Hyerdahl3 wrote:
> >Subject: Re: "Panel rebukes Harvard president"
> >From: "Ben" ArGee45{at}hotmail.com
> >Date: 1/28/2005 7:41 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: 
> >
> >
> >Hyerdahl3 wrote:
> >> >Subject: Re: "Panel rebukes Harvard president"
> >> >From: "Ben" ArGee45{at}hotmail.com
> >> >Date: 1/27/2005 4:39 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id:

> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Hyerdahl3 wrote:
> >> >> >Subject: Re: "Panel rebukes Harvard president"
> >> >> >From: greg1199{at}yahoo.com
> >> >> >Date: 1/21/2005 12:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >> >Message-id:
> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >yared22311{at}yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> >> Panel rebukes Harvard president
> >> >> >> A university faculty committee chastised
Harvard University
> >> >President
> >> >> >> Lawrence H. Summers on Tuesday for remarks
he made at an
> >> >off-campus
> >> >> >> conference last week that suggested he does
not think women
> >have
> >> >the
> >> >> >> same "innate" or
"natural" ability in math and the sciences
as
> >> >men.
> >> >> >> at
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050120-120237-1942r.htm
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You'll note that this panel didn't bother to refute the
content
> >> >of>Summers'
> >> >> statements.
> >> >>
> >> >> His comments were of a sexist nature
> >> >
> >> >No, they absolutely were not.  Perhaps you didn't take the time
to
> >read
> >> >all his comments in context, preferring instead to just glance
over
> >the
> >> >NOW cribsheet.
> >> >
> >> >> and not worth refuting.  Most people
> >> >> understand that women already are doing everything men are
doing,
> >> >PLUS
> >> >> gestating.
> >> >
> >> >No, they're not.  Until and unless women are present in all the
> >> same>occupations that men are, in the same numbers, they're not
> >> doing>everything men are doing.
> >>
> >> Sure they are;  "doing everything" and "doing
everything in the
same
> >number"> are two different things dear.  In order to prove that
women can do
> >the work,> we only need to show one or two that do.  That doesn't
mean that
> >many, many>> women WANT to do X.    Too bad you're so illogical.
> >
> >Illogical?  Let's look at that for a moment.  One of your pet peeves
is>the
> amount of housework a man does or doesn't do.
>
> Sure.  We can use that as an example; most men CAN do unpaid work but
choose
> not to do so.

So they're not doing everything women are doing.  I see.

>  Most women don't discriminate when men offer to do the dishes,
> or laundry or clean the toilet.  :-)

Most men wouldn't discriminate if the women wanted to do the dirtier
and more dangerous work around the home either...do you see that
happening?

>
>   If I use your logic,>all a man has to do is cook one meal a year or
do one
> load of laundry,>or whatever, and he's doing everything women are
doing (PLUS
> the rest>of the unpaid work).
>
> You are unable to use logic, Ben.

I'm unable to use *your* "logic", Hy--it's really not logic so much as
it is a self-serving platitude that makes an exaggerated claim in order
to obfuscate an issue.

>  That both women and men can do unpaid work
> doesn't mean they do it in the same amount.  The fact that men can
clean a
> toilet doesn't mean they do their fair share.

And there you go.  So all of a sudden, if men aren't doing the same
amount, they're not doing their "fair share".  But if women constitute
5% of heavy machine operators, they're "doing everything men are doing
PLUS gestating".  lol  Nope, nothing self-serving about that.

> AND, women are still doing everything men are doing PLUS gestating,
meaning
> that they CAN, not that they MUST.

Obviously, they're not doing everything men are doing.

>  OTOH, if women are pissed that men aren't
> doing their share of the unpaid work, they can divorce such a man if
they so
> choose.
> >
> >No, if 1,000 men are doing a certain type of work for a certain
number>of
> hours a year, then 1,000 women need to be doing the same thing
for>the same
> amount of hours to be doing "everything men do".
>
> ????  Why?   Men can  divorce women, if they choose, if women don't
change >the
> oil and women can divorce men, if they choose for not doing their
share of >the
> housework.  Divorce is an equal opportunity devise.  :-)

Which, of course, is a dodge of my statement.

>
> >And it doesn't matter if women WANT to do a certain type of work
or>not--if
> they're not doing it in the same numbers, they're not
doing>everything men >are
> doing.
>
> Yes they are doing everything men are doing, whether or not in the
same >number.

You're contradicting yourself.  If it's not the same numbers, they're
not doing everything men are doing.  If a woman and I go to lunch and
we both eat $20 worth of food, and I pay $35 and she pays $5, is she
paying for her meal just like I am?

> AND, what's more, is they need not.

They do if they want to claim they're doing everything men are doing.
It's just that simple.

>  If discrimination is preventing women >from
> getting work, feminists will fight discrimination, not women's
choices.  :-)
>
> >So it's really not a matter of logic or illogic, it's more a matter
of
> >you trying to claim credit for something women aren't doing.
>
> But I'm not, Ben.  I have no vested interest in having more women
CHOOSE >sewer
> work, but if women are being discriminated against in getting those
jobs, I
> will fight for their EQUAL RIGHT to that opportunity.  See how that
works?

