extra benefits (which I'm sure all gender equality proponents hate to see), or in which resources are wasted fixing a non-existent problem.

snarkophilus
2007-Aug-06, 11:29 PM
This is utter nonsense.... I am male and I thoroughly enjoy being pampered and don't feel that it threatens my masculinity in any way.
That really wasn't what I suggested. At all. When you go out on a first date, who buys flowers for whom? Why is that? Consider that, and you will understand, I think.


It is not for you to decide what is significant or not significant.
Oh? Who decides, then? Do we have some objective way of determining significance? Or is it just that I think that some people place way too much significance on trivial things?


Perhaps it's time you listened to what women were thinking and saying rather than explaining to them what they should be thinking and saying.
Uh, what?

It amuses me is that in the rush to be non-sexist, you've just made a very sexist statement, lumping all women's opinions together as one. I don't fault you for it, because almost everyone does this. I only point it out because it illustrates my point so very well. Whenever there are two different classes of something, you can not help but distinguish between them. That goes for apples and bananas, cars and trucks, and men and women.

Rather than deny differences between the sexes, we ought to embrace and celebrate them. That's what I mean by my androgyny statement: by pretending that women and men are exactly the same, we would lose that whole beautiful aspect of our culture that is built up around those differences.

tofu
2007-Aug-06, 11:45 PM
It makes me sick to have to listen to this nonsense day and day.

oh, you have no idea. The stuff you're getting is tame.

My suggestion is to take your teacher's side, but take the really extreme version of it. Read the SCUM Manifesto (http://gos.sbc.edu/s/solanas.html) and learn to recite large portions of it. Memorize random quotes by noted feminists and toss them out in support of anything your teacher says.

Googling for feminist quotes results in this little gem:

http://wiki.mensactivism.org/index.php/Feminist_Quotes

More importantly, keep in mind that disagreeing with people is part of life. If it weren't for feminists, we would have missed out on a lot of great female scientists and all their discoveries, but that doesn't mean that they get a pass *if* they get too radical. Also, all societies are simultaneously building themselves up and destroying themselves and feminism is part of both sides of that necessary. So listen to what she says and understand that it's part of life and part of civilization. Agree with the stuff you agree with. Disagree with the stuff that doesn't make sense.

And one last thing, if you can't articulate your disagreement then you might as well not have it. When she mentions little red riding hood, it's not enough for you to say, "nuh uh." That just makes you look like an idiot. Instead, you might bring up any of 1000 other fairy tales that involve males. For example, by her logic, hansel and gretel is "designed to teach men and women not to explore." By her logic, he three little pigs (all of which are male) is a story designed to teach men to hide in their houses. See, when you site counter examples, it takes a lot of the wind out of her point. If you look at the bigger picture, you see that fairy tales are more about entertainment than some dark social conspiracy.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Aug-07, 12:45 AM
All else is not necessarily equal. I find it ridiculous that the army admission physical (in Canada) is easier for women than for men. Same for firefighters and police officers. It's all in the name of equality: women are smaller, so they can't be expected to do as many pushups. There are some jobs where the best person is needed, period, and speaking of equal opportunities in those situations is ridiculous. If you're stuck in a burning building, you probably want your rescuer to actually be able to lift you out, regardless of your views on feminism.


I agree with this somewhat. I'm not a big fan of having women in combat roles (like the infantry) but on the other hand, if they were like the hispanic Marine Pvt. Vasquez in the movie Aliens, portrayed by actress Jenette Goldstein, then that would be OK. :)

jrkeller
2007-Aug-07, 12:56 AM
Instead, you might bring up any of 1000 other fairy tales that involve males. For example, by her logic, hansel and gretel is "designed to teach men and women not to explore." By her logic, he three little pigs (all of which are male) is a story designed to teach men to hide in their houses. See, when you site counter examples, it takes a lot of the wind out of her point. If you look at the bigger picture, you see that fairy tales are more about entertainment than some dark social conspiracy.

Use the "Boy who cried wolf". All men are liars and are eventually consumed and killed by their lies.

Jens
2007-Aug-07, 01:31 AM
It makes me sick to have to listen to this nonsense day and day. I wish I could just tell her to shut up about her feminist views and actually teach us something useful instead of trying to divert all the class discussions toward stupid questions. I'm worried about having that bad mark on my report :(


When I was in high school, I had a math teacher who spent lots of time talking about world peace and how we should all support the United Nations and learn Esperanto, etc. I personally agree with many of his views, but actually he was supposed to be teaching us math. So I don't think that's a problem of feminists in particular.

Paul Beardsley
2007-Aug-07, 01:58 AM
You're still here, Paul Beardsley, which indicates to my feminine mind that you are still interested in debating these points.
No, I'm ducking out of this.

I am really depressed that my words have been twisted the way they have by BAUTers whom I have held - and still hold - in high regard.

There is no point in discussing the matter further on this thread because the posts would probably consist entirely of "no, I did not mean that at all, please read what I actually said" type comments.

Feel free to PM me though.

Damien Evans
2007-Aug-07, 02:11 AM
High school, Australian curriculum.

The thing everyone must take English for some reason.

Ah.

Been there, done that, don't want to be reminded of it

The_Radiation_Specialist
2007-Aug-07, 03:19 AM
Looks like you guys had a heated conversation while i was asleep. And some very interesting posts in my Inbox ... ;)

I don't have the time to fully address everyone's comments now and will do so later.

To the mods: There is no reason to lock this thread as others have predicted. I promise not to take this to a direction that may cause any problems with the rules.

Later.

Maksutov
2007-Aug-07, 03:42 AM
[edit]The thing everyone must take English for some reason.That sentence would itself seem to be a good argument for requiring everyone to take English.

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gif

Meanwhile, this is probably a good dry run for college. Some profs I had would occasionally touch upon the subject on which they were supposed to be instructing the students. First year German consisted mainly of Prof. Scheibe reminiscing about his boyhood days in Berlin.

Damien Evans
2007-Aug-07, 04:57 AM
That sentence would itself seem to be a good argument for requiring everyone to take English.

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gif

Meanwhile, this is probably a good dry run for college. Some profs I had would occasionally touch upon the subject on which they were supposed to be instructing the students. First year German consisted mainly of Prof. Scheibe reminiscing about his boyhood days in Berlin.

My politics tutor liked to say that lebanon wasn't a real country, and often based discussions around that

Van Rijn
2007-Aug-07, 05:46 AM
My politics tutor liked to say that lebanon wasn't a real country, and often based discussions around that

My sociology professor was a socialist. The Communist Manifesto and Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism were required for the class, along with some other socialist texts. Actually an interesting class. I did have a few debates with the professor, which he seemed to like.

Whirlpool
2007-Aug-07, 06:02 AM
hmmm..:think:

I am a female , and for me... Men & Women has the capabilities, interests , strengths & weaknesses, etc that Compliments Each Other whether it be on a date , in a relationship, at work.

Those impressions are feed by the society we have centuries ago that are passed on to generations after generations. Those are the past, we should not be looking and thinking the way what is happened in the past but looking forward, moving on.

There have been a lot of changes not only to women but to men as well. And generally both have empowered themselves in this world and proved that they have a lot to offer to this world and still continuous to prove themselves until today.

The world exist because we ( male & female) compliment each other .

Just my comment.

Hope this is not a threadjack.

:neutral:

novaderrik
2007-Aug-07, 06:09 AM
my biggest problem with any group like the feminists or whatever is that whenever a member of that group- a member either by choice or by birth- gets into some position of power or authority, they are expected to be a champion for the cause of that group.
like when a woman reaches into government, for example, she is automatically supposed to be a champion for women's rights. and if she's either black, Hispanic, Oriental, Gay, or whatever else, she needs to look out for those groups, too, and anything she does that seems to support any other group is a cause for outrage amongst "the community".
but this isn't just limited to women- black, Hispanic, Asian, or gay men are put in the same predicament. they spend so much time trying not to anger all these groups that they are effectively impotent (gah- i hope that isn't a sexist term...)when it comes to trying to get anything productive done.
there are so many groups that want their agenda pushed before all others, that the greater good is usually the last thing on anybody's minds.
in the end, everyone can argue about this and worry about what everyone else is thinking, or we can just work together and try to prevent this great society from getting flushed down the toilet due to idiotic political and ideological lines.
if anyone disagrees with anything i've written here- that's fine- but it's not like i ever said or implied that women should just shut up and get into the kitchen, and neither has anyone else on this thread.

Jens
2007-Aug-07, 06:10 AM
She says the issue wasn't really there until after the war when women were forced into the workplace. So, she does blame Hitler.

It's probably a bit simplistic though. Wars have "occasionally" taken place in human history, but they didn't necessarily drive women into the workplace. And the entry of women into the workplace was actually taking place before WWII broke out. Think of the strikes at garment factories in the 1910s. I think it was to a large extent an inevitable result of urbanization and the industrial revolution.

Paracelsus
2007-Aug-07, 06:19 AM
The worst teacher I've ever had was m high school physics teacher, who was also the 'bus coach' (in charge of all of the teenage bus drivers for my HS). He tried to compensate for his complete lack of knowledge of physics and inability to teach by talking about his fave subjects: football and his teenage exploits, some of which were entertaining and some of which were not.

He was also a thoroughly nasty little man, who made fun of the people in there who were actually interested in the subject (like me and a few others) and sucked up to the ignorant jocks. Everybody despised him in consequence and ragged on him unmercifully--both in class and when he was out of the classroom.

The point of this little tale is that there are a lot of bad teachers who will use the classroom to push their personal agenda at the expense of teaching the subject they were assigned to teach. This is, however, as separate issue from the validity of the views that they hold as part of that agenda. The two issues should be debated separately.

Cookie
2007-Aug-07, 06:20 AM
I can sympathize with the OP. When I used to attend public school, all but one of my teachers spent the majority of class time talking about stuff that had nothing to do with the subject. Their rantings covered a wide variety of topics. It was very irritating, to say the least.

One summer, my friends and I were joking about what would be the funniest Rant Topic a teacher could have, and oddly enough, that fall several of the teachers were actually ranting about some of the stuff we were joking about!

Oh, and for the record, I have to say that I don't have any issues cooking for a guy, so long as he owns a microwave... >_>

Maksutov
2007-Aug-07, 07:25 AM
[edit]Oh, and for the record, I have to say that I don't have any issues cooking for a guy, so long as he owns a microwave... >_>No problem there, as long as every now and then, you lend me your comb.

Serenitude
2007-Aug-07, 07:58 AM
No problem there, as long as every now and then, you lend me your comb.

I'm going to start sending you my monitor repair bills :mad:

The_Radiation_Specialist
2007-Aug-07, 09:02 AM
See, but you lose the point you're trying to make when you say "stuff" like (emphasis mine) "It makes me sick to have to listen to this nonsense day after day".


Yes, it does not make sense to say the real and main message of little red riding hood is to prevent women from exploring...
And to manipulate someone's speaking time to impose feminist views on the minds of teeangers...
and to

My advice, quit while you're ahead...

Thanks, but no thanks. I couldn't care less about you and your advice.


I find that so unfortunate... I don't see anything offensive in the teachers remarks, but so much that is offensive in the distinctions that have others have attempted to draw between men and women.

Which thread are we reading? I did not see any sexist comments so far. All have been either scientific facts or personal stories. The posters have been very careful not to accidentally offend someone. May I ask you, what is wrong in saying men and women are different in physical and mental ways as long as you are not implying one is inferior to the other?


oh, you have no idea. The stuff you're getting is tame.

My suggestion is to take your teacher's side, but take the really extreme version of it. Read the SCUM Manifesto and learn to recite large portions of it. Memorize random quotes by noted feminists and toss them out in support of anything your teacher says.

Reading that made me lose hope in the human race.



And one last thing, if you can't articulate your disagreement then you might as well not have it. When she mentions little red riding hood, it's not enough for you to say, "nuh uh." That just makes you look like an idiot. Instead, you might bring up any of 1000 other fairy tales that involve males. For example, by her logic, hansel and gretel is "designed to teach men and women not to explore." By her logic, he three little pigs (all of which are male) is a story designed to teach men to hide in their houses. See, when you site counter examples, it takes a lot of the wind out of her point. If you look at the bigger picture, you see that fairy tales are more about entertainment than some dark social conspiracy.

Yes, thanks for the subtle advice. I should try that the next time the topic is brought up. Nice tactic.


Ah.

Been there, done that, don't want to be reminded of it

:)


I am a female , and for me... Men & Women has the capabilities, interests , strengths & weaknesses, etc that Compliments Each Other whether it be on a date , in a relationship, at work.

Those impressions are feed by the society we have centuries ago that are passed on to generations after generations. Those are the past, we should not be looking and thinking the way what is happened in the past but looking forward, moving on.

There have been a lot of changes not only to women but to men as well. And generally both have empowered themselves in this world and proved that they have a lot to offer to this world and still continuous to prove themselves until today.

The world exist because we ( male & female) compliment each other .

Just my comment.

Hope this is not a threadjack.

Glad to see someone looking at both sides of the story. I like the conclusion you make about genders complimenting each other.

Serenitude
2007-Aug-07, 09:38 AM
Play nice, everyone ;)

Michael Noonan
2007-Aug-07, 11:22 AM
Not ever having a feminist teacher I consider myself very lucky for a few good reasons.

1. The Ladies who taught me were brilliant strong minded people and just did what had to be done.
2. In all of life I have found the carriages of a train are very much like people, the noisiest ones are the emptiest.

Putting those two thought together just reinforces the already very high opinion that I have of Ladies. I am not impressed in any way by anyone who is noisy and negative about what they are not getting and what they should be entitled too, male or female.

The fact that I have encountered so few ranting feminists is a pretty good indication that there is a whole lot more women out there achieving terrific things but probably not being as vocal about what great things they have done as some of the males I have seen.

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-07, 11:37 AM
I couldn't care less about you and your advice.

See, I can understand why you wouldn't want to take my "advice"...and you could have simply said "I do not agree", but then you had to go that extra yard and get personally insulting with "I couldn't care less about YOU".

Thanks for being so "nice"...I won't forget it...

Delvo
2007-Aug-07, 12:29 PM
Yes, there are extremists among feminists, and I don't like them either. However, The_Radiation_Specialist has said nothing about his teacher that would indicate that she is one of them.Even ranting that seems mild and tame in one example adds up to "extremeness" if it's done frequently enough over time.

Click Ticker
2007-Aug-07, 01:06 PM
I still fail to understand why people are allowing themselves to get so riled up over what could be a very interesting "nature" vs. "nurture" discussion.

Do girls like dolls because mom and dad buy them dolls to play with, or do mom and dad buy dolls because the girls like them?

Michael Noonan
2007-Aug-07, 01:22 PM
I still fail to understand why people are allowing themselves to get so riled up over what could be a very interesting "nature" vs. "nurture" discussion.

Do girls like dolls because mom and dad buy them dolls to play with, or do mom and dad buy dolls because the girls like them?


This is a very good point. Why do we get upset when someone points out that something is different?

Is it because we are different? I listen a bit to conversations and while my male friends seem to talk invariably about their work (or sport in which case I don't listen), I believe women focus more on people.

That could account for why there is more male talk about what they do and therefore is self promoting and women focus on the people and how they feel and that is why they get on with things.

It also means as a male when I hear women talk about people I tune out (like the good sport that I am) and that is why probably why I remain still utterly confused about people.

farmerjumperdon
2007-Aug-07, 01:29 PM
After all this, I gotta ask; is she good looking?

