George wrote:
> "Ian"  wrote in message
> news:1106243822.690414.44240{at}z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > George wrote:
> >> "Ian"  wrote in message
> >> news:1106228973.057332.204900{at}c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > George wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Once the cat's out of the bag, it's a little late to
be whining
> > about
> >> > what
> >> >> coulda, shoulda, woulda been.  You'd have a lot of fruitless
fun
> >> > trying to prove
> >> >> that the woman wasn't using contraception (some women get
pregnant
> >> > despite using
> >> >> it faithfully), and the question will always come up as to why
YOU
> >> > didn't use
> >> >> contraception to protect yourself as well as the women you are
> > having
> >> > sex with.
> >> >> You are still responsible for your bodily functions regardless
of
> >> > whether you
> >> >> trust someone else or not. After the fact, the
attention should
be
> >> > put on the
> >> >> coming child, as it is that one who is ultimately the innocent
one
> > in
> >> > that
> >> >> situation.
> >> >
> >> > So we shouldn't allow women to kill unborn children then? It's
ok
> > for a
> >> > woman to murder a child, but not ok for a man to simply not
provide
> > it
> >> > with money.
> >>
> >> I must say.  You certainly have a way with putting words into the
> > mouths of
> >> others.  Ultimately, that is the mother's decision, since it is
her
> > body that
> >> has to carry the child to term.  As for the father, regardless of
> > what ther
> >> mother decides, he still has a responsibility to the mother and to
> > the child,
> >
> > Surely you mean you think he should have a responsibility to the
mother
> > and the
> > child.
>
> I meant what I said.  Legally, if not morally, he has a
responsibility to both.
> That's why we have child support laws, to force dead-beat dads to
help provide
> support for these children.
>

What you say are the legal and moral responsibilities that a woman
owes to a man when she has lied to him concerning the paternity of
"their child'? The one he has supported believing it was actually
related to him?
A side issue, how often do you think this happens? Hint: DNA
testing is going to do more for mens rights than anything else in
history.
Speaking of dead beats - women assessed Child support do not pay
any more regularly than men.