Which is different that women doing everything men are doing--which
they're not.

>
>  Now, if>you want to say that there isn't a career field that doesn't
have
> women
> >in it, that's a different matter, and is entirely more accurate
than>some
> self-serving exaggeration.
>
> No, Ben...women are still DOING everything men are DOING regardless
of what
> number of women there are.  That is a factual statement and not a
mere >opinion.

Until and unless they're present in the same numbers doing the same
work, they're not doing everything men are doing.

>  There is not one line of work women cannot pursue.

*That's* a factual statement.  It's the first one you've made with
regards to this topic.  Yes, women are present in all the career fields
men are in.

>  What you would like to
> do...but CAN'T is make women's doings depend on the number of women
doing the
> doing.  :-)  Sorry Charlie.

I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything.  But even by your own
admission, women aren't doing everything men are doing.

>
> There's also nothing wrong with wondering if over- or
under-representation in a
> given field is due to gender differences.
>
> There is always something wrong with stereotyping a social group
instead of
> concentrating on finding out how that group can be more included.
It's called
> discrimination.The very nature of his> statement is based on the
stereotyping
> >of groups.
> >> >
> >> >"Stereotyping" that appears to be borne out across
cultures,>across>time,
> and> with no small amount of scientific backing.  But I realizeall of
that
> falls because Ms. Hopkins felt like she was going to>"black
>out".
Apparently,
> a bit of a challenge was enough to give her the
> >vapors.  Care to talk about casting yourself in a
stereotypical>role?
> >> >
> >> Sterotyping is wrong dear; it's just that simple.
> >
> >So how is it stereotyping if it appears as a constant?  Why not ask
the
> >question "why"?
>
> Well, most men "appear" to me as being sexists, and yet, my sons are
not.

Given your past description of how feminist they are, I'm betting they
*are* sexist.

>And
> my views have spanned the test of time.

Uh-huh...like a KKK member's views concerning blacks have spanned the
test of time.

> :-)   If I label men in group X as sexists simply because they ARE
men, that
> makes me a bigot, Ben.

And a gender feminist.

>   That's why I don't do that.  :-)  If I do label a
> particular man or group of men, I do it based on his or their own
>performance.

As you interpret it according to what you think they *should* be doing
or saying.

> (edit)
>
> >> Stereotyping is when you apply a group reasoning for a
particular>member of
>  that group, i.e. most blacks are lazy because they don't have jobs.
> X group >is>> black; X is therefore lazy.  The whole problem above is
a
> stereotype
> >first assuming that African American prefer to be out of work
rather than
> considering what's keeping them out and then by transferring that
stereotype
> >to
> >> other group members.
> >
> >It's pretty clear that there are innate differences between the
sexes
> >*because* they're different genders.
>
> Sure.  Women gestate; men don't.  And there are some other
physiological
> differences but NONE that should amount to exlusion or discrimintion.
A >better
> question to ask might be what is preventing social group "X" from
being
> included in the process.   No, this isn't about special rights here,
but >rather
> looking at whatever forms of discrimintion,if any, exist.

Well, let's use an example.  The research also suggests that women as a
group have an advantage with regards to verbal skills and an ability to
multi-task.  Let's say the majority of U.N. interpreters are women.  If
one were to look at that and ask why, it would certainly be a valid
question as to whether or not women's strengths in these areas are a
factor.

Nothing discriminatory there.  Now, I think we all agree that even if
there are gender-related differences in groups, you'll still find
individuals within the groups who are outside the norms.  Any
discrimination, I would think, would be if the U.N. took the position
that *only* women were suitable for that position because of group
characteristics and refused to consider a man who was as talented as
the women in the testing process--or worse, refuse to let men take the
test at all.

Now, this doesn't mean for a second that I think the U.N. would
discriminate against male interpreters like that--the only
discrimination I ever see the U.N. engage in is protecting tyrants and
dictators.

>
>   Feminists love to make this claim
> >anytime they think it points out their 'superiority', so why is
an>exploration
> of it all of a sudden taboo?  Differences don't mean>inferiority,
just
> predisposition.
> >
> Sure, as long as those "differences" aren't used to keep women out of
math >and
> science.  AND, that was the very reasoning this particular man was
using some
> perceived difference.

No, he was asking *why*.  It's a perfectly legitimate question.

>   Perhaps men should only be fathers based on their
> ability to gestate, eh?  :-)

I'll go along with that...30 seconds after women can only be fathers
based on their ability to produce sperm.

>
> >Of course, NOW is trying to use this as leverage to put women
in>positions
> regardless of merit.
>
> How did NOW implement that?  :-)

I said they're *trying* to.


I wonder...if, because some men do some housework and child care, and
most men CAN do that type of work, would it be accurate to say men are
doing everything women are doing PLUS inseminating PLUS doing the bulk
of the grunt work that moves society along?  Hmmmm  After all, there's
no career field women are in that doesn't have men in it.
Whaddya think?  Accurate statement?



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/29/05 1:41:09 AM ---