Palomar
2007-Aug-07, 01:39 PM
Below is my rant on feminist teachers based on my experience. I mean no offence at any ladies in these forums or on the female gender in general.

Once again my English teacher went on about how we live in a "patriarchy" and how she carries her fathers name which was also her grandfathers and so on. Then she goes to talk about how the story "Little red riding hood" is made to ward off girls on exploring things around them and prevent them from venturing into the "unknown".

At other times she takes 15 minutes of class time to question why if a boy has all the ladies he is called "the man" but, when a girl is with many boys she is called the S word.

It makes me sick to have to listen to this nonsense day and day.

I'm a woman, and I don't blame you! This woman is pushing her agendas instead of teaching. Her job is to teach the material in your textbook(s) without imposing her viewpoints -- especially constantly. She's hostile, imo; who is she to brow-beat the boys/young men in her class and make them feel guilty?

I'd take the matter up with her superior. She needs an attitude adjustment or to be fired, period.

::edit::

Novaderrik wrote:


my biggest problem with any group like the feminists or whatever is that whenever a member of that group- a member either by choice or by birth- gets into some position of power or authority, they are expected to be a champion for the cause of that group.
like when a woman reaches into government, for example, she is automatically supposed to be a champion for women's rights. and if she's either black, Hispanic, Oriental, Gay, or whatever else, she needs to look out for those groups, too, and anything she does that seems to support any other group is a cause for outrage amongst "the community".
but this isn't just limited to women- black, Hispanic, Asian, or gay men are put in the same predicament. they spend so much time trying not to anger all these groups that they are effectively impotent (gah- i hope that isn't a sexist term...)when it comes to trying to get anything productive done.
there are so many groups that want their agenda pushed before all others, that the greater good is usually the last thing on anybody's minds.

Right on! :)

tofu
2007-Aug-07, 02:08 PM
Not ever having a feminist teacher I consider myself very lucky

Two of the best teachers I've had were feminists. *all* of the best teachers challenge you in some way.


The fact that I have encountered so few ranting feminists

I don't think I've ever heard anyone ranting, and I think you'd be surprised to find that most women identify themselves as feminists. It's just that, when they use the word, they mean that they believe in equal rights, and you probably (hopefully) agree with that. Often, actually achieving equality means first recognizing places where equality doesn't exist. Doing that requires raising awareness. I hope you wouldn't call that ranting.


This is a very good point. Why do we get upset when someone points out that something is different?

Just off the top of my head, I would say that our species evolved to demand conformity. If a tribe sets off in one direction to find water, but half of them refuse to follow the leader and decide to go their own way, then, even if one group does find water, they are a smaller, weaker group.

Meanwhile, another group of humans in search of a home just happens to have a gene that causes everyone to gang up on the first person to show descent. One person says, "hey wait, I think we should walk in the other direction" and the others start clubbing him. When that group finds water, they are all together and better able to survive, and pass on that gene.

And you see this kind of behavior all the time today, in politcal parties, in religions - pretty much everything we're not allowed to discuss ;-) You also feel the instinct that gene gives you whenever a group of friends wants to see movie A, but you want to see movie B, but you don't speak up and instead go along with the crowd.

Gillianren
2007-Aug-07, 03:35 PM
Stephen Sondheim summed up the lesson of "Little Red Riding Hood" with, "The prettier the flower, the farther from the path." The reason the story can be seen to be about the dangers of exploration is that she does leave the path, at the wolf's instigation, when she should be doing just as she is told. She's supposed to be following the path directly to Grandmother's house. She doesn't. She does as the wolf suggests and picks a bouquet for Grandmother, giving the wolf time to get ahead of her, eat Grandmother, and get into the bed all ready to eat Red herself. Don't any of you really remember this story?

There are physiological differences between men and women. It's true. Only an idiot would dispute the fact, and blessedly, no one here is an idiot. (Different bits, at very least!) The issue here is how much the physiological differences inform sociological differences.

I am a poor example to draw from on feminine frailties, kids, because I've enough that have nothing to do with my chromosomes. And it is true that the tallest people I know are all men and the shortest are all women. I wouldn't want my friend Shanti (4'11") as a firefighter. However, it's not because she's a woman. It's because she's tiny. If she were tiny yet physically capable of the work, great! It's none to do with her chromosomes.

And yes, there are people who are opposed to women having lots of sexual partners and in favour of the other. I'm startled to discover that there are people who don't know that.

In fact, the biology supports a man who handles his responsibility to the woman carrying his child. Or anyone's, really--a man who takes care of a woman with a child is helping to propagate the species. A man who runs about and doesn't isn't if the children die because of his neglect of their mothers.

djellison
2007-Aug-07, 03:51 PM
Men and women are equals.

But they're not the same.

It's a simple concept. People forget it so often.

Doug

Paracelsus
2007-Aug-07, 04:34 PM
Men and women are equals.

But they're not the same.

It's a simple concept. People forget it so often.

Doug


It is true that men and women are not the same. It is also true that there is more variation in a given parameter between members of the same gender than there is between the two genders.

People forget this often too.

Disinfo Agent
2007-Aug-07, 04:51 PM
Are you sure? Genetically, I would expect two random women or men to differ by less than a chromosome, whereas a random man and a random women will always differ at least by a chromosome, roughly speaking...

But I suppose the broader point you were trying to make (and with which I agree) is that genetic or otherwise natural differences cannot be used as a reason for inequality. Men and women may be different by nature, but then so are any two random men. Yet most people never think of using genetic differences between men to assign different rights to them. At least not in this day and age.

Halcyon1982
2007-Aug-07, 05:17 PM
After all this, I gotta ask; is she good looking?

I find it amusing, in a sad way, that you posted this "after all this". Hopefully this smacks of sarcasm, irony, and wit. I will give you the benefit of the doubt on this...or ask if you want this thread to now move into the direction of questioning why this question is inappropriate, yet totally related, to what is being discussed.

Paul Beardsley
2007-Aug-07, 05:32 PM
Because the last few posts on this thread have been civilised, I think I shall re-enter the discussion.

Gillian, I agree with much that you said in your last post, but roundly disagree with the end bit.


In fact, the biology supports a man who handles his responsibility to the woman carrying his child. Or anyone's, really--a man who takes care of a woman with a child is helping to propagate the species. A man who runs about and doesn't isn't if the children die because of his neglect of their mothers.
I take it you haven't read Dawkins' The Selfish Gene? (I'm reading it now; I strongly recommend it.) In the book, he argues compellingly about the "misconception" that "living creatures evolve to do things 'for the good of the species'." Biology isn't "interested" in that sort of thing; it's not even interested in the individual. It is only interested in the genes that are passed on - the humans (or other living things) are merely a means to an end. If biology was interested in the good of the species, it would not favour the black-headed gull that eats its neighbour's chick while the parents are off fishing, to cite one of many examples.

Also, while it is true that the man who supports the mother of his child is protecting his "investment", it is in his genes' interest if he is also promiscuous - or was in the past. On the level of the genes, it doesn't matter if some of his babies die because he neglected their mothers.

As Dawkins argues, evolution is not a suitable basis of morality. Just because our genes tell us to do something, it doesn't follow that it is right to do so - we have the intelligence and decency to override the instructions where appropriate.

Finally, I've noticed in the past that discussions about social issues - particularly those involving gender differences - tend to ignore evolution, as if it wasn't central to why we behave the way we do.

Paul Beardsley
2007-Aug-07, 05:40 PM
It is true that men and women are not the same. It is also true that there is more variation in a given parameter between members of the same gender than there is between the two genders.

People forget this often too.

That's not what I heard. In Brainsex by Jessel and Moir, it is pointed out that the brains of any two men from different races and cultures are likely to be more similar to each other than the brains between, say, a brother and sister.

(I read the book quite a few years ago but I'm fairly sure that's what it said.)

Delvo
2007-Aug-07, 06:19 PM
Also, while it is true that the man who supports the mother of his child is protecting his "investment", it is in his genes' interest if he is also promiscuous - or was in the past. On the level of the genes, it doesn't matter if some of his babies die because he neglected their mothers.One catch with this line of reasoning is that the traits contradict each other. Also, if this reasoning proves that men are inherently prone to such behavior, which is what it's usually presented for, then it also proves that women are prone to the same thing only "worse": lie and pretend and trick one guy into doing the work of helping to raise others' children. That way, the "sleeping around" thing is the same, but with an added victim: the poor naive sap she suckered into this trap while others, the ones she actually likes enough not to do that to, get the rewards at practically no cost to themselves. Strangely, that part doesn't get mentioned so much, even though the two are inseparable.


Finally, I've noticed in the past that discussions about social issues - particularly those involving gender differences - tend to ignore evolution, as if it wasn't central to why we behave the way we do.The problem is that we can come up with evolutionary explanations for anything, and thus make anything seem scientific-sounding, no matter how true or untrue it is or how much it contradicts something else. That's why the normal use for evolutionary reasoning regarding human behavior is in arguments over what the true nature of modern humanity is; anyone with a pet theory to promote can come up with a way to "prove" it by sticking a story to it that makes it sound scientifically, evolutionarily obvious and inevitable.

R.A.F.
2007-Aug-07, 06:25 PM
Because the last few posts on this thread have been civilised, I think I shall re-enter the discussion.

We are so relieved that you approve.

Sheesh...

SeanF
2007-Aug-07, 06:30 PM
Men and women may be different by nature, but then so are any two random men. Yet most people never think of using genetic differences between men to assign different rights to them. At least not in this day and age.
Would a job or position requiring normal color-vision qualify as genetic discrimination against a subset of men?


One catch with this line of reasoning is that the traits contradict each other.
No, they don't. If half the children die from neglect as a result of the promiscuity, but the promiscuity produces three times as many children over all, natural selection would favor promiscuity.

Disinfo Agent
2007-Aug-07, 06:34 PM
Would a job or position requiring normal color-vision qualify as genetic discrimination against a subset of men?I don't think it's customary to speak of 'discrimination' when the selection is based on rational functional criteria, as opposed to irrational traditions. In any case, I changed the word 'discrimination' into 'inequality' in my post (following djellison) precisely to avoid such confusions.

Larry Jacks
2007-Aug-07, 06:34 PM
That's not what I heard. In Brainsex by Jessel and Moir, it is pointed out that the brains of any two men from different races and cultures are likely to be more similar to each other than the brains between, say, a brother and sister.

There was a 3 part TV show called Brainsex back around 1992. I saw two of the episodes and found it fascinating. PET scans were relatively new back then. In one part, the series showed PET scans of male and female brains while they were doing the same task such as verbal communications. PET scans can show the portions of the brain that are used to perform a particular task. The differences were huge. A man's brain was only using a small portion (looked like perhaps 10%) to do the verbal tasks while the female brain was much more active, perhaps 70%. One of the doctors doing the study pointed out how this may explain why men who have strokes that damage their speech centers have a harder time learning to talk again than women. It may also explain why females as a group tend to have superior verbal skills to men as a group.

It is absurd to deny the differences between the sexes just as it's absurd to deny the differences in individuals. Differences don't imply superiority or inferiority, just that we aren't all the same. People learn differently, think differently, and believe different things. Our uniqueness as individuals is because we are all a mixture of our experiences, likes, dislikes, strengths, weaknesses, abilities and disabilities. If we were all the same, it'd be a pretty boring place.

Disinfo Agent
2007-Aug-07, 06:43 PM
Below is my rant on feminist teachers based on my experience. I mean no offence at any ladies in these forums or on the female gender in general.Is your "rant on feminist teachers" based on your bad experience with one such teacher?

mike alexander
2007-Aug-07, 07:06 PM
It's been many years since I read the Dawkins book and though I admire his intellect and vigor (and agree with many things he expounds), I personally think he sits at an extreme end of a continuum in that book (Butler's aphorism about chickens and eggs). What I like is his insistence on prying out the anthropomorphic references, like biology 'wanting' to do this or that (despite the ironic title). Where I tend to disagree is on his insistence that the gene is everything. I suppose that philosophically I'm closer to Steve Gould and the idea that evolution acts through the individual organism (Of course there is a very fuzzy boundary there). A snippet of DNA really can't do anything, any more than you can live in the blueprint of a house. Since you can't pass the DNA on without an organism to do it, there is a whole layer added on, coming under the broad term 'behavior' ('behaviour' in England).

Now, some behavior, especially depending on the species, is strongly (sometimes overwhelmingly) influenced by the organismal expression of the genes. An ant colony comes to mind; although even there the rigid hierarchy of behavior is the end result of a long evolutionary sequence involving the interaction of individual organisms.

Now, if animal behavior could accurately be predicted a priori from the genetic sequence, I would probably embrace Dawkin's spare synthesis more closely. But the detailed interaction of a complex organism and its environment cannot be, as far as I can tell. I have lost the origin of the quote (Lorentz, maybe?), but I always liked this summation of animal behavior: "The healthy animal is up and about."

I guess that I completely agree that to ignore the genetic contribution to behavior is dumb, but considering the gene as all-controlling is terribly incomplete.

Paul Beardsley
2007-Aug-07, 08:59 PM
We are so relieved that you approve.

Sheesh...

You are one of the main ones who tried to make this discussion into a personal attack.

Well, I have had enough of you. I used to hold you in high regard. Not any more.

Don't bother replying. You know why.

Paul Beardsley
2007-Aug-07, 09:24 PM
One catch with this line of reasoning is that the traits contradict each other. Also, if this reasoning proves that men are inherently prone to such behavior, which is what it's usually presented for, then it also proves that women are prone to the same thing only "worse": lie and pretend and trick one guy into doing the work of helping to raise others' children. That way, the "sleeping around" thing is the same, but with an added victim: the poor naive sap she suckered into this trap while others, the ones she actually likes enough not to do that to, get the rewards at practically no cost to themselves. Strangely, that part doesn't get mentioned so much, even though the two are inseparable.
I think it depends what you read. Certainly, in the books I've read, that part does get mentioned.


The problem is that we can come up with evolutionary explanations for anything, and thus make anything seem scientific-sounding, no matter how true or untrue it is or how much it contradicts something else. That's why the normal use for evolutionary reasoning regarding human behavior is in arguments over what the true nature of modern humanity is; anyone with a pet theory to promote can come up with a way to "prove" it by sticking a story to it that makes it sound scientifically, evolutionarily obvious and inevitable.
No, there's too much rigour in the theory of evolution. Yes, people can try to justify nonsense by coming up with technobabble, but if that's all it is, it won't stand up to scrutiny.

In any case, whereas evolution might explain why we behave the way we do, it does not excuse immoral behaviour.

Our morality is not based on evolutionary principles. For instance, it's generally agreed that evolution works on the basis of survival of the fittest. But that doesn't stop us from building hospitals, providing education for Special Needs children, or developing infrastructure and prostheses to enable disabled people to live more independent lives.

Paul Beardsley
2007-Aug-07, 09:52 PM
[Snip good stuff]

I guess that I completely agree that to ignore the genetic contribution to behavior is dumb, but considering the gene as all-controlling is terribly incomplete.
Yes, there is plenty room for debate as to where the line should be drawn.

And that's before we even begin to consider the meme...

dvb
2007-Aug-08, 12:21 AM
For instance, it's generally agreed that evolution works on the basis of survival of the fittest.
A common misconception. The survival of a species when talking about evolution is based more on chance, rather than how fit a species may be.

One of the more common examples cited in evolution is that of the peppered moth.


