Log in

View Full Version : Women: The Thread



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7

xdamage
12-01-2007, 05:15 PM
It was a small academic conference on diversifying the field of science and engineering. So again - not sure what you are getting at. Like are you saying that because it was a conference given by the National Bureau of Economic Research, that economics were imbued with a background in biology? Or that it was less ill judged? I don't get it.


Your argument is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because they brought in Steven Pinker (a leader in the field of Evo Psych) to defend Summers in a follow up conference and the feminists who opposed Evo Psych and Sociobiology STILL opposed it for the same reasons, so it's entirely NOISE as to who reported the research.

And the fact is that the women in the audience really weren't experts in Evo Psych either, or even their own fields. They hadn't included alternative research because they had an agenda and if they had, they wouldn't have had such problems with Mr. Summer's points.

Look the fact is that the situation is entirely analogous to what has happened in the cases of:

o Is the Earth at the center of the Universe and the church's fear and fight of evidence to the contrary.

o Is the Earth flat or round.

o Is Evolution valid or should the Creationists be allowed to believe as they do without any argument to the contrary.

You Jenny, are on the side of the old school, the obsolete belief, hanging on for dear life because like humans before you, you have your pride, and personal beliefs and benefits intertwined in obsolete and false popular think.

All Lawerence Summers did is present modern research and arguments. It's tough that you are 15 years behind, but the fact is, school does not always teach you what is the latest thing on the horizon. Your obsolete views about human behavior are being challenged, and have been for 15 years +, and it it won't be long before what Summers said will be treated as fact, because frankly, what he is talking about MUCH better matches scientific data then the 30 years old feminist view that all things are socially trained.

It isn't the first or last time in history that old ideas will be over turned.

Sh0t
12-01-2007, 07:20 PM
Stripperweb women are crazy fyi.

ALL OF YOU ARE ANNOYING ME NOW FOR VARIOUS REASONS, and you know who are you

Richard_Head
12-01-2007, 09:46 PM
I never imagined this thread being this boring.

Dirty Ernie
12-01-2007, 11:50 PM
Sh0t, you must never say all, you can only say most, or some , or studies show most responders tend to annoy sh0t. In an effort to get you closer to the goal of all, I submit the following: You look at a concert ticket and regret the money you spent, somewhere some woman thinks back on that concert and regrets the sex. ;D

Casual Observer
12-02-2007, 07:01 AM
Lawrence Summers is an renowned economist but with no background in gender relations, gender studies, biology or sociology. He didn't have an argument. He just made a very ill judged speech.He simply said what most of us already knew and acknowledged on a daily basis, socialization be damned. Mr. P's point about bell curve placement of men and women on the intelligence scale is appropo, and is there anyone that seriously dismisses outright the notion that men have greater spatial functionality vis a vis women, or that women aren't innately better multitaskers? The drive to pretend there are no intrinsic gender differences has resulted in an environment where merely acknowledging that due to genetic and evolutionary trends that there might well be, immediately brands you a sexist neanderthal. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200, lose your job at a so-called institution of higher learning.

In their quest for equality in treatment under the law and in society at large, these are people that have forgotten that we are not in fact, all created and imbued equally, and that equality of opportunity does not guarantee equality of results.


Of course she is a stooge without any qualifications besides being politically correct. How else would any woman anywhere get a job, men being inherently better qualified and all?

Considering the difficulty they had in finding a "suitable" replacement, after several potential candidates refused the position, they got exactly what they deserved. Not exactly surprising for those of us that went to school across the river...or anyone else paying attention, for that matter.

Sitri
12-02-2007, 07:18 AM
Stripperweb women are crazy fyi.

