Hyerdahl wrote:

> Dustbin wrote:
>
>>(edit)
>
>
>>Are there (brain) differences? Of course there
>>are. It is blindingly obvious that there are
>>differences; it is tantamount to a mental
>>deficiency to deny that there are brain
>>differences. We would not be here if there were
>>not differences. Anyone who says there are no
>>brain differences between males and females is
>>denying the legitimacy of Darwin! Ugh! Yes.
>>That's right. To deny brain differences between
>>males and females is to deny Darwin.
>>
>
> The question is not one of whether or not there ARE some  brain
> differences, but rather whether those differences preclude any one
> group (male or female) from achieving equally.

That is, by virue of the fact, an absurdity. If
the brains work differently and have influences
upon our behaviour and ability in various tasks,
equality is a nonsense.

D.

   Obviously, if there are
> brain differences, and I think there are some, those differences should
> inspire us to teach to that difference.  IOW, if we all deserve equal
> rights by virtue of being human then...how best to teach with those
> differences.
You introduce the arbitrary requirement of
equality on the basis only of the fact that we
reproduce together (e.g., are of the same
species) and then expect it to extend to
whatever suits you.

This is not a valid expectation.

D.
  Also, if you are going to compare the
differences between
> female and male brains, you should also talk about what they have in
> common;  their brains and bodies have much more that's similar than
> different.
>
Idiot. It is not what is the same that is
interesting it is what is different.

D.
>  When I first read about the brain differences in
>
>>Jessel, D., and Moir, A. (1989) *Brainsex,*
>>London. Michael Joseph, I thought to myself -
>>why didn't I realise that before. It is bloody
>>obvious. There have to be differences. Evolution
>>requires it.
>
>
> Well, evolution requires many differences, not just between sexes, but
> between individuals.  That's why folks no longer intermarry.
>
Pointless. Do you ever actually address a point
in a valid way?

D.
>>Boys are different from girls.
>
>
> Girls and boys are much more alike than different, but they certainly
> are not the same.  The question then becomes whether or not we hold
> what one sex DOES higher than what the other does.
It is a pity that you have not read some of my
other posts. A while ago I wrote about the
problem of women's traditional role not being
respected and appreciated enough. It is not a
question of superior or inferior but of
differing talents applied where they are best
suited. But you idiots want to be men - and you
can't be.

D.

   Do we put more
> funding into competetive sports or things like swimming and tennis, for
> example.  Equal funding might be nice.  :-)
>
>  I will take it > that you folks have worked that out. But this >
> difference is key to our very existence; e.g. to
>
>>the process of reproduction, our evolution and,
>>thus, our presence here today. However, that
>>requires that the two animals *behave* in
>>different ways. She has boobs. She has the boobs
>>because *she* must provide for the child when
>>born. There is no guarantee that he is going to
>>be around. In the natural environment: the
>>jungle, they meet, copulate and part company. At
>>any time he may well die by whatever means. She
>>cannot assume that he is going to be there to
>>help. There is no assumption that he should be
>>there. Hence the female has to evolve the food
>>sacks (tits) to provide the initial feeding for
>>the new-born. On the other hand, should anything
>>happen to her the foetus is lost too. Nature has
>>ensured that *he* is not essential beyond the
>>insemination and conception process.
>>
>
> Well, each man, like each woman is just as "essential" as they become
> to the child.  It's an individual thing.  And children do survive
> without the teat, today.  There is formula.
Idiotic crap. Address the point. You didn't
fucking well evolve formula you twot. The brain
is an evolved organ; as will be any differences
therfore it is perfectly valid to point out that
fe,males have evolved the tits for a reason.

What did you crancky twats do 5,000,000 years
ago: pop down Wall-Mart for some formula?

Jerk.

D.

   Men raise kids alone; so
> do women.  Trying to say that women must be slaves to their own tits
> doesn't impress me.  :-)  And, in the meantime, it's likely that a
> breast feeding woman has been your boss.  :-)  Insecure men are so
> pathetic.
>
This must rank as one of the most laughable
posts that I have ever tried to respond to. It
only serves to demonstrate that you cannot
answer the original post.

My original point was that a recent survey has
found that only 1% of women *WANT* a career as a
priority. In other words, 99% don't want their
carreer to be the dominant feature of the their
existence. From that I went on to point out that
it is these 1% that strive to occupy key
positions in the media, law, etc.etc. And, from
that position mis-represent the hopes and
aspirations of large numbers (the great of
majority) women.

The whole discussion of brain differences is
secondary to the survey data and original point;
and is used to explain why it is that, largely,
women, in fact, want a more traditional role.

This sticks in your craw and so you slide over
the key data and point. Now face up to it;
either get back in the kitchen where you belong
or admit that you are one of the 1% who are the
total weirdos.

D.
>
>
>
>>(edit).
>
>
>>Dustbin.
>
>





--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/28/05 4:46:43 PM ---