The evolution of the peppered moth over the last two hundred years has been studied in detail. Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light coloration, which effectively camouflaged them against the light-colored trees and lichens which they rested upon. However, due to widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees which peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-colored moths, or typica, to die off due to predation. At the same time, the dark-colored, or melanic, moths, carbonaria, flourished because of their ability to hide on the darkened trees.
Since then, with improved environmental standards, light-colored peppered moths have again become common, but the dramatic change in the peppered moth's population has remained a subject of much interest and study, and has led to the coining of the term industrial melanism to refer to the genetic darkening of species in response to pollutants. As a result of the relatively simple and easy-to-understand circumstances of the adaptation, the peppered moth has become a common example used in explaining or demonstrating natural selection to laypeople and classroom students.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

Delvo
2007-Aug-08, 02:18 AM
But that was still a matter of survival of the fittest; the fact that what's "fit" can change when circumstances change doesn't make survival not a matter of fitness. It's just fitness for new circumstances.

The Backroad Astronomer
2007-Aug-08, 02:36 AM
The 'fittest" is whoever survives to bred.

Michael Noonan
2007-Aug-08, 03:36 AM
(snip)
Where I tend to disagree is on his insistence that the gene is everything. I suppose that philosophically I'm closer to Steve Gould and the idea that evolution acts through the individual organism (Of course there is a very fuzzy boundary there). A snippet of DNA really can't do anything, any more than you can live in the blueprint of a house. Since you can't pass the DNA on without an organism to do it, there is a whole layer added on, coming under the broad term 'behavior' ('behaviour' in England).


(my bold)
I will agree with you mike alexander on your view. I am not as strong on human observation of character as I would like to be and probably may not have even noticed a ranting feminist which I think was the topic being discussed.

The ladies in my life seem to have had all the characteristics I find most desirable in that they are determined, intelligent, fun, caring and genuinely very able to bring the level of order to their lives that seems right.

But it would appear the with the example of the peppered butterfly that maybe genes are not as strong a vector for leading change as they are for catching up. Hopefully the species will continue to evolve as it should but at an accelerated rate due to the pressure of keeping up with an altruistic emerging intelligent society.

Cheers

Delvo
2007-Aug-08, 04:23 AM
The ladies in my life seem to have had all the characteristics I find most desirable in that they are determined, intelligent, fun, caring and genuinely very able to bring the level of order to their lives that seems right.There's practically no way that such a thing could be true of any group (either sex, any age, any religion, any race) unless you've met very very few of them...


But it would appear the with the example of the peppered butterfly that maybe genes are not as strong a vector for leading change as they are for catching up.That's all evolution ever can do. New mutations arise at random, but they can't aim in any particular direction, and don't matter unless circumstances are present that allow them to matter because they just happen to be appropriate responses to the circumstances.


Hopefully the species will continue to evolve as it should but at an accelerated rate due to the pressure of keeping up with an altruistic emerging intelligent society.http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D2103-1FEC-1F30-9AD380A84189F2D7&sc=I100322
Much of the evolution humans have undergone in the last few million years and are still undergoing has been a matter of juvenilization: long retention or even magnification of what were originally juvenile traits. It's the same pattern that's always seen (at least in all mammals) when wild animals are domesticated by being bred for docile behavior, so it's essentially like we've been domisticating ourselves. And even the anatomy of our brains, when it comes to the size of the area most responsible for aggressiveness, is more like that of the famously peaceful bonobos than that of the famously more violent chimpanzees.

Related to this thread's subject, domestication/juvenilation also means feminization, because juvenile traits are feminine traits and feminine traits except hips and breats are juvenile traits.

Jens
2007-Aug-08, 05:43 AM
It is true that men and women are not the same. It is also true that there is more variation in a given parameter between members of the same gender than there is between the two genders.
People forget this often too.

Others have taken exception to this. I sort do as well, but because I think this sentence is probably simply too general to be very meaningful. Somebody brought up brain scans, but actually I don't really understand what you mean by "a given parameter". Surely, the size of the prostate gland is more similar among men as a group than it is between men and women. But on the other hand, you may be saying that the average length of arms between men and women is more similar than the difference between the two most extreme men, which seems fairly obvious.

Jens
2007-Aug-08, 05:45 AM
Are you sure? Genetically, I would expect two random women or men to differ by less than a chromosome, whereas a random man and a random women will always differ at least by a chromosome, roughly speaking...

I'm not a geneticist, but what do you mean by "differ by less than a chromosome"? Aren't chromosomes made up of genes, which may be different from one person to the next? How much variability is there in the individual chromosomes of different people?

The Backroad Astronomer
2007-Aug-08, 05:50 AM
Surely, the size of the prostate gland is more similar among men as a group than it is between men and women.
well for the women do not have one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate

Jens
2007-Aug-08, 06:03 AM
Surely, the size of the prostate gland is more similar among men as a group than it is between men and women.
well for the women do not have one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate

That was the point, actually.

Paul Beardsley
2007-Aug-08, 08:23 AM
For instance, it's generally agreed that evolution works on the basis of survival of the fittest.


A common misconception. The survival of a species when talking about evolution is based more on chance, rather than how fit a species may be.
Two points here.

For one, I wasn't talking about species level. As I understand it, competition between different species is much less of an issue than competition between two individuals of the same species. (This is illustrated nicely in the story of two naturalists in a tent who are suddenly aware of a hungry bear prowling outside. One of them proceeds to put on his running shoes. The other says, "What are you doing? You can't possibly outrun a bear." The first replies, "It's not the bear I'm trying to outrun.")

For another, "fitness" means both fit in the sense of healthy, and fit in the sense of best placed. For example, a tall creature (such as a giraffe) fits its environment when there is food to be had from high trees. In these circumstances, "tallness" is a favourable trait, and the taller giraffe will probably get to pass on more genes than the not-quite-so-tall giraffe. However, if the only food to be had is growing on the inside of caves, then tallness would be a major disadvantage - the tallest cave dweller would be the least fit for its environment.


One of the more common examples cited in evolution is that of the peppered moth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
This is an excellent choice of article, and one I shall use in future to argue for the idea of survival of the fittest! Agreeing with Delvo here - when the environment changed, the ones who best fitted the changed environment were the ones who were successful.

Paul Beardsley
2007-Aug-08, 08:38 AM
I'm not a geneticist, but what do you mean by "differ by less than a chromosome"? Aren't chromosomes made up of genes, which may be different from one person to the next? How much variability is there in the individual chromosomes of different people?
Somebody should be able to give a better answer than this, but it might help for the time being.

We all* have 46 chromosomes - 23 pairs. Yes, they are made of genes. They will almost always be different from one person to the next, even if the other person is your same-sex sibling (unless you are identical twins).

One pair of chroms determines (or at least strongly influences) gender. If one is X and the other is X, you will be a girl. If one is X and the other is Y, you will be a boy.**

Now as I understand it (and someone please tell me if I've got it wrong), you only get the Y genes from your father if you're a boy, and you only get the corresponding X genes from your mother if you're a girl.

Consequently, out of 46 genes, one is definitely going to be different between the genders. That's about 2%.

*Except for people with Downs syndrome, and some other conditions.
** These are not the only possibilities - there's also XYY, XO and possibly others that I haven't heard of.

Jens
2007-Aug-08, 08:47 AM
Consequently, out of 46 genes, one is definitely going to be different between the genders. That's about 2%.


I think you meant "chromosomes" there, but just a typo I think. The question I would want to ask, then, is how much difference is there in the genes on the individual chromosomes? I know that there are certain genes that are probably the same for all people. There are many protein making genes, for example, that I think incompatible with life if they are in anything but one configuration. And then there are genes that vary between individuals, say genes controlling nose shape. So the question would be, how does the 2% overall difference in the X vs. Y compare with the overall diversity of the genome among individuals?

Paul Beardsley
2007-Aug-08, 09:08 AM
For some reason it's not letting me edit. There were a couple of changes I wanted to make, but I don't want to repost the whole thing.

(Jens - yes, I did mean chromosomes! I'll get back to your question later, unless someone else answers it.)

Maksutov
2007-Aug-08, 09:18 AM
This thread reminds me of why I couldn't wait to get through biology in order to sink my teeth into physics.

Meanwhile, I hope two posters resume communications sometime in the future. Remember, it's a big universe, which tends to put things into perspective.

I trust the peace bong, uh, pipe, will be passed completely around eventually. And may the much-misinterpreted kemosabe (http://www.bluecorncomics.com/stype4b3.htm) quotient be in one instance, low to non-existent, and in the other, prevalent!

:)

Michael Noonan
2007-Aug-08, 09:56 AM
This thread reminds me of why I couldn't wait to get through biology in order to sink my teeth into physics.

Meanwhile, I hope two posters resume communications sometime in the future. Remember, it's a big universe, which tends to put things into perspective.

I trust the peace bong, uh, pipe, will be passed completely around eventually. And may the much-misinterpreted kemosabe (http://www.bluecorncomics.com/stype4b3.htm) quotient be in one instance, low to non-existent, and in the other, prevalent!

:)

I hope they come back too. This is a thread with a lot of interest, more than I have seen here before.

I find the way people can agree to hold different points view is a brilliant way to teach the rest of us and give us a choice in what we learn.

Also the resulting discussion especially on this forum is very stimulating to the inquiring mind. To be honest this link by Delvo was absolutely brilliant.


http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...2D7&sc=I100322
Much of the evolution humans have undergone in the last few million years and are still undergoing has been a matter of juvenilization: long retention or even magnification of what were originally juvenile traits.

Having read it how much trouble can I get into by saying I can't wait to get more intelligent :whistle:

The_Radiation_Specialist
2007-Aug-08, 11:26 AM
After all this, I gotta ask; is she good looking?

:eh: :surprised :sick:

:silenced:

On a more serious side, I have made a mental note not to have a gf/wife who has these kind of feminist ideas.


Is your "rant on feminist teachers" based on your bad experience with one such teacher?

I know what you mean. And you are right about it not being very exact as there is only one case. Actually in my school I have only one female teacher so that basically gives me less data.

And now that I think of it I do remember having a teacher in the 6th grade tell the class how women were proven to be smarter than men. You can imagine how outraged I would have felt. Why couldn't she just say there are intelligent in different areas or in different ways? Or say they are equal...

Its this kind of female chauvinism that irks me.


My views on feminism and womens right is that every one should get equal chance. I disagree with Pushing for equality. That is when bars are lowered down exclusively for females for the sake of there being a female. Everyone should be judged by the same bar.

And the feminist should realise the battle is won. Now they have all the resources that a man can have and more support. They all have opportunities to excel. They can sue a man for harassment easier than a man can do vica versa. It doesn't make sense to demand more service only because you are female.

Saying why there aren't more women CEO's or women presidents does not help. So won't saying females are brought up to only look after families and play with dolls.

Look at the media. In most TV shows the smarter child in the family is female (Lisa in the Simpsons, Hermione in HP, etc) . The males are usually the dumb and lazy one.

Click Ticker
2007-Aug-08, 12:34 PM
There was a very interesting article in our local paper speaking about a study that explored the pay gap between men and women in similar jobs. It was amazingly revealing and really spoke to a lot of the natural personality differences that exist between the genders. It goes well beyond the basic, "Women are out of the workforce for longer period due to child rearing" angle most have taken. I found a similar article about the study here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18418454/

Now - this takes the angle that, "Society teaches women not to negotiate" - whereas I tend to think it's just a natural communication difference between men and women. My wife will come home from work and talk about all the social interactions at work and what's going on in her co-workers lives. I'll talk about a meeting or policy change or a particular deal I'm working on, but rarely if ever do I discuss the lives of my co-workers. I just don't pay that much attention to them.


“I don’t believe there’s a conspiracy out there with a group of male executives saying, ‘We’re going to pay women less in this company,’” she explains. She believes the squeaky wheels at pay raise time, which are often the men, get a few percentage points more than women who don’t ask for more. Over time, she surmises, those few percentage points contribute to an eventual huge pay gap between the sexes.

Tinaa
2007-Aug-08, 12:36 PM
I know what you mean. And you are right about it not being very exact as there is only one case. Actually in my school I have only one female teacher so that basically gives me less data.

And now that I think of it I do remember having a teacher in the 6th grade tell the class how women were proven to be smarter than men. You can imagine how outraged I would have felt. Why couldn't she just say there are intelligent in different areas or in different ways? Or say they are equal...

Its this kind of female chauvinism that irks me.

I am a child of the seventies. I was told I was a smart as the boys but I shouldn't show it because I wouldn't be able to catch a husband. (Luckily, my parents didn't share this view and encouraged me to excel in school.)

I teach sixth graders now and I hear the same type of comments from my students - male and female. The battle for equality is not won. Discrimination is not overt but it is still there, especially in other more traditional cultures.


Look at the media. In most TV shows the smarter child in the family is female (Lisa in the Simpsons, Hermione in HP, etc) . The males are usually the dumb and lazy one.

Modern media does portray strong females, but look at literature before this modern era. In most cases, the female was weaker, less intelligent and needed to be protected/rescued by the stronger, smarter males.

Samara
2007-Aug-08, 12:59 PM
And the feminist should realise the battle is won. Now they have all the resources that a man can have and more support. They all have opportunities to excel.

The battle hasn't been won yet. Opportunities are only half the battle. Women want respect and dignity as well. They want to be seen as fully formed people rather than sex objects and domestic goddesses.

Click Ticker
2007-Aug-08, 01:01 PM
Modern media does portray strong females, but look at literature before this modern era. In most cases, the female was weaker, less intelligent and needed to be protected/rescued by the stronger, smarter males.

And yet what population is the predominate consumer of romance novels and perpetuate the weak female rescued by the strong male? I guess that's the primary point of a lot of this discussion. There are inherent differences between men and women that led to much of the way society interacts. It's not entirely because men are typically 50 lbs heavier and will sit on women if they don't submit to our will.

I'll further add that a large percentage of romance novels are written by women.

Delvo
2007-Aug-08, 01:09 PM
There was a very interesting article in our local paper speaking about a study that explored the pay gap between men and women in similar jobs. It was amazingly revealing and really spoke to a lot of the natural personality differences that exist between the genders.Another factor is that, although both sexes have the same average IQ (or different by an amount that's too small to see), men's are distributed more widely, with more at each extreme (both the brightest and the dimmest) and fewer in the middle near average... and overall, people with the same job but a higher IQ get paid more than those with the same job and a lower IQ (although, since American employers don't often know IQ scores, the cause is indirect, such as being based on the better job performance that tends to go with high IQ, or just "making a better impression" when interacting with others which high IQ tends to enable one to do).

Of course, that wider distribution of men's intelligences also means that men are less intelligent than women, if you look at the left half of the bell curves. That could explain why media portrayals are so obsessed with male stupidity; the shows tend to deal with the least intelligent part of the population anyway because they figure stupidity is funny, and in that segment of the population, it's true that men are generally less intelligent than women. But when we're talking about high-level white-collar jobs, that's not the part of the graph we're dealing with; those jobs take people from the right half of the graph, or less with a minimum cutoff anywhere above 100, and that's the part of the graph where intelligent men outnumber and outscore intelligent women.

Michael Noonan
2007-Aug-08, 01:13 PM
I am a child of the seventies. I was told I was a smart as the boys but I shouldn't show it because I wouldn't be able to catch a husband. (Luckily, my parents didn't share this view and encouraged me to excel in school.)



That is a rare privilege you enjoyed Tinaa, how wonderful it would be if everyone's parents encouraged their children to be who they could be.