ALL OF YOU ARE ANNOYING ME NOW FOR VARIOUS REASONS, and you know who are you

Just remember... Even paranoid people have enemies.. }:D

Jenny
12-02-2007, 08:12 AM
He simply said what most of us already knew and acknowledged on a daily basis, socialization be damned. Mr. P's point about bell curve placement of men and women on the intelligence scale is appropo, and is there anyone that seriously dismisses outright the notion that men have greater spatial functionality vis a vis women, or that women aren't innately better multitaskers? The drive to pretend there are no intrinsic gender differences has resulted in an environment where merely acknowledging that due to genetic and evolutionary trends that there might well be, immediately brands you a sexist neanderthal. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200, lose your job at a so-called institution of higher learning.
Again you are defending his argument. I disagree - and the fact that you want to "dismiss outright" all notions that don't conform to intuitions you use on a "daily basis", notwithstanding, there is still a lot of intellectual room on my side. And just... by the way; this idea is not a new one. I mean - just so you know; the notion that boys might be inherently better at math is not this "WOW! I just did this experiment, and you'll NEVER believe what I found!" kind of notion. I think some of you just think it is because the corollary - "No they're not; it's due to social and scholarly influence" isn't new either (although it is still comparatively new). Like you said - it's an intuition that people use every day.

None of that changes the fact that it was a very ill judged speech for the occasion, certainly not the only academically rigorous topic that could have been suggested and that declaring in a conference dedicated to increasing diversity that the reason there is no diversity is because of innate abilities is... counter productive to say the least. Seriously - he might have mentioned that was the best he could do when he agreed to make the speech. Like... if I went to a meeting dedicated to increasing male presence in parenting and made a speech about reasons men don't and shouldn't have custody of children in declining order of importance: 1) they tend, much more than women, to be abusers and while it is isn't politically correct to brand such issues as sex related, it is important to keep it in mind - men are just innately more aggressive than women; 2) they are socially trained to be emotionally distant and are inappropriate for the role and 3) they tend to work longer hours, being less available for parenting. Is there case to be made that these things are true? Yes, absolutely, there is. Would it be a good speech? No. Would it have been in better taste for me to say "Look, I can't really think of anything to say that furthers the purpose of this conference... how would you feel about this speech?" Yes, it would. Moreover - would it create a particularly useful way of looking at men and their role in parenting? Like, despite the the potential academic background in the subject does this speech provide a new and interesting way for the conference attendees to look at the issue? Or would the attendees - as it happens a bunch men with custody or seeking custody of their children - feel both personally and generally tainted and insulted by what I said, while not feeling that I provided them with any real insight but just trotted out things that seem regressive and intuitive?


In their quest for equality in treatment under the law and in society at large, these are people that have forgotten that we are not in fact, all created and imbued equally, and that equality of opportunity does not guarantee equality of results.
This is an interesting thing to say. Forgetting for a moment that declaring that the sexes are created intellectually equal does not imply at all a declaration that everyone is created intellectually equal, what... is your point? Like what would you like to do with this thought process?




Considering the difficulty they had in finding a "suitable" replacement, after several potential candidates refused the position, they got exactly what they deserved. What? A woman?

Sh0t
12-02-2007, 08:40 AM
I'm referring to 3 specific members but one of them redeemed themselves last night.


You look at a concert ticket and regret the money you spent, somewhere some woman thinks back on that concert and regrets the sex.
It's far more likely I was the one who regretted the sex. Most women are too used to desperate men and aren't very good(to my tastes anyway).

Sh0t
12-02-2007, 09:15 AM
One of them got very sick and vomiting on my damn suit. I think it was done so I couldn't wear it to pick up other chicks, you know how girls are.

This guy is pretty harsh, tsk tsk.



Anybody else ever read t-nation?

I'm trying to read more on the Lawrence Summer issue. I can understand the sentiment against him, at the same time, there differences. I don't think it really matters much in intellectual ability, however. Huge motivational differences, though, in some areas.

In another shift of topic, I have recently come to realize I may need to use 3 fingers instead of just two when manually stimulating a woman. I have big hands, so I've always tried to be fairly careful, but it seems 3 does the job a lot faster. Less cramping on my end, too.

I must also confess to being attracted to fairly buff women.

Sh0t
12-02-2007, 09:52 AM
I read SteveK's thread on pink and I am refraining from commenting, much to the delight of the angel on my shoulder.



I must say, the lyric of "if we can't be lovers, then we can't be friends" applies to me in large part. Especially with women I've already been intimate with. If they want to be "just friends", they are basically just asking me to leave their life. Maybe it's wrong, but I don't do it.

One major reason why I don't, which I had to explain to somebody that I really don't want to lose contact with, is that I think it is dishonest to be a girl's friend with an ulterior motive. I told her that I can't just hang around waiting, plotting, while putting up a front of platonic friendship. I think it's pretty sleazy.

