In article  , Grizzlie
Antagonist   wrote:

> On 1 Mar 2005 07:33:56 -0800, "Ian"  wrote:
>
>>DO you think that Lawrence H. Summers, Harvard's president, stirred up
>>a hornets' nest by suggesting that women's brains are not genetically
>>wired for math or science? Wait until you hear Warren Farrell on the
>>subject of women's pay.
>>
>>Sure, Dr. Farrell accepts that women, as a group, are paid less than
>>men. But the way he sees it, using pay statistics to prove sex
>>discrimination is akin to using the horizon to prove that the world is
>>flat.
>>
>>Women, he believes, methodically engineer their own paltry pay. They
>>choose psychically fulfilling jobs, like librarian or art historian,
>>that attract enough applicants for the law of supply and demand to kick
>>in and depress pay. They avoid well-paid but presumably risky work -
>>hence, the paucity of women flying planes. And they tend to put in
>>fewer hours than men - no small point, he says, because people who work
>>44 hours a week make almost twice as much as those who work 34 and are
>>more likely to be promoted.
>>
>>In fact, Dr. Farrell points to subgroups - male and female college
>>professors who have never married, or men and women in part-time jobs -
>>in which women average higher pay than their male counterparts.
>>"Control for all these things, and the women make as much, or
more,"
>>said Dr. Farrell, 61, whose new book on the shaky myths of pay
>>disparity, "Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap -
>>and What Women Can Do About It" (Amacom), arrived in bookstores in
>>January. "Let's face it: men do a lot of things in the workplace that
>>women just don't do."
>
>
> This is not exactly new ground-breaking stuff.  It's just that a
> stuffy feminist news media TREATS it as new every time these points
> are raised.

Yeah, this was in last Sunday's paper. I read it while doing laundry. For
the Times, it's about par.
>
>
>
>>Ready to brand him a sexist? Wait, there's more. Dr. Farrell says he
>>thinks that the whole debate over gender-linked skills is superfluous.
>>"Men may well be hard-wired to be better at math, and women to excel at
>>verbal skills, but so what?" he asked. He said the human ability to
>>adapt to circumstances and limitations was equally hard-wired, and that
>>fascination with a field could easily trump innate abilities.
>
>
> I think that "Dr. Farrell" is overreaching here.
>
> All the fascination in the world with baseball won't allow me to hit a
> curve ball;

Not, perhaps if you'd had the passion to do so since your childhood and had
worked at it from that time.

> all the fascination in the world with sub-atomic particles won't allow Dr.
Farrell to split one.

He couldn't have become a physicist? Why not?

Deb.


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/3/05 1:38:43 AM ---