And this from The_Radiation_Specialist


And now that I think of it I do remember having a teacher in the 6th grade tell the class how women were proven to be smarter than men. You can imagine how outraged I would have felt. Why couldn't she just say there are intelligent in different areas or in different ways? Or say they are equal...

Its this kind of female chauvinism that irks me.

Biology never claimed to be equal.

Biologically the average male brain is slightly larger than the female brain. A meaningless stat really as the average male is slightly larger than the average female. In a rough sense though you could say women are smarter in that they are able to make much better use with less.

Second point testosterone has a curious function in that at some point both male and female are nearly identical, about the six week mark. Then the testosterone eats the connections between left and right hemisphere of the brain damaging its ability to communicate, fascinating.

The logical deduction here is not that the male brain needs to be a bit larger to compete equally but in fact needs to be at least twice the size to function as a similar sized unit to what women naturally have.

Given that people are categorised as right hemisphere or left hemisphere could be seen as one side redundant. Having said that I still haven't heard of anyone volunteering for elective surgery to get their brain reconnected in order to function more fully as a human being.

Having worked as a service operator receiving telephone calls one only needs to look around in the occasional breaks between calls to spot the differences. I could talk or type or read the policy or listen but only one of those functions at any one time. The women talked, typed read the policy, listened to the customer and by using the mute button held an engaging side conversation all at the same time.

As one of the 'boys' I was so focused just trying not fall too far behind that I was not aware of my surroundings and yet the 'girls' could nail down where and when to get the best deal on a new pair of shoes.

You tell me who is deficient.

Click Ticker
2007-Aug-08, 01:20 PM
Yeah but IQ tests are sexist and put together by white males to make white males look smarter than everybody else.

I'm not saying I agree - just saying the argument is out there.

Tinaa
2007-Aug-08, 01:22 PM
And yet what population is the predominate consumer of romance novels and perpetuate the weak female rescued by the strong male? I guess that's the primary point of a lot of this discussion. There are inherent differences between men and women that led to much of the way society interacts. It's not entirely because men are typically 50 lbs heavier and will sit on women if they don't submit to our will.

You got me there! I never read romance novels. I was thinking more of classical works back to Homer through the mid-twentieth century.

Samara
2007-Aug-08, 01:34 PM
And yet what population is the predominate consumer of romance novels and perpetuate the weak female rescued by the strong male?

Are you saying that it is the women's fault for perpetuating stereotypes?

Mister Earl
2007-Aug-08, 01:52 PM
Hey Spock, do you have any data to support that claim? I've never heard that before.

Click Ticker
2007-Aug-08, 02:15 PM
Hey Spock, do you have any data to support that claim? I've never heard that before.

Which claim? The IQ one?

I'm not claiming that this is the case or that any formal study supports the notion. I'm just saying if you do a google search on "Gender bias in IQ testing" - you will pull up a lot of blogs and other links that either make the assertion or dispute it.

What I am willing to claim is that IQ tests are not universally accepted as an impartial assessment of intelligence.

Click Ticker
2007-Aug-08, 02:29 PM
Are you saying that it is the women's fault for perpetuating stereotypes?

I'm not saying stereotypes are anyones "fault". What I am saying is that based on the $1.2 billion in sales the romance novel industry had in 2004 (55% of all paperback sales), plenty of consumers (predominatly female writers and buyers - safe bet, still seeking hard data) don't have a problem with "being rescued".

http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6446650.html

Heck, I know of a woman who went to a prestigious university, not with the intent to get an education, but because they had a good medical school and her prospects of meeting and marrying a doctor would greatly increase. She acheived her goal and is married to a doctor and has stayed at home to raise the family. Isolated case, I know - but in general, it is very acceptable for a female to say that she wants to marry rich and to ridicule a male that doesn't have high income. It is also very acceptable for a female to not work. In general, a male that stays home while the female goes to work is viewed with skepticism as to motives.

Disinfo Agent
2007-Aug-08, 02:56 PM
And now that I think of it I do remember having a teacher in the 6th grade tell the class how women were proven to be smarter than men. You can imagine how outraged I would have felt. Why couldn't she just say there are intelligent in different areas or in different ways? Or say they are equal...

Its this kind of female chauvinism that irks me.And girls feel the same way when people tell them, either overtly or covertly, that boys are proven to be smarter than them (or that girls are smarter, but they should hide it away -- which sounds cringingly fake, and amounts to the same). And this happens a lot more often than what happened to you.


My views on feminism and womens right is that every one should get equal chance. I disagree with Pushing for equality.One lesson that history teaches us is that unless you push for your rights, you'll never get them. You can't expect to be granted your rights on a silver platter. No discriminated group has ever gained any rights without having to fight for them.


And the feminist should realise the battle is won.Go look at the average salaries of men and women, or at the percentage of men and women in positions of power, both in the public and the private sector, and then come back and tell me the battle is won.

Women make up slightly over 50% of mankind. If gender did not make any difference, they should earn as much as men on average, and there should be slightly over 50% women running businesses and governments.

The battle has begun. That's not the same as it being over.

Gillianren
2007-Aug-08, 03:20 PM
Now as I understand it (and someone please tell me if I've got it wrong), you only get the Y genes from your father if you're a boy, and you only get the corresponding X genes from your mother if you're a girl.

No. You get (at least!) one sexual chromosome from your father regardless of sex. It's just that, if you're a girl, you have your father's X chromosome. Also, either way, you get an X chromosome from your mother. The colour-blindness gene, as I recall, is carried on the X chromosome, and that's why it's more likely to manifest in men, as they don't have a chance to have a correct copy on the other chromosome. Ditto hemophilia. (Or haemophilia, if you're British.)

The battle isn't won, and people of both sexes are still working to prevent that. I was told when I was young--and I was born in 1976!--that I shouldn't act so smart or boys wouldn't like me. I've been told so by boys, in point of fact, not just the old woman across the street.

Delvo
2007-Aug-08, 03:43 PM
I was told when I was young--and I was born in 1976!--that I shouldn't act so smart or boys wouldn't like me. I've been told so by boys, in point of fact, not just the old woman across the street.And that might actually mean something, if not for the fact that guys are taught to do the same thing to avoid the stigma of being too smart so girls won't want us. If anything, it's more emphatic for us. Who gets called "geek" and "nerd" and "dork", and has those stereotypes with their complete helplessness in dealing with the opposite sex or even confronting others of the same sex endlessly picked-on in TV and movies as something that it's obvious that nobody ever could want? Almost invariably guys. Where's the equivalent stereotype for girls showing how completely unlikable they are if they're smart? The closest thing to a standard smart-girl stereotype actually goes in the opposite direction: the "bookworm" fantasy image, someone that guys are supposed to want to be with because she's like that, not something that makes her absolutely unwantable.

Disinfo Agent
2007-Aug-08, 03:45 PM
Somebody should be able to give a better answer than this, but it might help for the time being.

We all* have 46 chromosomes - 23 pairs. Yes, they are made of genes. They will almost always be different from one person to the next, even if the other person is your same-sex sibling (unless you are identical twins).

One pair of chroms determines (or at least strongly influences) gender. If one is X and the other is X, you will be a girl. If one is X and the other is Y, you will be a boy.**

Now as I understand it (and someone please tell me if I've got it wrong), you only get the Y genes from your father if you're a boy, and you only get the corresponding X genes from your mother if you're a girl.

Consequently, out of 46 genes, one is definitely going to be different between the genders. That's about 2%.

*Except for people with Downs syndrome, and some other conditions.
** These are not the only possibilities - there's also XYY, XO and possibly others that I haven't heard of.That was more or less what I meant, yes.

One nitpick: sex is determined by the father's gametes (normally). One Y chromosome from dad makes a boy; one X chromosome from dad makes a girl. Mom's gametes always contribute with another X chromosome.

Paul Beardsley
2007-Aug-08, 04:07 PM
No. You get (at least!) one sexual chromosome from your father regardless of sex. It's just that, if you're a girl, you have your father's X chromosome. Also, either way, you get an X chromosome from your mother.
Yes - that is what I meant. The misunderstanding was my fault - I used the word "only" in an ambiguous way.

In "diagram" form, it's a case of:

Man - XY
Woman - XX

When man and woman reproduce, man contributes his X or his Y, whereas woman contributes one or other of her X.

Child will always get an X from mother, and an X or Y from father, so child will be XX (girl) or XY (boy).

Okay, so far I've merely reiterated what you said, Gillian.

Now, for all the OTHER chromosome pairs, there's a process called meiosis. What this means is, when the man produces sperm or the woman produces an egg, it's not a joblot of genes from one chromosome; it's a random mix.

For instance, if the man's first chromosome pair consist of chromosomes called A and B, and the woman's first chromosome pair consist of chromosomes called C and D, then it looks like this:

Man - AB
Woman - CD

Man produces sperm. Meiosis means the sperm consists of some A and some B. Call it E.

Woman produces egg. Meiosis means the egg consists of some C and some D. Call it F.

Note that E and F are single chromosomes - they are not a chromosome pair unless and until they meet and the egg is fertilised. Note also that the E and the F in each sperm and each egg is different because it's a different mix each time.

Now, my question is, does meiosis take place with the father's X and Y chromosomes? I am guessing not, because people talk of certain genes being found only on the Y chromosome. Perhaps that's covered later in The Selfish Gene...


The colour-blindness gene, as I recall, is carried on the X chromosome, and that's why it's more likely to manifest in men, as they don't have a chance to have a correct copy on the other chromosome. Ditto hemophilia. (Or haemophilia, if you're British.)
Sounds right. My understanding is that it is theoretically possible for these things to be manifest in women, but colourblind women are rare, and I believe that no female foetus with heamophilia has ever gone to term.


The battle isn't won, and people of both sexes are still working to prevent that. I was told when I was young--and I was born in 1976!--that I shouldn't act so smart or boys wouldn't like me. I've been told so by boys, in point of fact, not just the old woman across the street.
That is so sad. For myself and most of my male friends, intelligence is a very high priority in the "what we look(ed) for in a woman" scale. I was lucky - most of my girlfriends were reasonably-to-very intelligent, especially the one I eventually married.

Maybe girls should be told, "If you appear to be smart, some boys won't like you. But are they really the ones you want to like you?" Of course life never works out that simply.

The_Radiation_Specialist
2007-Aug-08, 04:21 PM
The battle hasn't been won yet. Opportunities are only half the battle. Women want respect and dignity as well. They want to be seen as fully formed people rather than sex objects and domestic goddesses.

This must your personal opinion. A quick look will tell you most women actually do want to be seen as sex objects (directly or indirectly).

Make-up, implants, surgery... the list goes on and on...

Not that I'm complaining about it ;)


In a rough sense though you could say women are smarter in that they are able to make much better use with less.

note my selection. Much better than what?


Yeah but IQ tests are sexist and put together by white males to make white males look smarter than everybody else.

I'm not saying I agree - just saying the argument is out there.

I noted an air of conspiracy theory in this. And white males make all the IQ tests? Theres so much wrong with the "argument" I don't know where to begin.


And girls feel the same way when people tell them, either overtly or covertly, that boys are proven to be smarter than them (or that girls are smarter, but they should hide it away -- which sounds cringingly fake, and amounts to the same). And this happens a lot more often than what happened to you.


Please, we are in the 21st century. Gone are the days women were told all that. And also, whatever happened to two wrongs don't make it right?


One lesson that history teaches us is that unless you push for your rights, you'll never get them. You can't expect to be granted your rights on a silver platter. No discriminated group has ever gained any rights without having to fight for them.


Im sorry for not getting the message across. I meant that I agree with lack of any discrimination based on gender. But I oppose having to lower the bar for women only for the sake of letting women into, say, a company. The bar height should be the same for everyone, male or female.


Women make up slightly over 50% of mankind. If gender did not make any difference, they should earn as much as men on average, and there should be slightly over 50% women running businesses and governments.

I disagree. It is not like there is a law saying women can only hold no more than 10% of government seats. Its not like a competent women tried to get a job at a company and was denyed only because she is a woman.

Gee, how can I explain it to you? I am saying that the doors are wide open for women in most jobs. No one is discriminating based on gender rather than the ability. Equality does not mean there has to be 50% women in the government. It means Any gender can hold a government seat based on ability. Am I getting the idea across?


(assume there are equal number of right and left handed people)
Its like holding a party and inviting everyone. After noticing more right handed people came than left handed you start to think left handers are being discriminated. You call upon your friend who controls the door to ask him why there are more right handed people and not equal amounts. Your friend then says" I dont know, I did not care about who actually came. I let everyone in not even noticing their handedness.


And who says boys don't like girls being smart? I personally would love to meet a girl I can discuss my mathematical teasers with. ;)

Disinfo Agent
2007-Aug-08, 04:26 PM
Now, for all the OTHER chromosome pairs, there's a process called meiosis. What this means is, when the man produces sperm or the woman produces an egg, it's not a joblot of genes from one chromosome; it's a random mix.

For instance, if the man's first chromosome pair consist of chromosomes called A and B, and the woman's first chromosome pair consist of chromosomes called C and D, then it looks like this:

Man - AB
Woman - CD

Man produces sperm. Meiosis means the sperm consists of some A and some B. Call it E.

Woman produces egg. Meiosis means the egg consists of some C and some D. Call it F.

Note that E and F are single chromosomes - they are not a chromosome pair unless and until they meet and the egg is fertilised. Note also that the E and the F in each sperm and each egg is different because it's a different mix each time.

Now, my question is, does meiosis take place with the father's X and Y chromosomes? I am guessing not, because people talk of certain genes being found only on the Y chromosome. Perhaps that's covered later in The Selfish Gene...Your question makes me think you still haven't understood the process well. Here's the deal:


Meiosis applies to all chromosome pairs.

The purpose of meiosis is to separate the two elements of each pair.* So, in a (normal) meiosis in a man (XY) you end up with some cells whose genotype is X, and another half whose genotype is Y. The same happens in women, giving half of the cells with copies of one of the X chromosomes, and the other half with copies of the other X chromosome.

Later, if fertilization occurs, the male gamete merges with the female gamete, and you get complete pairs again. So, sexual cells are exceptional in humans, in that they are the only ones that have only one element of each pair of chromosomes. This is true both for the sexual chromosomes (the 23rd. pair), and for all the others.

* This is a simplification. More things may happen during meiosis, in particular a "shuffling" process called crossing-over, but I don't think we need to go there here.

The_Radiation_Specialist
2007-Aug-08, 04:35 PM
Hey! The view count for this is more than the view count for the collapsed bridge!

What did I start :)

Lurker
2007-Aug-08, 04:42 PM
This must your personal opinion. A quick look will tell you most women actually do want to be seen as sex objects (directly or indirectly).

Make-up, implants, surgery... the list goes on and on...

Not that I'm complaining about it ;)



note my selection. Much better than what?



I noted an air of conspiracy theory in this. And white males make all the IQ tests? Theres so much wrong with the "argument" I don't know where to begin.



Please, we are in the 21st century. Gone are the days women were told all that. And also, whatever happened to two wrongs don't make it right?



Im sorry for not getting the message across. I meant that I agree with lack of any discrimination based on gender. But I oppose having to lower the bar for women only for the sake of letting women into, say, a company. The bar height should be the same for everyone, male or female.



I disagree. It is not like there is a law saying women can only hold no more than 10% of government seats. Its not like a competent women tried to get a job at a company and was denyed only because she is a woman.