Another reason is that I find women make bad friends, by my standard. Being my friend is sorta like joining the mafia, I take it very seriously and adopt an "us against the world" mentality. Is this something men care about more passionately? Maybe. Lots of men are shitbags and are just as fake a friend, however.

My advise to SteveK would be to just DTB and don't contact her, or be her friend even if she calls him "in friendship". If she offers friends-with-benefits, I'd take that offer, though. Even if I'm not routinely having sex with a woman, just knowing I COULD if I wanted to, allows me to be the woman's friend without a problem.

safado
12-02-2007, 10:08 AM
I read SteveK's thread on pink and I am refraining from commenting, much to the delight of the angel on my shoulder.

http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=103737

I must say, the lyric of "if we can't be lovers, then we can't be friends" applies to me in large part. Especially with women I've already been intimate with. If they want to be "just friends", they are basically just asking me to leave their life. Maybe it's wrong, but I don't do it.

One major reason why I don't, which I had to explain to somebody that I really don't want to lose contact with, is that I think it is dishonest to be a girl's friend with an ulterior motive. I told her that I can't just hang around waiting, plotting, while putting up a front of platonic friendship. I think it's pretty sleazy.

Another reason is that I find women make bad friends, by my standard. Being my friend is sorta like joining the mafia, I take it very seriously and adopt an "us against the world" mentality. Is this something men care about more passionately? Maybe. Lots of men are shitbags and are just as fake a friend, however.

My advise to SteveK would be to just DTB and don't contact her, or be her friend even if she calls him "in friendship". If she offers friends-with-benefits, I'd take that offer, though. Even if I'm not routinely having sex with a woman, just knowing I COULD if I wanted to, allows me to be the woman's friend without a problem.

I don't play that lets be friends game, when it is over I cut off all contact. There are plenty of other women out there, I don't need to be friends with a chick who has essentially told me she wants to fuck other guys instead of me. It is all or nothing.

SteveK's ex is most likely going on that 3 week vacation with her new guy. If he does the friends thing he will just be wasting his time and torturing himself while she is busy fucking other guys.

Sh0t
12-02-2007, 10:25 AM
Good connection there with the vacation and the new guy.

"All or nothing" is the exact phrase the a chick sent me in a text message recently. It went something like "All or nothing? That's not very nice...:(". Oh well.

Have you ever seen this Joe Rogan clip?



That clip inspired me to see his stand up act here a few weeks ago.

BrunetteGoddess
12-02-2007, 11:00 AM
What is frustrating about SteveK is his oblivion. He was told to stop contacting her and let HER do the contacting. Then he'd know if she wanted him in her life.

So what do you know, she STILL didn't contact him. Obviously she's over it all with him. And yet he STILL thinks she's giving him false hope. How blunt does she have to be?

But I digress....


I appreciate your bluntness and ideas sh0t. Many of them are spot on, I'm just still adjusting to somebody being so frank about it, instead of sugarcoating. I'll admit: my gender is craaaazy.

Sh0t
12-02-2007, 12:29 PM
Crazy, but lovable.

Men really think women are dumb enough to fall for that shit. If I can see it, the girls for sure can see it because girls in general can read people far easier.

Oh well. Love Jesus.

Cristyn keeps reading this thread and making herself upset. Maybe you should stop because you can't interpret it correctly, you crazy person you

safado
12-02-2007, 02:11 PM
Good connection there with the vacation and the new guy.

"All or nothing" is the exact phrase the a chick sent me in a text message recently. It went something like "All or nothing? That's not very nice...:(". Oh well.

Have you ever seen this Joe Rogan clip?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1iGyYZmQY0

That clip inspired me to see his stand up act here a few weeks ago.

http://www.jennifersearles.com/photoshoots-content.htm


I checked out that youtube clip it was funny.

FBR
12-02-2007, 03:22 PM
I appreciate your bluntness and ideas sh0t. Many of them are spot on, I'm just still adjusting to somebody being so frank about it, instead of sugarcoating. I'll admit: my gender is craaaazy.

Sh0t, Ok, you are good.

"I fear you are underestimating the sneakiness, sir."

