George wrote:
>  wrote in message
> news:1106089417.792253.51460{at}z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > George wrote:
> >> "Ian"  wrote in message
> >> news:1106077209.233153.31270{at}c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> > She wasn't a victim, any more than a short man is for telling
him
> > that
> >> > men are taller than women are on average, or telling Lawrence
> > Llewelyn
> >> > Bowen that women have a higher appreciation of colour due to the
> >> > construction of their optical areas of their brains.
> >> > Don't be such a child.
> >>
> >> I'm quite sure that you believe that load of horseshit.  That's
like
> > saying that
> >> women who are raped aren't victims because of the clothes they
wear.
> > It isn't a
> >> woman's fault that men can't control their bodily functions any
more
> > than it is
> >> a woman's fault that a man decides to get up on a podium and
> > pronounce that
> >> women can't do well in science and math (which is untrue) because
> > they aren't
> >> built for it (which is also untrue).
> >
> > This being Usenet, you may or may not be a guy. But you sure argue
like
> > a garden variety feminist bully.
>
> Why?  Because I happen to be a guy who respects women instead of
thinking of
> them as property or beauty objects created for my amusement?

You are making things up out of thin air. Nobody said anything
about women-as-objects but you. It could be observed that you seem way
eager to say how you do not do that.


>
> > 1. You have brought the subject of rape several times now despite
its
> > lack of relevance to the topic.
>
> It has to do with attitudes. As in the male attitude that it is
somehow a
> woman's fault that men treat them badly,


Or that it is always mens fault if women do not get whatever they
want? That is the heart of your nurture/nature argument. If women are
not doing world class math in equal numbers it could not possibiliby be
because of their choices, right? The idea that simple inherited nature
might have a role is rejected outright because then there would be no
way to blame "men".

or falsely believe that they don't have
> an ability that they obviously have.  Being a man, I hear this kind
of thing
> every day, and is is as untrue today as it was the first time I heard
it.  Sorry
> if that makes you think I'm a woman.

You argue like a feminist. The same mix of near hysterical use of
the rape card, using personal antecdotes as argument, the same
insecurity that manifests itself in crude physical threats for no good
reason at all.

My baseball bat across your forehead could
> easily prove otherwise,


if that is what it takes to prove that my balls hang as
> low as yours.  Fortunately for you, I'm not a violent man.
>
> > 2. You refer to mens sexuality as "their bodily functions" which
they
> > cannot control. Lesbians talk that way. I have never heard an
actual
> > man talk that way.
>
> You don't talk to many guys, do you?  I bet when you have sex with
women, you're
> pdq, aren't you?

You are not making sense.


>
> > 3. You over state the harshness of the argument that you oppose in
> > order to claim victim status. The Harvard dude did not say that
"women
> > can't do well in science."
>
> He detailed three reasons for which fewer women have faculty
positions at elite
> universities than their male counterparts.
> "Women have children and don't want to work as hard as it takes to
get to the
> top," His second reason was purportedly women's
"aptitude", implying
that they
> don't have an innate ability to learn the material, which is
certainly not true.
>
> > He was asked to provide some thought
> > provoking and controversial ideas about the plain fact that even
the
> > most stringent removal of discrimination in many companies and
> > universities has not given those institutions a flood of talented,
> > heretofore unfairly blocked women scientist and engineers. He
merely
> > mentioned the possibility that few women have the mental wiring to
be
> > a world class engineer.
>
> The reason is nurture, not nature.  The reason there isn't a flood of
women
> pouring into these fields is because of the social barriers women
face.


If this were really true, it would be a simple matter for a company
to make every effort to open its doors to women scientists and
engineers and instantly soar past all the dumb, lazy guy competition.
If people really believed this, they would run to invest in such
companies or start them themselves. Afterall, it would be a sure thing,
right?Because they have to be better just to survive, right?




Yes,
> there is "equal opportunity" from the government's end, for what
that's worth.
> But that doesn't mean that women aren't discriminated against, or at
the least,
> not encouraged to go into these fields.  The fact is that many women
are
> discouraged from going into them.  Ask any woman who has experienced
it and she
> will tell you the same thing.

How convenient. Offer someone a free, all purpose-excuse and they
take it. As if guys don't have to overcome barriers. Starting with an
educational gulag that is customed made to fit the needs of little
girls at the expense of little boys - unless you think they are not
really different.


>
> > It is true that huge numbers of women are in Medicine in the US,
> > the UK, and Canada. And in each of those places, despite all the
money
> > needed to buy housekeepeers, baby-sitters, or househusbands, vast
> > numbers simply retire after 10 years or so.
>
> Many leave the field for various reasons, not the least of which is
> discrimination in the work place,

Bull-Fucking-Shit You just totally lost me. Women Docs have open
doors and have for decades.

and too big a work load because of the
> national chronic shortage of medical workers.

A big reason for the national crisis in medical Docs is that one
half of medical school classes are women and about 50% of them quit
altogether after ten years or so.
The one thing you are consistent about is the need to exonerate
women from any responsibilty for their own choices.


>
> > Maybe, if you try, you
> > could connect this phenomenon to the lack of full time gung-ho
female
> > engineers.
>
> I know many engineers. Many of the ones I've talked to who don't like
women
> engineers think they have no business in the business.  Some who I've
talked to
> think they aren't qualified, but most simply take the good old boy
attitude that
> it's a "man's world", and women have no place in it (unless they are
horny or
> hungry, of course).  But then, most of those guys are lousy engineers
and
> probably feel threatened by the thought of a woman doing a better job
than them.
> I know several women engineers, and they are all quite competent at
their jobs,
> and make a hell of a lot more money than I do.

Bingo. You are dependent on your smart hard working wife and live
in fear of crossing her.
Some guys in your situation would also feel the need to brandish a
"baseball bat" to hide their shame.

Free Hint: Women have secret contempt for a guy who appears to
believe in the feminist party line. On the other hand, they often give
them chores to do.

>
> > But we have all seen your ilk here before. Every answer to these
> > questions will be a variation of "Men strong and bad" 
"Women
helpless
> > and good."
> > If you are a guy at all, you are the type who is easily conned.
>
> Oh.  Ok.  Anything you say.  NOT!


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/18/05 10:34:32 PM ---