Gee, how can I explain it to you? I am saying that the doors are wide open for women in most jobs. No one is discriminating based on gender rather than the ability. Equality does not mean there has to be 50% women in the government. It means Any gender can hold a government seat based on ability. Am I getting the idea across?


(assume there are equal number of right and left handed people)
Its like holding a party and inviting everyone. After noticing more right handed people came than left handed you start to think left handers are being discriminated. You call upon your friend who controls the door to ask him why there are more right handed people and not equal amounts. Your friend then says" I dont know, I did not care about who actually came. I let everyone in not even noticing their handedness.


And who says boys don't like girls being smart? I personally would love to meet a girl I can discuss my mathematical teasers with. ;)
I hear a lot of science here... some adequate but basically irrelevant when it comes to intermixing of men and women at work and society in general. In the case of my work place the technical lead positions and management positions are about equally split between men and women. The technical teams are also about 550/50. There are standouts among the men and the women... there are poor workers and slackers among both groups also.

What really concerns me are the attitudes such as those posted by The_Radiation_Specialist above. As an example:
A quick look will tell you most women actually do want to be seen as sex objects (directly or indirectly).

Make-up, implants, surgery... the list goes on and on...

Not that I'm complaining about it ;)
This post represents the sort of sexist attitude has to be difficult for a woman to face on a daily basis. But rather than listening to the women here and asking how the wounds can be healed... how we can better understand and take better care of each other, the guys here simply seem to say to the women, if I may use the rather crass phrase, "suck it up".

Once again, in the quote below, there is no attempt to see life in our society from a womans perspective:
I disagree. It is not like there is a law saying women can only hold no more than 10% of government seats. Its not like a competent women tried to get a job at a company and was denyed only because she is a woman.

The poster does not ask a woman how she feels, does not ask a woman what she faces, but simply seems to say, "all it will so just move on".


What kind of a society have we build where men and women don't attempt to listen to each other... where men don't listen to the women and attempt to be more considerate of their feelings. All is not logic and science... we must all live together in this society and we need to be considerate of feelings and perceptions... we need to try to get along. I am sure that many will disagree with this, but I think it needs to be said... I think we as a society need to consider it...

CodeSlinger
2007-Aug-08, 04:47 PM
A quick look will tell you most women actually do want to be seen as sex objects (directly or indirectly).

Make-up, implants, surgery... the list goes on and on...

Not that I'm complaining about it ;)

How revealing. If you believe this to be the case, you either:

1. Haven't had any conversations of real depth with many women
2. Are so entrenched in your own view that you cannot process what they say

In either case, it becomes unsurprising that you would find the teacher mentioned in the OP radically feminist. The very concept of a female teacher who doesn't want to be just a sex object must just blow your mind, doesn't it?


I personally would love to meet a girl I can discuss my mathematical teasers with.

Given your attitude, let's just say I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you.

Disinfo Agent
2007-Aug-08, 04:50 PM
In the case of my work place the technical lead positions and management positions are about equally split between men and women. The technical teams are also about 550/50. There are standouts among the men and the women... there are poor workers and slackers among both groups also.And, although that's excellent, it's not the rule across professions. Just look at your political representatives.


A quick look will tell you most women actually do want to be seen as sex objects (directly or indirectly).I think that both women and men like to be treated as sexed beings every once in a while -- but not all the time, or by everyone.


Please, we are in the 21st century. Gone are the days women were told all that.One would think so, but reality is not that rosy.

Halcyon1982
2007-Aug-08, 04:58 PM
And the feminist should realise the battle is won. Now they have all the resources that a man can have and more support. They all have opportunities to excel. They can sue a man for harassment easier than a man can do vica versa. It doesn't make sense to demand more service only because you are female.

Saying why there aren't more women CEO's or women presidents does not help. So won't saying females are brought up to only look after families and play with dolls.

Look at the media. In most TV shows the smarter child in the family is female (Lisa in the Simpsons, Hermione in HP, etc) . The males are usually the dumb and lazy one.

The_Radiation_Specialist, there are some battles that have been won in regards to equality amongst the sexes. However, there are quite a few that remain to be conquered.

Salaries of women, in many cases, are still lower than the salaries of men. While the gap between the two salaries is a lot narrower than it might have been at one time; it remains in tact. This battle has not been won, it has been "dealt with" in a way that it can be seen to have been swept under the rug.

One thing that I do agree with you on, is the negative affects of bar-raising in order to allow women in a male-dominated working environment (read: military, some corporations, police force, etc.). I do not think this is appropriate. The bar needs to be set for both sexes so that the elite of mankind as a whole reaches and accomplishes the milestone required. The bar should not be lowered just to allow females into the workplace. The bar should be attainable by the worthy- not who was gifted with a vagina or a penis. I feel that there are, on a slightly OT note, many individuals already in these workforces that have been in the force for years and have sunk below both bars of requirement. It is time to refresh the resources and make sure the best is in the position. I do not care if I am being rescued by a male or a female. I am not grabbing at breasts or packages when being carried out of a burning building. The sex of the individual matters to me not.

Another battle which has been won (in some regards) and lost (in others) is the timeless battle of women's rights to reproduction. I am sure you know the arguments and cases on this topic. The ability for a woman to take care of her own body is often up for grabs.

And, yes, some women (but again one must not generalize either case to include all women) want to be viewed as sexual objects of desire. However, in many cases, there is a respect that comes along with this. Everyone wants to be desired. But they also want to be respected for the person whom they are and also for their ability to want to be desired. Males and females alike should have the chance to be seen as desirable, respected, intelligent, and important members of the human race.

In America alone there are still many people that speak of the inequalities of women. Outside of America the tendency rises and falls with cultural norms.

There have been many battles that have been won. But, like they say, the war is not over. And it will not cease to be for some time.

Click Ticker
2007-Aug-08, 05:07 PM
In the case of my work place the technical lead positions and management positions are about equally split between men and women. The technical teams are also about 50/50. There are standouts among the men and the women... there are poor workers and slackers among both groups also.

In my work place we have one female team lead and three male team leads. In addition - the department manager is a male. Among my peers, we are 50/50. Dealing with a small enough sample size - this can really break any direction at all with a little turn over.

Regarding the 50/50 stuff - I think what many of us are trying to say is that we are in full support of equal opportunity. What we do not support is using artificial means to generate equal outcome. If a bar is to be lowered, it should be lowered for all. If minimum requirements are to be met - they should be met by all. We should not have different requirements for different people to try to foster an exact mirror image of the general census in all fields of work.

Paul Beardsley
2007-Aug-08, 05:25 PM
Your question makes me think you still haven't understood the process well.

Yes, well I'm here to learn!


Meiosis applies to all chromosome pairs.

The purpose of meiosis is to separate the two elements of each pair.* So, in a (normal) meiosis in a man (XY) you end up with some cells whose genotype is X, and another half whose genotype is Y. The same happens in women, giving half of the cells with copies of one of the X chromosomes, and the other half with copies of the other X chromosome.
Okay.

This confused me at first - I thought it was only the 23rd chromosome pair that's referred to as X or Y.


Later, if fertilization occurs, the male gamete merges with the female gamete, and you get complete pairs again.
Understood.


So, sexual cells are exceptional in humans, in that they are the only ones that have only one element of each pair of chromosomes. This is true both for the sexual chromosomes (the 23rd. pair), and for all the others.
Understood - 23 half-pairs in an egg, 23 half-pairs in a sperm.


This is a simplification. More things may happen during meiosis, in particular a "shuffling" process called crossing-over, but I don't think we need to go there here.
I think we do - at least, I need to.

I am fairly sure my slip-up was to confuse meiosis with crossing-over, whereas the latter is merely a part of the former.

For each pair of chromosomes, crossing-over takes place which ensures that the 23 single chromosomes in the gamete are not simply one or the other of the chomosomes in the host.

So my question is, does crossing-over take place between the pair of sex chromosomes?

I thank you for taking to time to explain, and hope this question makes sense.

Click Ticker
2007-Aug-08, 05:32 PM
Salaries of women, in many cases, are still lower than the salaries of men. While the gap between the two salaries is a lot narrower than it might have been at one time; it remains in tact. This battle has not been won, it has been "dealt with" in a way that it can be seen to have been swept under the rug.

I addressed one view on this in an earlier post and linked it to an article referencing an interesting study. Nobody commented on it. The post is on this page.

If women don't ask for more money, should that be held against the men who do? When you negotiate better on the way in, the disparity will continue to grow even with equal raises. If I start a job at $50,000 and my female counterpart starts at $45,000 - equal 3% raises over the next 20 years widen that gap all the more. After 20 years, I'm at $90,305.56 and she's at $81,275.01. If I was able to argue for an extra half a percent at each annual review and she did nothing? I'm up to $99,489.44, she's still at $81,275.01. Now, what if the only reason this happened is because they offered $45,000 to both of us and I said, "Not enough, I'll need $50,000 to accept this position." and she didn't?

Is that descrimination? Is the employer obligated to go back to her and say, "Because Bill negotiated this, we feel it's only fair to offer it to you as well."?

The study even mentioned that men were more likely to ask for more money to participate in the study before they even knew what it was going to be about whereas the women in the study were more likely to take what was offered even if they were told it was negotiable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900827.html


In one early study, Babcock brought 74 volunteers into a laboratory to play a word game called Boggle. The volunteers were told they would be paid anywhere from $3 to $10 for their time. After playing the game, each student was given $3 and asked if the sum was okay. Eight times more men than women asked for more money.

Lurker
2007-Aug-08, 05:33 PM
<snip>
Regarding the 50/50 stuff - I think what many of us are trying to say is that we are in full support of equal opportunity. What we do not support is using artificial means to generate equal outcome. If a bar is to be lowered, it should be lowered for all. If minimum requirements are to be met - they should be met by all. We should not have different requirements for different people to try to foster an exact mirror image of the general census in all fields of work.

Well, I would believe that except I have seen too many sexist statements like this one:

A quick look will tell you most women actually do want to be seen as sex objects (directly or indirectly).

Make-up, implants, surgery... the list goes on and on...

Not that I'm complaining about it

or the comment that suggested that women perfer to be pampered while men prefer to pamper. There have been statements that women should not be in certain jobs because they are weaker than men. I agree that a a rescue person should have to have minimum qualifications for the job. However, I know for a fact that there are women who have those qualifications and men (like me :)) who don't; so gender should have nothing to do with the issue.

That said, however, I am a strong believer in affirmative action programs. It is well known that success in any number of fields depends on having "an old boy network" (actually a better term would be old person network) in place that helps nurture those new to the field... Affirmative action attempts to address this issue by reducing the requirements for elements of society that are under-represented in a certain field. This has worked in the past as a means of integrating under-represented groups.

For those who believe that the legal system has taken care of all these matters, I suggest that rather than simply stating "for the benefit the women" here that this is so... it might be productive, as well as instructive, to listen and understand what they face and how they feel about it.

Lurker
2007-Aug-08, 05:34 PM
I addressed one view on this in an earlier post and linked it to an article referencing an interesting study. Nobody commented on it. The post is on this page.

If women don't ask for more money, should that be held against the men who do? When you negotiate better on the way in, the disparity will continue to grow even with equal raises. If I start a job at $50,000 and my female counterpart starts at $45,000 - equal 3% raises over the next 20 years widen that gap all the more. After 20 years, I'm at $90,305.56 and she's at $81,275.01. If I was able to argue for an extra half a percent at each annual review and she did nothing? I'm up to $99,489.44, she's still at $81,275.01. Now, what if the only reason this happened is because they offered $45,000 to both of us and I said, "Not enough, I'll need $50,000 to accept this position." and she didn't?

Is that descrimination? Is the employer obligated to go back to her and say, "Because Bill negotiated this, we feel it's only fair to offer it to you as well."?

The study even mentioned that men were more likely to ask for more money to participate in the study before they even knew what it was going to be about whereas the women in the study were more likely to take what was offered even if they were told it was negotiable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900827.html

UNBELIEVABLE!!!!! And then you wonder why the women here feel the way they do?? :shakes headK:

Disinfo Agent
2007-Aug-08, 05:39 PM
This confused me at first - I thought it was only the 23rd chromosome pair that's referred to as X or Y.It is, but meiosis separates the other pairs, too. (Just checking... I think you got this now.)


So my question is, does crossing-over take place between the pair of sex chromosomes?I don't know. Probably. Wikipedia has the following in the article on meiosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis#Pachytene):


(Sex chromosomes, however, are not identical, and only exchange information over a small region of homology.)See also chromosomal crossover (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomal crossover).

The_Radiation_Specialist
2007-Aug-08, 05:41 PM
How revealing. If you believe this to be the case, you either:

1. Haven't had any conversations of real depth with many women

True, not a lot of women anyways. The trouble is at my age (16) girls don't have any real depth conversations. I was merely remarking based on my testosterone-fueled observation.


2. Are so entrenched in your own view that you cannot process what they say

see above.


In either case, it becomes unsurprising that you would find the teacher mentioned in the OP radically feminist. The very concept of a female teacher who doesn't want to be just a sex object must just blow your mind, doesn't it?

No. I'm not sure what your motive is asking such a ridiculous question. If it is what I think it is then its just sad...



Given your attitude, let's just say I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you.

Oh thanks. You must know all about me by reading a few misinterpreted lines. How do you do that?!

to quote Hal who said it so neatly:

And, yes, some women (but again one must not generalize either case to include all women) want to be viewed as sexual objects of desire. However, in many cases, there is a respect that comes along with this. Everyone wants to be desired. But they also want to be respected for the person whom they are and also for their ability to want to be desired. Males and females alike should have the chance to be seen as desirable, respected, intelligent, and important members of the human race.

and Disinfo:

I think that both women and men like to be treated as sexed beings every once in a while -- but not all the time, or by everyone.

Paul Beardsley
2007-Aug-08, 05:48 PM
It is, but meiosis separates the other pairs, too. (Just checking... I think you got this now.)
Yes, I think I have! Thanks again for your help.

Halcyon1982
2007-Aug-08, 05:49 PM
I addressed one view on this in an earlier post and linked it to an article referencing an interesting study. Nobody commented on it. The post is on this page.

If women don't ask for more money, should that be held against the men who do? When you negotiate better on the way in, the disparity will continue to grow even with equal raises. If I start a job at $50,000 and my female counterpart starts at $45,000 - equal 3% raises over the next 20 years widen that gap all the more. After 20 years, I'm at $90,305.56 and she's at $81,275.01. If I was able to argue for an extra half a percent at each annual review and she did nothing? I'm up to $99,489.44, she's still at $81,275.01. Now, what if the only reason this happened is because they offered $45,000 to both of us and I said, "Not enough, I'll need $50,000 to accept this position." and she didn't?

Is that descrimination? Is the employer obligated to go back to her and say, "Because Bill negotiated this, we feel it's only fair to offer it to you as well."?

The study even mentioned that men were more likely to ask for more money to participate in the study before they even knew what it was going to be about whereas the women in the study were more likely to take what was offered even if they were told it was negotiable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900827.html

If a version of this posts twice, I apologize, my system ate my original response.

Both sexes have the responsibility to negotiate the salary which they are worthy of. If the woman in this story did nothing to raise her salary, then shame on her.

I hope, however, that you are not implying that every woman sits on her rear-end and does nothing while her male counterparts are working towards better salaries.

Salaries need to be based upon ability and skill, not gender.

Halcyon1982
2007-Aug-08, 05:51 PM
True, not a lot of women anyways. The trouble is at my age (16) girls don't have any real depth conversations. I was merely remarking based on my testosterone-fueled observation.

and Disinfo:

Not to stir the pot (hah)...but do you speak with the ladies that are older than you? This might provide you with more perspective.