Mr. Deeds

FBR

FBR
12-02-2007, 08:28 PM
I THINK he was saying that the guy was sleeping with her to get at him since no man could desire a woman who was overweight and had stretch marks.

Jenny you are good at mining out nuggets from vague posts but in this case I am just puzzled. I mean, if my ex was stunning I could understand why he would dis me assuming his dick was overriding his loyalty. But she wasn't all that hot.

FBR

Katrine
12-02-2007, 11:57 PM
In another shift of topic, I have recently come to realize I may need to use 3 fingers instead of just two when manually stimulating a woman. I have big hands, so I've always tried to be fairly careful, but it seems 3 does the job a lot faster. Less cramping on my end, too.


3 is good. If you can work your way up to 4, steady "come hither" motion, and press your other hand over her public mound to get closer to the g-spot, good things will happen. }:D

SportsWriter2
12-03-2007, 01:47 AM
If you can work your way up to 4, steady "come hither" motion, and press your other hand over her public mound to get closer to the g-spot, good things will happen. }:D
Well, if her mound is public, I'd bring Nella, too.

Sh0t
12-03-2007, 08:15 AM
Man some great stuff on that site. But this one here brought tears to my eyes:

xdamage
12-03-2007, 08:35 AM
He simply said what most of us already knew and acknowledged on a daily basis, socialization be damned.

...

In their quest for equality in treatment under the law and in society at large, these are people that have forgotten that we are not in fact, all created and imbued equally, and that equality of opportunity does not guarantee equality of results.



The one group that has been left out of all of this is the women themselves. Like asking them, what do you want to do with your life?

The funny thing is that it has been quite a long time (several decades now) since women have not been permitted to enter fields of Science and Engineering. The schools are open, the job positions are open. I still use my daughter as an example. Her school is actively trying to recruit more female Engineers. She is one of two females in her class. They just aren't applying period. She has had work every summer in her field, and multiple offers to work.

The thing that we all know from intuition and every day experience is that most people we meet do not choose Engineering or Science fields. They are often marked as the geeks in school, the nerds, whatever, but for all the people we meet, but the fact is many people are just not interested in these fields. And it's not like the nerds are the cool kids in school, although I suppose there is a new nerds-can-be-cool sentiment in society, they aren't generally thought of as the hot-sexy kids that others often want to be.

The socialization theorists are right, to a degree, if you encourage people enough they may enter fields that they are not otherwise particularly interested in, but you really have to track their progress over an entire life time to find out if they were very successful, just got by, lost interest, etc. Pushing people into jobs that they really aren't going to enjoy over the long run just to boost some stats serves who? And as LS points out, there are fields like Engineering where we are expected to work even when we are not working. Even on our time off, we are frequently on call, and actively working on problems in our minds. It is what separates those who truly love the field from those just looking for a paycheck.

It would be interesting to do a poll even on this site, and get an idea of what percentage of the women are working on Science and Engineering degrees or actively working the fields.
.

mr_punk
12-03-2007, 07:17 PM
Another reason is that I find women make bad friends, by my standard.i think one the main reasons women offer the LJBF (let's just be friends) option is because they think it makes them look like less of a douche.

I'll admit: my gender is craaaazy.yeah, that too, but it's a given.

One major reason why I don't, which I had to explain to somebody that I really don't want to lose contact with, is that I think it is dishonest to be a girl's friend with an ulterior motive. I told her that I can't just hang around waiting, plotting, while putting up a front of platonic friendship. I think it's pretty sleazy.nonetheless, a lot of guys will sit on the dock waiting for their ship to sail back into port.

My advise to SteveK would be to just DTB and don't contact her, or be her friend even if she calls him "in friendship". If she offers friends-with-benefits, I'd take that offer, though. Even if I'm not routinely having sex with a woman, just knowing I COULD if I wanted to, allows me to be the woman's friend without a problem.i agree. although, the problem with booty calls is that sometimes you end back in the same mess you were trying to extricate youself from in the first place. discretion is the better part of valor.

mr_punk
12-03-2007, 07:21 PM
Like are you saying that because it was a conference given by the National Bureau of Economic Research, that economics were imbued with a background in biology? Or that it was less ill judged? I don't get it.<double-take>you don't get it? LOL...anyway, x nicely summed why he didn't need a background in gender relations, gender studies, biology, etc to speak on the topic.