> >
> >> whether it is providing for the child and the mother's welfare
since
> > he
> >> certainly assisted in the child's conception, or assisting the
mother
> >
> >> financially and perhaps emotionally shoulc she decide or for
health
> > reasons be
> >
> > What if the man feels for emotional reasons or decide the pregnancy
be
> > terminated? (You needn't answer that, I've established your
position.)
>
> Then why ask it if you already know the answer?
>
> >> compelled to terminate the pregnancy. But that, of course, has
> > nothing to do
> >> with a woman's ability to do science an math, does it?
> >
> > Actually yes it does. The ability of woman to provide a womb for a
> > child,
> > has inadvertantly contributed to the evolution of the female mind.
> > Technical problem solving was never big on the female mind's list
of
> > requirements in the Stone Age, nor was explicit hunting. These were
> > male
> > tasks, and as such it's men who are predisposed to the ability to
do
> > them
> > well.
>
> If you believe that, I've got some swampland in Florida I'll sell you
for a
> song. Take your wife and kids and go live in the wilderness for a
year without
> modern conveniences.  I think you'll find that the woman does a hell
of a lot
> more than you think.
>
> > For women the exhibition of such skils is not relevant. This
> > doesn't
> > mean women can't do them, merely that they don't need to, they just
> > need
> > to carry the genes to pass to their male children, who do need to
> > present
> > the skills.
>
> Sorry, but you're misinformed about the difficulties women in
primitive
> societies face.
>
> > As it's not a requirement that women present problem solving
skills,
> > then
> > they are much less likely to be selected out if they can't do them.
Men
> >
> > on the other hand, are guaranteed to be selectively reduced. It
follows
> > that
> > in an evolving human society, male brains are going to be better on
> > average at technical problem solving.
>
> Try reading up on a subject before you try to claim an expertise in
it.  May I
> suggest these books?
>
> Coming of Age in Samoa in 1928 and Growing Up in New Guinea in 1930.
Author -
> Margaret Mead.
>
> > This fits in exactly with my observations, and that of my father,
who
> > used
> > to love all people, but commented that some men couldn't string
> > coherent
> > sentences together, and that women had "no mechanical knowledge."
>
> Apparently some corporations (as well as I) think that idea is "old
hash".
>
> http://web.vtc.edu/WIT/wanted.htm
>
> > Admittedly my father was an outstanding engineer and problem
solver,
> > who
> > could fix anything, often with nothing more than "palm fronds and
snot"
> > so it was possible he was looking with biased eyes. This in itself
> > though
> > is the exception that proves the rule.
>
> Nuts.
>
> > It's a simple fact, I have more female friends than men, they don't
get
> > drunk and smash your teeth in for one thing, and they have tits to
look
> > at, and I've worked in hundreds of departments of dozens of
companies,
> > in fields ranging from finance to retail to government to rocket
> > science;
> > and while there are some things that women do much better than men,
> > it's
> > simply ludicrous to suggest that the sciences and maths is one of
them.
>
> http://www.astr.ua.edu/4000WS/4000WS.html
>
> > The possibility that it's because "of society" that
women choose to
> > have
> > Phds in English Literature and not Physics, is simply not
> > representative
> > of the world. I know dozens of clever women, I've dated many of
them,
> > and
> > only one has been up there in scientific ability with say, the top
30
> > engineers who are male. (Incidentally, her sisters presented
extreme
> > scientific ability too. Which is something that fits in with the
> > rules.)
>
> Rules?  Oh, you mean mens' rules, right?  especially the one that
says that
> women shoul be barefoot and pregnant, at home making dinner for the
hubby?
>
> > Even she would admit that
> >
> >
>
> My geologist/mathematician wife would tell you that you are sadly
mistaken if
> you believe that women cannot do science.  So would Sally Ride,
Judith Resnick
> (if she were alive), at least four other women astronauts, and
countless women
> who have made substantial contributions to science and math over the
last 200
> years.  When we, as scientists, wear blinders, about anything, we
fail. I have
> never seen science succeed by using only one view, by using only one
tool, by
> using only one person's thoughts, by looking at something only one
way. We
> cannot back out of some invention, some theory, some solution whether
or not the
> originator was female or male. We need to celebrate these women and
raise them
> to be heros. Understanding of science and technology will only
strengthen our
> life, our work and our world. Solutions to problems come from
research, thought
> and technology. By the end of the 20th century women by the thousands
were
> achieving advanced degrees in all the technical fields. It took 188
years for
> American women to get the vote; in the last 15 years American women
earned over
> 15,000 Ph.D.s in technical fields. Graduate schools in medicine and
dentistry
> are routinely 50% female. Astronomy has over 30% of its graduates
students who
> are women.  Sorry, your delusion that women can't do science and math
is not
> substantiated by the facts.  Not at all.
>
> >> Yes, I realize that there are more men who are considered to be
> > "geniuses" (some
> >> describe "genius" as being one footstep away from
insanity).  I
also
> > am quite
> >> aware that there are more men who are simply as "dumb as
a brick".
> > You can rest
> >> assured that the average woman doesn't have these afflictions,
which
> > also gives
> >> her an advantage because she is of stable mind.
> >
> > A facile point. You were holding your own so well until you wrote
that.
> > Precisely because there are more men at both ends of the scale, is
why
> > there are more men who are good at maths and science. Maths and
Science
>
> More men?  51% of the population of the planet consists of women.
What
> majority, other than in sports, do you think men have that wasn't
given to them
> by design (and I'm not talking about heavenly design)?  That there
are more men
> at both intellectual extremes doesn't support your contention that
women can't
> do science and math.  What men can or cannot do is irrelevant to what
women are
> capable of doing.
>
> > requires high IQ people, by definition.
>
> What does 1+1=?  I think you know the answer to that equation, no?
Good.  Then
> you also know that it didn't take a high IQ to figure out the answer.
It takes
> proper education, and a conducive educational environment.
>
> >>
> >> > This fact alone proves that something else is happening. Also,
> > women have a
> >> > keener
> >> > sense of
> >> > colour, smell. This has been proved by experiment, you can do it
> >> > yourself if
> >> > you like.
> >>
> >> That's the operative word here, isn't it?  Fear.  Are you afraid
that
> > a woman
> >
> > No. As I have previously pointed out in many earlier posts I've
made on
> > this
> > thread, there are many things women do better than I. Fear doesn't
> > compute
> > anyway. It's irrational. It doesn't help. I'm a man out to win the
> > argument,
> > and my point is that women do some things better than men, and vice
> > versa.
> > For the purpose of this argument, the things that men do better is
> > Maths and
> > Science.
>
> Throughout this argument, no one has defined how you measure "better
than".  Was
> Einstein better than Madam Curie?  It's a pointless argument, since
both made
> significant contributions to science and to the modern world.  This
measuring of
> penises and vaginas is not only pointless, it is not an appropriate
measure of
> the worth of scientific acheivement by both men and women.
>
> >> might be better than you at any particular thing, or are you just
one
> > of those
> >> who thinks that women have no place in the work force simply
because
> > you feel it
> >> isn't "her place", whatever you may feel that may be?
> >
> > I'm neither. I support women's choice, but I also support the
choice of
> >
> > employers to employ the best man for the job, even if it is a
woman.
>
> But not in science or math?
>
> > My position isn't that no woman should work in engineering.
>
> You are going to have a very hard time explaining your position to
these women:
>
> http://www.swe.org/SWE/RegionE/Regenpf.htm
>
> > My position is that on average, I'd expect to see far more men in
the
> > engineering
> > department
> > of a large company than women. This is because, based on unbiased
> > observation
> > I believe men are better at maths, and women are better linguists.
> >
>
> That is not an unbiased observation.  More men have traditionally
been engineers
> because it has been one of the most male-oriented technical fields
for many many
> years, and not because women don't make good engineers, but because
engineers
> have traditionally been extremely reluctant to let women enter the
field.  Your
> father is proof of that.  The proportion of women entering
engineering is
> significantly lower than those pursuing other scientific
disciplines," said NAE
> President Wm. A. Wulf. "For example, in 1995, 35 percent of all life
scientists
> were women, but only 9 percent of all engineers were women.
Engineering is a
> "old boy" discipline, and always has been.  Your own father's
attitude towards
> the idea of women becoming engineers is just one more example.
>
> >>
> >> > It's innate differences in the functioning.
> >>
> >> Last time I looked, having a keen sense of color and smell was an
> > evolutionary
> >
> > It is for women, I agree. For men it isn't. I'd expect men to have
> > better
> > straight line sight, and spatial awareness, because they're useful
> > tools
> > for hunting.
>
> How many men in western society do yiou know personally who still
make their
> living primarily from hunting and gathering?  This example is old
hash, and is
> irrelevant in today's modern world.
>
> > And lo and behold men have. I'd expect women to have
> > better
> > observation of colour and smell, because assessing food you're just
> > about

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 100