Disinfo Agent
2007-Aug-08, 05:56 PM
True, not a lot of women anyways. The trouble is at my age (16) girls don't have any real depth conversations. I was merely remarking based on my testosterone-fueled observation. You are still young (sorry) to draw definitive conclusions about these kinds of issues. In my experience, at your age neither girls nor boys typically have much conversation of any depth.

I do think this thread of yours was started mostly to vent against a particular person who gets on your nerves.

CodeSlinger
2007-Aug-08, 05:56 PM
The trouble is at my age (16) girls don't have any real depth conversations. I was merely remarking based on my testosterone-fueled observation.

Yes, more sweeping sexist generalizations please. Are you blaming testosterone for your attitudes?


I'm not sure what your motive is asking such a ridiculous question. If it is what I think it is then its just sad...

It's called a rhetorical question. I was expressing my singular lack of surprise that you would find your teacher radically feminist.


Oh thanks. You must know all about me by reading a few misinterpreted lines. How do you do that?!

I do not pretend to know all about you. I'm responding to the attitudes you have expressed throughout this thread.

Click Ticker
2007-Aug-08, 06:02 PM
UNBELIEVABLE!!!!! And then you wonder why the women here feel the way they do?? :shakes headK:

Take it up with the people that conducted the study. Is the study unbelievable? Are you implying that they fabricated their results or structured the study in some way to acheive a desired outcome?

I do know for a fact that I negotiated a fair deal better than some of my peers at my current position. I know my raises have not been penalized as a result of that and based on reactions during the annual merit increase period, others have not been given "catch up" raises. Negotiating starting salary is a big deal in any field of work.

Lurker
2007-Aug-08, 06:06 PM
Take it up with the people that conducted the study. Is the study unbelievable? Are you implying that they fabricated their results or structured the study in some way to acheive a desired outcome?

I do know for a fact that I negotiated a fair deal better than some of my peers at my current position. I know my raises have not been penalized as a result of that and based on reactions during the annual merit increase period, others have not been given "catch up" raises. Negotiating starting salary is a big deal in any field of work.
I am not suggesting that the study data was fabricated. I was suggesting that your attitude was. We have a minimum wage in this country because we as a society believe that people should be paid a living wage. There are also many in this country that believe that there should be equal pay for equal work. The idea that you should be paid lower than "fair market value" simply because you don't ask for more is not likely to endear you to many women...

Just a thought... :)

Lurker
2007-Aug-08, 06:10 PM
I agree with this somewhat. I'm not a big fan of having women in combat roles (like the infantry) but on the other hand, if they were like the hispanic Marine Pvt. Vasquez in the movie Aliens, portrayed by actress Jenette Goldstein, then that would be OK. :)
And why would this be??

Tucson_Tim
2007-Aug-08, 06:12 PM
True, not a lot of women anyways. The trouble is at my age (16) girls don't have any real depth conversations.

You're still young and have many years in front of you, dealing with women. I'm much, much older (and of course much, much wiser) than you and do you know what I've learned about women in all those years? Nothing! :)

Tucson_Tim
2007-Aug-08, 06:13 PM
And why would this be??

She was one tough women. Or didn't you see the movie?

Or are you just looking to start an argument with someone else? :)

Gillianren
2007-Aug-08, 06:13 PM
Sigh.

Let's see. What did I talk about at sixteen . . . .

The same things I do now, actually. Did I talk about these things to boys? Sometimes. When they were boys I felt were worth talking to. A boy who thought that a choice to wear makeup meant that I wanted to be an exclusively sexual object would not have made that list. In fact, boys who thought more about my outsides than my brain would not have made that list--and still don't.

Yeah. Sometimes, I want to feel pretty. (I still don't generally wear makeup, but that's largely because I never acquired the knack.) Sometimes, I want to wear pretty dresses and have my hair done in a pretty way. Does that make me a sexual object? Not so far as I'm concerned; I'm not doing it for men at large. I'm mostly doing it for me, with a pretty large subset of doing it for my beloved. Whom, incidentally, I spend a great deal of time pampering when he's home; he likes it.

I think the problem here is not enough communication with people of other points of view, be they male or female. What you've described is pretty mild, to my way of thinking. I've heard sexist rants--from either side--that leave everything you've described in the dust.

And yes, in the 21st Century, girls are still told stupid things like that they shouldn't be good in math and science, because those are skills for boys. And yes, girls get persecuted for being "bookworms," even if the "sexy bookworm" may also be a male fantasy. Try watching most mid-'80s sitcoms with daughters. The daughters are either sexpots without brains or unattractive (by sitcom standards) and bookish. That's what I grew up with, kids, and it wasn't a fun experience.

Halcyon1982
2007-Aug-08, 06:15 PM
She was one tough women. Or didn't you see the movie?

I think Lurker meant why you are not a fan of women in combat roles.

Lurker
2007-Aug-08, 06:16 PM
{Quote=The_Radiation_Specialist]
True, not a lot of women anyways. The trouble is at my age (16) girls don't have any real depth conversations.
[/quote]
I've got news for you... I grew up with two sisters and I now have some neices about your age. They think the exact same thing about you that you...

I wonder if either you or they are correct, or if you just don't listen to each other enough... :)

Tucson_Tim
2007-Aug-08, 06:17 PM
I think Lurker meant why you are not a fan of women in combat roles.

Are you his chorus?

The Supreme Canuck
2007-Aug-08, 06:17 PM
I think the problem here is not enough communication with people of other points of view, be they male or female. What you've described is pretty mild, to my way of thinking. I've heard sexist rants--from either side--that leave everything you've described in the dust.


Again, I find myself in agreement with Gillian. Cool down. Read what others are posting a few times. Think before you post.

Click Ticker
2007-Aug-08, 06:19 PM
I am not suggesting that the study data was fabricated. I was suggesting that your attitude was. We have a minimum wage in this country because we as a society believe that people should be paid a living wage. There are also many in this country that believe that there should be equal pay for equal work. The idea that you should be paid lower than "fair market value" simply because you don't ask for more is not likely to endear you to many women...

Just a thought... :)

When did I suggest "lower than fair market value"?

A starting wage is offered. Well above minimum wage, often at the starting point in the scale for that position. Men are more likely to ask for a wage higher along that scale then women are. I'm not saying women are being offered below fair market value, I'm not saying men are offered higher. Range is 40k - 60k. You are offered 40k. You either accept, or you say that isn't incentive enough for me to take the position. What would it take? 50k. Done deal. I don't understand where the notion came from that I was suggesting lower than fair market value came from? I was merely reporting results from a study and indicating how that might work out over someones career if it took place.

Lurker
2007-Aug-08, 06:19 PM
She was one tough women. Or didn't you see the movie?

I think Lurker meant why you are not a fan of women in combat roles.
Yup... that was my question...

Disinfo Agent
2007-Aug-08, 06:19 PM
Yes, I think I have!Fascinating stuff, biology, isn't it?

Halcyon1982
2007-Aug-08, 06:20 PM
Are you his chorus?

Aw, thank you for that. I was just saying for clarification. No need to be snippy.

Lurker
2007-Aug-08, 06:20 PM
When did I suggest "lower than fair market value"?

A starting wage is offered. Well above minimum wage, often at the starting point in the scale for that position. Men are more likely to ask for a wage higher along that scale then women are. I'm not saying women are being offered below fair market value, I'm not saying men are offered higher. Range is 40k - 60k. You are offered 40k. You either accept, or you say that isn't incentive enough for me to take the position. What would it take? 50k. Done deal. I don't understand where the notion came from that I was suggesting lower than fair market value came from? I was merely reporting results from a study and indicating how that might work out over someones career if it took place.
Like I said... you might want to ask the women if they like this idea. They might want to structure the work place interactions differently... don't you think it would be worth asking... you might even want to listen to their response... :)

korjik
2007-Aug-08, 06:23 PM
I am not suggesting that the study data was fabricated. I was suggesting that your attitude was. We have a minimum wage in this country because we as a society believe that people should be paid a living wage. There are also many in this country that believe that there should be equal pay for equal work. The idea that you should be paid lower than "fair market value" simply because you don't ask for more is not likely to endear you to many women...

Just a thought... :)

You are now putting words in his mouth. Spock said he should not be penalized because he asks for more and you are changing that to he is penalizing all women.

Equal pay for equal work is an ideal that will never be completely adopted. Like Spock said, he asked for more and got more, because the people who hired him were willing to pay what he asked for. If another person does not ask for more, then Spock should not be penalized for it.

If saying that does not endear me to women, then it is not me who is the sexist.

Halcyon1982
2007-Aug-08, 06:23 PM
When did I suggest "lower than fair market value"?

A starting wage is offered. Well above minimum wage, often at the starting point in the scale for that position. Men are more likely to ask for a wage higher along that scale then women are. I'm not saying women are being offered below fair market value, I'm not saying men are offered higher. Range is 40k - 60k. You are offered 40k. You either accept, or you say that isn't incentive enough for me to take the position. What would it take? 50k. Done deal. I don't understand where the notion came from that I was suggesting lower than fair market value came from? I was merely reporting results from a study and indicating how that might work out over someones career if it took place.

I have tried to respond to this whole thing multiple times. Something hates me today here on BAUT.

I think it is the responsibility of the individual to negotiate a salary based on his/her ability, experience, and skills. This woman did not do that and thus, in this case, I do not view it as discrimination. She did not uphold her end of the bargain.

However, I am hoping that you are not assuming that all women sit about and do nothing but complain about their salaries. This is untrue.

Again, I emphasize, salaries need to be given/negotiated based on ability, skills, and experience...NOT on gender.

Serenitude
2007-Aug-08, 06:25 PM
You're still young and have many years in front of you, dealing with women. I'm much, much older (and of course much, much wiser) than you and do you know what I've learned about women in all those years? Nothing! :)

Seconded.

Lurker
2007-Aug-08, 06:26 PM
Are you his chorus?
Wow... a newcomer points out that you mistook a point in one of my posts and you jump on her?? This place use to have a more generous attitude toward newcomers.

Thank you halcyon1982 and I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for the rather poor manners displayed by Tuscon_Tim, we, even Tucson_Tim, are not always quite so impolite.... I guess tempers are just a bit short right now... please stay around for a while, we are not really so bad here... :)

Tucson_Tim
2007-Aug-08, 06:27 PM
Yup... that was my question...

Take a look at the post that I was quoting. If that doesn't answer your question, well, I guess you'll have to find someone else to spar with.

Lurker
2007-Aug-08, 06:28 PM
You're still young and have many years in front of you, dealing with women. I'm much, much older (and of course much, much wiser) than you and do you know what I've learned about women in all those years? Nothing!

Seconded.
Well... perhaps a bit of listening to them and attempting to understand where they are coming from would go a long way to fix this... :doh:

banning offense moderator?? ;)

Lurker
2007-Aug-08, 06:29 PM
Take a look at the post that I was quoting. If that doesn't answer your question, well, I guess you'll have to find someone else to spar with.
I thank you for your lack of clarification... :whistle:

Tucson_Tim
2007-Aug-08, 06:30 PM
I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for the rather poor manners displayed by Tuscon_Tim, we, even Tucson_Tim, are not always quite so impolite.... I guess tempers are just a bit short right now... please stay around for a while, we are not really so bad here... :)

:):lol: That's funny coming from you!

Tucson_Tim
2007-Aug-08, 06:32 PM
I thank you for your lack of clarification... :whistle:

You're welcome! :lol:

korjik
2007-Aug-08, 06:34 PM
I think Lurker meant why you are not a fan of women in combat roles.

For my part it is because of my combat experience.

My experience may be 15 years out of date, but having been MI in a infantry division, we had women in my unit. I was nearly six and a half feet tall and about 230 lbs (sigh... too close to 300 now :( ) and less that half the women in the unit could have even budged me if I got hit, while even the smallest male in the platoon could.

That isnt even considering the 'princess for a deployment' effect that you get in a mixed unit.

SeanF
2007-Aug-08, 06:36 PM
However, I am hoping that you are not assuming that all women sit about and do nothing but complain about their salaries. This is untrue.
Nobody's saying that's true. But what the study referenced suggests is that more men will ask for raises (or higher starting salaries) than will women - not all men will, and not all women won't, but more men than women will.

Since the employer will give more money to those who ask and not to those who don't, the men will get more money on average than the women.

Thus, there will be a resultant "wage gap" without any gender discrimination occurring at all.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Aug-08, 06:37 PM
For my part it is because of my combat experience.

My experience may be 15 years out of date, but having been MI in a infantry division, we had women in my unit. I was nearly six and a half feet tall and about 230 lbs (sigh... too close to 300 now :( ) and less that half the women in the unit could have even budged me if I got hit, while even the smallest male in the platoon could.

That isnt even considering the 'princess for a deployment' effect that you get in a mixed unit.

Exactly. Thank you!

Disinfo Agent
2007-Aug-08, 06:38 PM
For my part it is because of my combat experience.

My experience may be 15 years out of date, but having been MI in a infantry division, we had women in my unit. I was nearly six and a half feet tall and about 230 lbs (sigh... too close to 300 now :( ) and less that half the women in the unit could have even budged me if I got hit, while even the smallest male in the platoon could.

That isnt even considering the 'princess for a deployment' effect that you get in a mixed unit.How often do troops get into hand to hand combat these days, though?

When you've got guns, does it matter so much how big you are?

Lurker
2007-Aug-08, 06:39 PM
For my part it is because of my combat experience.

My experience may be 15 years out of date, but having been MI in a infantry division, we had women in my unit. I was nearly six and a half feet tall and about 230 lbs (sigh... too close to 300 now :( ) and less that half the women in the unit could have even budged me if I got hit, while even the smallest male in the platoon could.

That isnt even considering the 'princess for a deployment' effect that you get in a mixed unit.
Well... actually this comes as good news to me, because I am about 5' 9" and under those circumstances I couldn't budge you under any circumstances either. However, I think that if there had been a draft when I was of age, I would have ended up in the military and might well have been next to you...

Tucson_Tim
2007-Aug-08, 06:39 PM
How often do troops get into hand to hand combat these days, though?

They still get wounded and have to be dragged/carried to someplace safer. Or worse yet, they get killed and have to be carried out.

Click Ticker
2007-Aug-08, 06:41 PM
However, I am hoping that you are not assuming that all women sit about and do nothing but complain about their salaries. This is untrue.

Again, I emphasize, salaries need to be given/negotiated based on ability, skills, and experience...NOT on gender.

I'm not assuming anything. I was simply pointing out an article (well, two now) that summarized a study that indicated women were less likely then men to negotiate. It was an interesting study. I didn't conduct the study. I wasn't a subject in the study. Just submitting it for the review of those participating in this discussion.

As far as women not complaining about salaries - that seems to be one point of the study. Women are less likely to complain, whereas men will complain (negotiate) and get results.

There were further comments addressing cultural reasons why women might be less likely to negotiate, which included the fact (maybe to strong a word) that they are less likely to be taken seriously or treated fairly if they did. This is where the discrimination lies, if accurate.

What is your take on the study?

Disinfo Agent
2007-Aug-08, 06:41 PM
Nobody's saying that's true. But what the study referenced suggests is that more men will ask for raises (or higher starting salaries) than will women - not all men will, and not all women won't, but more men than women will.

Since the employer will give more money to those who ask and not to those who don't, the men will get more money on average than the women.