He gave a deliberately inflammatory speech based on knowledge in which he had no expertise. Should he have been wrestled into resigning? I don't know - I mean, I mean it shows a great deal of disrespect and poor judgment; I mean there are legitimate historical and political reasons for believing that Israel is a colonization; it would still be a bad decision to make them at a conference dedicated to Jewish scholarship - especially a conference dedicated to why Jewish people are underrepresented in a given field (although, to my knowledge of course they are not - but if they were). If that is, in fact, the only good speech you could come up with, you would be better served by declining. Holy Galileo, Batman! it was an academic conference for academics. in these conferences, academics may say things that are provocative, controversial, offensive, heretical or radical to conventional wisdom. it's part of the process of free inquiry. i find your underappreciation of the process and it's value ironic considering the nature of some of your posts around here, JT.

Of course she is a stooge without any qualifications besides being politically correct. How else would any woman anywhere get a job, men being inherently better qualified and all?i'm not saying she isn't qualified nor does it really have much to do with her being a woman, other than her sex is the usual knee-jerk, PC choice one would expect under the circumstances. what i am saying is that, regardless of sex, the most important qualifaction is that he/she is the most politically palatable choice for the faculty.

Jenny
12-03-2007, 07:41 PM
Holy Galileo, Batman! it was an academic conference for academics. in these conferences, academics may say things that are provocative, controversial, offensive, heretical or radical to conventional wisdom. it's part of the process of free inquiry. i find your underappreciation of the process and it's value ironic considering the nature of some of your posts around here, JT.I see what you are saying - but surely you realize that if you want to be taken seriously as an academic you should be speaking to topics on which you have expertise. Making intellectually heretical speeches at conferences on topics in which you have background and knowledge is one thing. Making intellectually heretical speeches based pretty much on your intuition in fields in which you don't have expertise is quite different. These things fit together you know. It's all a rich tapestry. And just... by the by, he was NOT presenting an academic paper. It was a "things that make you say hmm" kind of speech.

Like I said - does it mean he should have been wrestled out? Honestly I don't know. I get your point - I mean, tenure exists for a reason, and if it doesn't protect bad judgment as well as good, it's kind of useless. I mean, as an administrator, I don't think it covers him, but the principle is still there. However, considering that he had a poor record for "Diversity", the speech might have given rise to serious and legitimate concerns that he was putting some undo weight on these theories in other issues like hiring and tenure.

Why is her sex a "knee jerk" choice? What would the other choice have been? Non-knee jerk?

Ferret
12-04-2007, 12:05 PM
Someone please sum up the conclusions of this thread thus far for me.

xdamage
12-04-2007, 01:59 PM
Someone please sum up the conclusions of this thread thus far for me.

I think it depends on who you ask. My conclusion is men are not just women with a penis. Being a man doesn't mean being a woman, or always being agreeable to women. Be you. Like what you like. Be honest with women, when you agree and when you disagree. Be cognizant that you don't manipulate and lie to women just because they are hot. Treat all women fairly and as humans, but you are doing yourself and them a disservice by treating hot women differently then non-attractive women. Don't cower, be excessively meek, or agreeable just to please a hot woman - it is NOT attractive to most of them even if they may give you a pat on the head like a good pet. That would be my summary.

Casual Observer
12-04-2007, 10:05 PM
It may well just be that statistically they are not as interested in these jobs. It is a politically charged question, but the truth is debatable, and there is increasing evidence that statistically, women and men do have differences of interests that influence their career choices, and these differences transcend culture/society.

And yet acknowledging that renders you a misogynist in the eyes of the popular feminist movement. It's not just about engineers and scientists--it's about ditch-diggers, firefighters, construction workers, military members, et al. It's about acknowledging that there might well be underlying reasons why women choose to avoid not only the sciences but dirty, dangerous and deadly work vis a vis men, reasons that have not a damn thing to do with socialization or structural gender biases, real or perceived. Why is that so hard to accept?

Katrine
12-04-2007, 10:19 PM
I am so drunk off goldshlagger, right now would be the perfect time to fuck me in the ass. I really enjoy making money when not expected to...........

Oh wait, iz not random thread? Shit again!