Thus, there will be a resultant "wage gap" without any gender discrimination occurring at all.We don't know that there was no discrimination as well. We'd need to investigate why fewer women choose to ask for raises than men (or why more women give up on asking for raises than men).

Tucson_Tim
2007-Aug-08, 06:42 PM
Well... actually this comes as good news to me, because I am about 5' 9" and under those circumstances I couldn't budge you under any circumstances either. However, I think that if there had been a draft when I was of age, I would have ended up in the military and might well have been next to you...

You must be pretty damn weak then. I know guys that are 5' 9" that could carry a 300 lb guy. I know even more that could at least drag a 300 lb guy.

Lurker
2007-Aug-08, 06:42 PM
Exactly. Thank you!
So I as an abled body male would get drafter, but not the woman I knew in college who could easily bench press me?? My father was no stronger than I was at that age and yet he served honorably in world war II.

Disinfo Agent
2007-Aug-08, 06:43 PM
They still get wounded and have to be dragged/carried to someplace safer. Or worse yet, they get killed and have to be carried out.Women would seem to be at an advantage in that respect, since they are lighter and easier to carry... :)

Click Ticker
2007-Aug-08, 06:43 PM
Nobody's saying that's true. But what the study referenced suggests is that more men will ask for raises (or higher starting salaries) than will women - not all men will, and not all women won't, but more men than women will.

Since the employer will give more money to those who ask and not to those who don't, the men will get more money on average than the women.

Thus, there will be a resultant "wage gap" without any gender discrimination occurring at all.

Somebody actually read the article(s). Thanks!

Lurker
2007-Aug-08, 06:44 PM
You must be pretty damn weak then. I know guys that are 5' 9" that could carry a 300 lb guy. I know even more that could at least drag a 300 lb guy.
Well, I can't so I guess that should make me undraftable... However, the woman I knew in college who could have done that should have been allowed to serve, don't you think??

Tucson_Tim
2007-Aug-08, 06:44 PM
Women would seem to be at an advantage in that respect, since they are lighter and easier to carry... :)

Well you got me there! That would be an advantage! :)

The Supreme Canuck
2007-Aug-08, 06:45 PM
But that comes back to lowering the bar again. So long as women are able to meet the minimum requirements - the same requirements as the men - there would be no problem like this with women in combat roles. Now, I don't know how it work in the US armed forces, but in Canada, entrance requirements are lower for women.

This strikes me as a problem.

Edit:

Wow, this is a hot thread. I'm referring to the posts about women in combat roles.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Aug-08, 06:46 PM
Well, I can't so I guess that should make me undraftable... However, the woman I knew in college who could have done that should have been allowed to serve, don't you think??

Don't get me wrong. I've known a few women, especially at the power-lifting gym, who could carry me easily. If they can pass a rigorous strength and endurance test - then fine - let them serve.

Paul Beardsley
2007-Aug-08, 06:47 PM
:):lol: That's funny coming from you!
Seconded.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Aug-08, 06:47 PM
Well, I can't so I guess that should make me undraftable.

No. You could have an office job back behind the lines, like maybe supply. :)

Lurker
2007-Aug-08, 06:49 PM
But that comes back to lowering the bar again. So long as women are able to meet the minimum requirements - the same requirements as the men - there would be no problem like this with women in combat roles. Now, I don't know how it work in the US armed forces, but in Canada, entrance requirements are lower for women.

This strikes me as a problem.
Sounds like a start... if they are able, they should be allowed to server.

I have to admit that I have a strong belief in affirmative action. It has been shown that lowering the bar now will give a disenfranchised group a starting point such that others will have those more ready to mentor them... after a point, the requirements can be made the same again...

Lurker
2007-Aug-08, 06:50 PM
No. You could have an office job back behind the lines, like maybe supply. :)
So... then you wouldn't mind having the woman who is my friend who could easily drag 300 lbs around beside you in a foxhole...

Lurker
2007-Aug-08, 06:51 PM
Seconded.
Actually the comment was addressed to halcyon1982... She's a new member and I thought was due the curtesy...

SeanF
2007-Aug-08, 06:53 PM
We don't know that there was no discrimination as well. We'd need to investigate why fewer women choose to ask for raises than men (or why more women give up on asking for raises than men).
Well, no, we don't know what causes women to be more reluctant than men to ask for raises. It could be a result of anticipated discrimination - which could itself be a result of previous discrimination - it could be the result of social conditioning, and it could be something inherent.

Nonetheless, the study does show that systemic discrimination on the part of the people paying the money is not necessary to produce a wage gap.

Lurker
2007-Aug-08, 06:55 PM
Well, no, we don't know what causes women to be more reluctant than men to ask for raises. It could be a result of anticipated discrimination - which could itself be a result of previous discrimination - it could be the result of social conditioning, and it could be something inherent.

Nonetheless, the study does show that systemic discrimination on the part of the people paying the money is not necessary to produce a wage gap.
Exactly...

Click Ticker
2007-Aug-08, 06:55 PM
Actually the comment was addressed to halcyon1982... She's a new member and I thought was due the curtesy...

Seems to be a lot of clarification going on.

What Paul and Tim were saying is that it was rather ironical you were apoligizing on Tim's bahalf for being impolite.

korjik
2007-Aug-08, 06:56 PM
Well, I can't so I guess that should make me undraftable... However, the woman I knew in college who could have done that should have been allowed to serve, don't you think??

If you got through basic, you would have been able to move me.

As for a woman who can pass the men's requirement, I dont have much problem with. Like I said, half the women in my platoon would not have been able to move me. Of the other half, there were some I wouldnt mess with cause they would hurt me :)

It goes back to what the 'Canuk said. In physical based occupations, the requirements should be set by what is needed, not by sex. If the person is unable to handle the physical requirements, they should not be doing the job.

The Supreme Canuck
2007-Aug-08, 06:56 PM
I have to admit that I have a strong belief in affirmative action. It has been shown that lowering the bar now will give a disenfranchised group a starting point such that others will have those more ready to mentor them... after a point, the requirements can be made the same again...

And I have to admit I am not a fan of affirmative action. I see it as addressing symptoms rather than cause, and to be discriminatory in its own right. But that's not the discussion we're having - reasonable people can disagree here.

But affirmative action that involves lowering the minimum requirements for those characteristics that are universally required for the proper performance of the job? You really shouldn't do that. If you let people be soldiers who cannot run, cannot see, cannot shoot, or cannot carry a pack, you have a problem.

Now, I need to be careful here. I am in no way implying that all women are incapable of these things and that all men are capable of them. I'm simply saying that you cannot lower the bar in these areas for any group, or you end up with some soldiers who can their job, and some who cannot.

Equal entrance requirements seem like a very sensible solution to me, so long as you examine and deal with any discrimination that keeps any group from applying to be soldiers in the first place. Deal with the cause, not the symptoms.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Aug-08, 06:57 PM
So... then you wouldn't mind having the woman who is my friend who could easily drag 300 lbs around beside you in a foxhole...

Of course - that would be fine. As long as she's not some huge slob and can run 5 miles in full combat gear. It takes strength and endurance.

OK. I'm done with this "women in combat" subject. I've said what I feel.

Lurker
2007-Aug-08, 06:57 PM
Seems to be a lot of clarification going on.

What Paul and Tim were saying is that it was rather ironical you were apoligizing on Tim's bahalf for being impolite.
I was not apologizing on Tim's behalf... I was apologizing for myself because I wanted Halcyon1982 to know that not all members were as rude to new members as that...

I don't give a damn about how Tim wants to portray himself to new members...

Tucson_Tim
2007-Aug-08, 06:58 PM
I don't give a damn about how Tim wants to portray himself to new members...

Now, don't forget your self-proclamation. Something about being gentle? :)

korjik
2007-Aug-08, 06:59 PM
Well, no, we don't know what causes women to be more reluctant than men to ask for raises. It could be a result of anticipated discrimination - which could itself be a result of previous discrimination - it could be the result of social conditioning, and it could be something inherent.



My advisor would say that sounds like a dissertation topic :)

Halcyon1982
2007-Aug-08, 07:02 PM
Of course - that would be fine. As long as she's not some huge slob and can run 5 miles in full combat gear. It takes strength and endurance.

OK. I'm done with this "women in combat" subject. I've said what I feel.

I feel the same way about men. As long as he's not "some huge slob and can run 5 miles in full combat gear". Honestly. The insinuations that go with this amaze me. Just because someone can lift 300lbs does not nec. make them a slob...in most cases "slobs" cannot.

This whole thread has become rather trivial at times. Is there some way to steer away from flaming and maintain a modicum of relevance?

Lurker
2007-Aug-08, 07:04 PM
Of course - that would be fine. As long as she's not some huge slob and can run 5 miles in full combat gear. It takes strength and endurance.

OK. I'm done with this "women in combat" subject. I've said what I feel.
hmmm... I think I was pretty specific... I have seen her run with a backpack filled with weights for practice. As for the "As long as she's not some huge slob" comment does that make any difference if she, as I pointed out meets the basic qualifications.

Thank you for addressing my points concerning affirmative action...

Yeah, I am about done here, this seems to be, once again, too many sexist attitudes looking to justify themselves and not enough listening to such points as SeanF made that the inherent wage gap between men and women needs to be addressed regardless of the reasons it exists.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Aug-08, 07:04 PM
I feel the same way about men. As long as he's not "some huge slob and can run 5 miles in full combat gear". Honestly. The insinuations that go with this amaze me. Just because someone can lift 300lbs does not nec. make them a slob...in most cases "slobs" cannot.


Not true. I've seen guys in the gym that weighed over 300 lbs. Sure, they could bench 350, squat 450, deadlift 450 (poor lifts for their weight). But they couldn't run a 1/4 mile without dying. That's what I meant.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Aug-08, 07:06 PM
hmmm... I think I was pretty specific... I have seen her run with a backpack filled with weights for practice. As for the "As long as she's not some huge slob" comment does that make any difference if she, as I pointed out meets the basic qualifications.



See my response to Halcyon.

Click Ticker
2007-Aug-08, 07:07 PM
I wanted Halcyon1982 to know that not all members were as rude to new members as that...

I don't give a damn about how Tim wants to portray himself to new members...

Do we then drop our viel of propriety when responding to members that have made a certain number of posts? Or should we treat all members equal regardless of their post count?

Lurker
2007-Aug-08, 07:10 PM
See my response to Halcyon.
The only question here, is: "Is there a problem with a woman, who meets the quallifications that a man must meet, serving in a frontline fighting position. Its pretty much a yes or know question. The rest meaningless...

Disinfo Agent
2007-Aug-08, 07:10 PM
Do we then drop our viel of propriety when responding to members that have made a certain number of posts?Of course! After the tenth post, the gloves come off. And then there's the hazing period... :p ;)

Tucson_Tim
2007-Aug-08, 07:15 PM
The only question here, is: "Is there a problem with a woman, who meets the quallifications that a man must meet, serving in a frontline fighting position. Its pretty much a yes or know question. The rest meaningless...

Your a funny little guy! :lol:

Lurker
2007-Aug-08, 07:16 PM
Your a funny little guy! :lol:
So... was that a yes, a no, or a I don't want to give a direct answer to the question??

Tucson_Tim
2007-Aug-08, 07:21 PM
So... was that a yes, a no, or a I don't want to give a direct answer to the question??

This my last response to you. I already answered your question but since you won't go back and read, I'll re-phrase it: As long as the person is fit enough to pass a rigorous strength and endurance test, the same test for men and women, then yes, that person can serve in combat areas that require strength and endurance.

Now, from your previous post, that means that you couldn't serve but there are probably many women who can. :lol:

Now go bait someone else. :)

Click Ticker
2007-Aug-08, 07:26 PM
So... was that a yes, a no, or a I don't want to give a direct answer to the question??

First, I'll concede that I've never been in combat and never will be as the military won't take me.

I have heard concerns about the unique issues that would face a mixed gender combat unit from a psychological standpoint in highly stressful and violent situations. Now, I'm sure similar excuses were used back when they wouldn't allow mixed race combat units - so I'm not pretending to know one way or the other. Those with military experience could address this further if they so desire. Being non-military, I choose to not have an opinion.

Lurker
2007-Aug-08, 07:27 PM
This my last response to you. I already answered your question but since you won't go back and read, I'll re-phrase it: As long as the person is fit enough to pass a rigorous strength and endurance test, the same test for men and women, then yes, that person can serve in combat areas that require strength and endurance.

Now, from your previous post, that means that you couldn't serve but there are probably many women who can. :lol:

Now go bait someone else. :)
Well... I'd say that's a big I don't want to answer... sorry it was so much of an issue to type "yes" or "no"

Tucson_Tim
2007-Aug-08, 07:30 PM
Well... I'd say that's a big I don't want to answer... sorry it was so much of an issue to type "yes" or "no"

I accept your apology. :)

Paul Beardsley
2007-Aug-08, 07:40 PM
Yeah, I am about done here, this seems to be, once again, too many sexist attitudes looking to justify themselves and not enough listening to such points as SeanF made that the inherent wage gap between men and women needs to be addressed regardless of the reasons it exists.
Get over yourself, Lurker.

I see a lot of people asking sensible, considered questions, and listening to each other's answers. Occasionally misunderstanding, occasionally getting a little heated, but generally behaving as typical civilised BAUTers.

I see one sixteen year old who perhaps hasn't come across so well, but probably deserves a break because he's young and is finding it frustratingly difficult to make sense of it all.

And I see one person who is managing to twist people's words to come up with offensive inferences whilst maintaining a holier-than-thou attitude. Just like two days ago.

Lurker
2007-Aug-08, 07:43 PM
First, I'll concede that I've never been in combat and never will be as the military won't take me.

I have heard concerns about the unique issues that would face a mixed gender combat unit from a psychological standpoint in highly stressful and violent situations. Now, I'm sure similar excuses were used back when they wouldn't allow mixed race combat units - so I'm not pretending to know one way or the other. Those with military experience could address this further if they so desire. Being non-military, I choose to not have an opinion.
Hmmm... the Israelis have women in combat positions and seem to have a pretty effective fighting force. The Russians had women in combat positions during WWII and red army was a very fearsome fighting force. There are women in the action right now in Iraq and we have a pretty effective fighting force.

There are unique stresses in having blacks and whites, Muslims and Jews, northerners and southerners, republicans and democrats, gays and straights all serving together in the US military. During WW II, even though Japan was our bitter enemy, Japanese units in the US armed forces were some of the most highly decorated. In that same war, even though the US army had massacred or placed on reservations many of their ancestors, Native Americans served with great distinction and valor as code talkers for the US military. It is a great tribute to their abilities and sense of duty that they never gave away the secret and made communication between frontline units in the pacific absolutely secure. The Japanese never broke the code.


Now gentlemen... certainly with a long and distinguished history of successfully bring disparate elements of society into the military to fight for the common cause of freedom and democratic ideals, we have ability and conviction find a way to include women as well...

Lurker
2007-Aug-08, 07:45 PM
Get over yourself, Lurker.

I see a lot of people asking sensible, considered questions, and listening to each other's answers. Occasionally misunderstanding, occasionally getting a little heated, but generally behaving as typical civilised BAUTers.

I see one sixteen year old who perhaps hasn't come across so well, but probably deserves a break because he's young and is finding it frustratingly difficult to make sense of it all.

And I see one person who is managing to twist people's words to come up with offensive inferences whilst maintaining a holier-than-thou attitude. Just like two days ago.
I have been reading your posts... how some of the posters on this board can be so closed minded actually frightens me... to think that women in our society are expected to put up with such attitudes as enlightened...

Tucson_Tim
2007-Aug-08, 07:46 PM
Get over yourself, Lurker.

I see a lot of people asking sensible, considered questions, and listening to each other's answers. Occasionally misunderstanding, occasionally getting a little heated, but generally behaving as typical civilised BAUTers.

I see one sixteen year old who perhaps hasn't come across so well, but probably deserves a break because he's young and is finding it frustratingly difficult to make sense of it all.

And I see one person who is managing to twist people's words to come up with offensive inferences whilst maintaining a holier-than-thou attitude. Just like two days ago.

It's OK Paul. Like he's done several times before, Lurker will infer that everyone here is intellectually beneath him, then he'll say he hates it here, and then he'll disappear for a while. I guess maybe he's a lurker at heart. :)

Halcyon1982
2007-Aug-08, 07:48 PM
Alright, I'm off this thread because it has now reached proportions to the point where things should be said in PM rather then here...it has become too difficult to wade through everything to find responses to the OP.

I am not taking sides in the sub-thread that has been weaved here.

On a personal note: I do not expect to be treated any differently than any other poster- regardless of the number of postings. Yes, I have under ten (I believe) postings. I have tried to make each of them quality over quantity. I respect everyone that I come into contact with until I have reason not to. I do not look at number of posts as a level of respect. Again, quality over quantity (I am not, however, accusing anyone of making posts just to raise their numbers- I do not have the time to read through everyone's posts...I am just saying I do not use this a gauge over who I should respect/listen to more). I apologize if I have failed- at any point- to add insight to this conversation.

That being said- it's been an interesting read ladies and gents- I'll see you on another thread.

H.

Click Ticker
2007-Aug-08, 07:51 PM
Now gentlemen... certainly with a long and distinguished history of successfully bring disparate elements of society into the military to fight for the common cause of freedom and democratic ideals, we have ability and conviction find a way to include women as well...

Thanks. That's why I brought up the black and white issue as well. Those same excuses were used years ago to have segregated troops by race. They proved not to have much merit. I don't have any experience in this area and brought up and objection I've heard before. Perhaps poorly worded, but I was asking for the opinions of those with military experience if they've heard that view and what their take is on it.

I'll never have to deal with any of it. The military discriminates against people with plastic heart valves.

Lurker
2007-Aug-08, 07:58 PM
I bow out until the sexism in this thread drops to a lower lever, I have a suspicion this has become men preaching to men. Personally I would rather get a chance to listen to the women for a while...

Note to Spock Jenkins... I agree with you...

SeanF
2007-Aug-08, 08:02 PM
Yeah, I am about done here, this seems to be, once again, too many sexist attitudes looking to justify themselves and not enough listening to such points as SeanF made that the inherent wage gap between men and women needs to be addressed regardless of the reasons it exists.
Was that my point? :think: :lol:

I think we need to determine why it exists before we can effectively address it.

Paul Beardsley
2007-Aug-08, 08:10 PM
I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for the rather poor manners displayed by Tuscon_Tim, we, even Tucson_Tim, are not always quite so impolite....


I was not apologizing on Tim's behalf... I was apologizing for myself because I wanted Halcyon1982 to know that not all members were as rude to new members as that...

I don't give a damn about how Tim wants to portray himself to new members...

If you're holier-than-thou, you don't have to worry too much about being consistent.

On a more serious note... It bothers me that people are evidently wary of saying things that could be construed as sexist (or in some other way derogatory) even when there is clearly no bad intent. I've seen some intelligent posts where posters have sadly felt the need to anticipate every possible misinterpretation. It does not make for an atmosphere conducive to free thought.

Paul Beardsley
2007-Aug-08, 08:13 PM
Was that my point? :think: :lol:

I think we need to determine why it exists before we can effectively address it.

Yes. That was the kind of thinking I had when I was considering possible evolutionary reasons for the way we behave. It's a lot harder to work out how to fix something if you don't know how it works in the first place.

Michael Noonan
2007-Aug-08, 08:27 PM
Originally Posted by MIke
In a rough sense though you could say women are smarter in that they are able to make much better use with less.

note my selection. Much better than what?



Totally valid question and very well spotted. I was speaking of relative connectivity compared to actual mass purely in a mathematical sense. The use of the word 'better' was not qualified nor was 'less' with anything numerical and so fails the scientific method.

A brilliant thread you have started. It has provoked a lot of thought and made me realise just how careful words become on such important issues.

The lively spirit of the debate indicates just how important an issue you have raised is, an issue for which I am not qualified. :)

korjik
2007-Aug-08, 08:53 PM
Hmmm... the Israelis have women in combat positions and seem to have a pretty effective fighting force. The Russians had women in combat positions during WWII and red army was a very fearsome fighting force. There are women in the action right now in Iraq and we have a pretty effective fighting force.

There are unique stresses in having blacks and whites, Muslims and Jews, northerners and southerners, republicans and democrats, gays and straights all serving together in the US military. During WW II, even though Japan was our bitter enemy, Japanese units in the US armed forces were some of the most highly decorated. In that same war, even though the US army had massacred or placed on reservations many of their ancestors, Native Americans served with great distinction and valor as code talkers for the US military. It is a great tribute to their abilities and sense of duty that they never gave away the secret and made communication between frontline units in the pacific absolutely secure. The Japanese never broke the code.


Now gentlemen... certainly with a long and distinguished history of successfully bring disparate elements of society into the military to fight for the common cause of freedom and democratic ideals, we have ability and conviction find a way to include women as well...

Spoken like someone who has never been there.

I will answer your yes or no question directly: Yes, there is a problem with women serving in combat who are equally qualified as a man.

Before you, or anyone else, denounces me as a sexist, please tell me what you base your knowledge of wether women should be in combat on.

I base my decision on my experience during operation desert shield and operation desert storm. I was a sigint analyst in the 124th MI BN 24th ID(M) (if you dont know what that means, figure it out yourself).

I do not say that women cant be good soldiers, I have seen good women soldiers and bad male soldiers and vice versa. Some that I would have shared a foxhole with and not blinked.

I say that women in combat units are a problem. They add some complications to a unit that a male only unit dosent have. I am not going to go into details here, I do not think it is the right place, and I do realize that it is gasoline on the fire where some are concerned. I do say that I have made my decision based on my first hand experience. If you have the same expertise, go ahead and call me a fool. I have my reasons to think the way I do.

Lurker, the I quoted from you are all true. Armies can and will fight with women in the line, and they are capable of all the sacrifice and valour of any man, but that does not mean that it is a perfect solution, only the best one, or the necessary one.

Paul Beardsley
2007-Aug-08, 08:58 PM
korjik, I for one would like to hear more.

I always welcome insightful accounts from people who have done the things I have only imagined - and probably not imagined well.

mike alexander
2007-Aug-08, 09:17 PM
One interesting message weaving its way through this is the multiplicity of ways to define intelligence as a way of comparing different groups. We range from the physical measurements of brain size and neuronal interconnectivity to different measures of 'intelligence quotient' to statistical variance in test scores.

I will frimly resist the urge to weigh in on the whole intelligence quantification question right now, basically because I'd feel a bit like a Scientologist examining psychiatry. But I will note that through the history of this thing there have been people who have found a difference between two groups, marked the difference in the other group as inferior, and preened themselves as 'proven' superior. And the smaller or more inconsequential the difference the more it seems to matter.

I don't understand this. Intelligence without an application is about as useful as a chromosome without a body. Knowing how to mark up a test sheet with 'which shape is different' or 'the next number in the series is' wouldn't help me build a birchbark canoe in the eastern forest in 1600. And vice versa.
Context matters.


I ran across a source showing how men and women do on the verbal and mathematical sections of the SAT, using data over the past 30 years or so to show that women average about 30 points lower on the math tests, even as the average scores of both sexes have risen. This seemed to be used as an indicator of an innate superiority in math ability in men.
I may have missed it, but the question of why scores were rising in the first place didn't seem to have the same interest. Are both sexes getting smarter? Are both getting better at test taking? Is the SAT a poor indicator of relative ability?

mike alexander
2007-Aug-08, 09:25 PM
korjik wrote:
I was a sigint analyst in the 124th MI BN 24th ID(M) (if you dont know what that means, figure it out yourself).

C'mon, korjik. If you use highly specialized jargon from your own area of expertise in a forum it's just polite to define it the first time.

The Supreme Canuck
2007-Aug-08, 09:27 PM
Signals intelligence analyst, 124th Mechanized Infantry Battalion, 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized)?

Disinfo Agent
2007-Aug-08, 09:31 PM
I ran across a source showing how men and women do on the verbal and mathematical sections of the SAT, using data over the past 30 years or so to show that women average about 30 points lower on the math tests, even as the average scores of both sexes have risen. This seemed to be used as an indicator of an innate superiority in math ability in men.
I may have missed it, but the question of why scores were rising in the first place didn't seem to have the same interest. Are both sexes getting smarter? Are both getting better at test taking? Is the SAT a poor indicator of relative ability?It's as though some people were predisposed by nature to believe that they're better than everybody else.

Larry Jacks
2007-Aug-08, 09:40 PM
The only question here, is: "Is there a problem with a woman, who meets the quallifications that a man must meet, serving in a frontline fighting position. Its pretty much a yes or know question. The rest meaningless...

A few examples of 20th century military history come to mind.

1. The Soviet Union had a lot of women in combat positions. I don't know offhand if they served in the infantry but they were in a lot of ground units that saw combat. Some were very effective snipers. There were also women pilots who flew in combat including the "Night Witches" (flew night bombing missions) and fighter pilots. From this source (http://pratt.edu/~rsilva/index.htm):

Many other women also served integrated with men with other aviation units. For example, in 1944, 1,749 girls served with Zabaikalsky Front, 3,000 women and girls served with the Far East 10th Air Army, 437 women served with the 4th Air Army of the Second Belorussian Front that comprised the crack 46th Guards Women Air Regiment that comprised 237 women-officers, 862 sergeants, 1,125 enlisted women and 2,117 auxiliaries. They also served flying and as gunners in the famous Il-2 and Il-2M3 Shturmovik tank busters, the "Flying Bathtub".

Women-pilots of female air regiments engaged in dogfights, cleared the way for the advancing infantry and supported them in ground support missions. The fighter pilots of the all-women 586th IAP (Russian abbreviation for Fighter Aviation Regiment, same as Fighter Air Regiment) flew a total of 4,419 sorties (per pilot) and participated in more than 125 separate air battles, in which they massed a total of 38 confirmed kills. That is, the sorties when the enemy was actually encountered.

Sexism in the V-VS was high initially, male pilots refusing to fly with women as "wingmen", or fly airplanes that had been repaired or serviced by women mechanics and ground crew. But the demonstrated, and often superior, courage and great skill of these female soldiers proved their better than average competence to fullfil their duty. The USSR highly praised the combat deeds of female pilots: thousands won orders and medals. 29 won titles of Hero of the Soviet Union. 23 of these went to the Night Witches.

The part about "flew a total of 4,419 sorties (per pilot)" must be some kind of error. A sortee is a single mission by a single plane. If a pilot flies 10 missions, that's 10 sortees. If 10 planes fly a single mission, that's also 10 sortees.

2. In 1948, women served in combat in the Israeli military. The overall assessment was that it was a mistake because the men often exposed themselves to more danger trying to protect the women. From what I've read, Israeli women have not served in direct combat roles since then. They do provide valuable service to this day. I saw a "60 Minutes" program on them several years ago. Some of the women are used as weapons instructors. They've very skilled marksmen. Male ego being what it is, this spurs the men to work harder. They don't like being outdone by women. Clever!

3. Women have served in combat in guerrilla roles (such as the Viet Cong) with varying degrees of effectiveness.

4. Today, women can serve as fighter, attack, and bomber pilots in the US military. They also fly Army helicopters (at least the scout copters). They're doing very well.

As for women in direct ground combat roles, that's still prohibited by Congress for the US military. They do serve in dangerous roles like military police (very dangerous in Iraq right now). Jobs that require heavy lifting and fast moving (e.g. infantry, artillery) are still prohibited, for good reason based on my infantry experience.

Van Rijn
2007-Aug-08, 09:56 PM
I ran across a source showing how men and women do on the verbal and mathematical sections of the SAT, using data over the past 30 years or so to show that women average about 30 points lower on the math tests, even as the average scores of both sexes have risen. This seemed to be used as an indicator of an innate superiority in math ability in men.


The way I've heard it, it is supposed to show a tendency for men to be better at math, and women to be better at verbal skills. How much of that is due to cultural influences is up to debate, and certainly there are cultural influences, but it might hint at brain structure differences that make it a little easier for men (on average) to learn math and women (on average) to learn language. I'm sure somebody can work that into an argument for "superiority" for either sex if they want, but it doesn't make much sense.

korjik
2007-Aug-08, 10:54 PM
Signals intelligence analyst, 124th Mechanized Infantry Battalion, 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized)?

MI = Military Intelligence

Intel got the acronym before infantry mechanized :)

Other than that, dead on.

mike alexander
2007-Aug-08, 11:55 PM
Thanks, korjik! When I see MI, my minds links Mobile Infantry.

Read Starship Troopers at an impressionable age (1959?)

The Supreme Canuck
2007-Aug-09, 12:03 AM
MI = Military Intelligence

Intel got the acronym before infantry mechanized :)

Other than that, dead on.

Well, close. The redundant "mechanized" seemed wrong, somehow.

:think:

Tinaa
2007-Aug-09, 02:06 AM
In mod mode
Lurker, Tim, Paul, et. al., stop the bickering! Most of the last few pages was of y'all sniping at each other. Please don't let people you don't even know upset you. No warnings at this time, but please think before you hit submit! Your posts have almost derailed this thread.

Gillianren
2007-Aug-09, 06:30 AM
Speaking strictly as a female, here, I have seen very little on this thread that I consider sexist. Some of what I have seen has been from people standing up for the vagaries of my sex--and therefore generalizing that they exist.

Paul Beardsley
2007-Aug-09, 06:38 AM
Speaking strictly as a female, here, I have seen very little on this thread that I consider sexist. Some of what I have seen has been from people standing up for the vagaries of my sex--and therefore generalizing that they exist.
Can you give any specific examples?

novaderrik
2007-Aug-09, 07:56 AM
Speaking strictly as a female, here, I have seen very little on this thread that I consider sexist. Some of what I have seen has been from people standing up for the vagaries of my sex--and therefore generalizing that they exist.

some people think that just by pointing out that you have noticed any sort of difference between males and females, that you are automatically a sexist pig.
yo ucan think it, but you'd better not say it. it's the PC thing taken to a stupid extreme.
i personally blame it on feminist high school teachers in Australia..

Paul Beardsley
2007-Aug-09, 08:34 AM
some people think that just by pointing out that you have noticed any sort of difference between males and females, that you are automatically a sexist pig.
Yes, this is why I asked for specific examples in my last post.

For instance, if somebody addressed a large crowd saying, "The left bus is for the football match, the right bus is for the shoe-shopping trip," then I strongly suspect there would be a marked bias in the gender of who got on which bus.

So am I a sexist pig for strongly suspecting this? No, I am merely making working assumptions based on past experience. And, crucially, I am prepared to be surprised by a totally unexpected outcome.

novaderrik
2007-Aug-09, 09:00 AM
but there are guys who like shopping for shoes, and girls that like sports..
so your argument is invalid, and you are a sexist pig that needs to take sensitivity classes..


it's surprisingly easy to think like that...