Sh0t
12-05-2007, 08:42 AM
Ever notice how women aren't clamouring for equality in those blue collar jobs?

Was never a big fan of goldschlagger.

I'm looking for love Katrine, where do I find it?




Why more black women are dating white men. (Lifestyles).
From: Jet | Date: 8/26/2002
Jet
It looks like Black women have found a way to resolve the problem with the "shortage" of Black men. Black women have begun to expand their options, within recent years, by dating outside of their race.

Statistics show that more Black women are dating White men. Black female/White male marriages went from 27,000 in 1980 to 80,000 by 2000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

The reason for this increase in more Black women dating White men may be attributed to educational attainment, says Renea D. Nichols-Nash, author of Coping With Interracial Dating.

"A study revealed that the number of Black women earning degrees increased by 55 percent since the mid `70s, but 20 percent with men," says Nichols-Nash, a journalism professor at Arizona State University. "Women who go to college and graduate want someone with the same educational level or more. Black men just aren't there. That could be one reason why more Black women are dating White men."



WHITE MEN LOOK OUT!!!

That said, I think the idea about it being education level is a steaming pile. Educated black men(and/or successful) are running from them. They can't find a good black man because we aren't trying to be found.


This is chess, not checkers, ladies.


"First off, I have dated Black men," she told Newsweek. "But a woman with power is a problem for any man, but particularly a Black man because it's hard for them to get power. I understand that, but I have to have a life, and that means dating the men that want to date me."

LOL! Right, right. And they really believe this.

Sh0t
12-05-2007, 08:59 AM
Hmmmm. Didn't know this:




The fat Black woman or even the average-sized Black woman’s body, has become such a standard joke in recent movies, TV shows and commercials that we are asked by the White filmmakers of “Norbit,” as well as the film's apologists, to accept it. This exploitation has been going on for a long time. Even Hattie McDaniel, the first Black actress to win an Academy Award, in 1939 for “Gone with the Wind, was forbidden by her mammy-centric studio contract to lose weight. Jennifer Hudson, an Oscar nominee this year for “Dreamgirls,” was forced to gain weight to play her part.

Coincidentally, a recent foul commercial featured Eddie Murphy’s brother, Charlie Murphy, who is credited with some writing for “Norbit.” The commercial, for Boost Mobile, features a Black woman with “bionic butt cheeks” who short-circuits her butt while dancing, falls down in an unconscious heap and is stepped over by a White woman on her way into a VIP lounge. (Read the comments by Tyechia Thompson on out letters channel.) The commercial ends when Murphy calls a maintenance crew to “clean all that butt up off the floor.”

one chick's comment on it:



Equally important is that the Black female is identified by her rear-end—“the girl with the bionic butt cheeks”—while her White counterpart has a name, Brandy. This difference clearly emphasizes the blatant objectification of the Black female body. There is no cognizance of her humanity. Appearing lifeless after she falls to the floor, shrieking with her rear smoking, maintenance is called to “clean all that butt up off the floor” and Brandy steps over her going into VIP.

My search to find this delicious sounding commercial is failing.

But we should take the time to watch the Soulmate video again:


"The men who are undesirable"

Jenny
12-05-2007, 09:15 AM
Ever notice how women aren't clamouring for equality in those blue collar jobs? They are - why do you think they aren't?

xdamage
12-05-2007, 09:15 AM
And yet acknowledging that renders you a misogynist in the eyes of the popular feminist movement. It's not just about engineers and scientists--it's about ditch-diggers, firefighters, construction workers, military members, et al. It's about acknowledging that there might well be underlying reasons why women choose to avoid not only the sciences but dirty, dangerous and deadly work vis a vis men, reasons that have not a damn thing to do with socialization or structural gender biases, real or perceived. Why is that so hard to accept?

I agree, and in a strange irony...

It is often the feminists who insult their own gender. Because they start with the unspoken premise that their sisters are too stupid or easily tricked by men? society? to make good decisions for themselves about what really interests them for a long term careers. In effect, they assume women are just victims, cattle, unable to make decisions for themselves, tricked at every turn through history.

Strangely then, it is the evo psych theorists that actually give them credit for making decisions intelligently, and freely given the available choices.

Casual Observer
12-05-2007, 05:59 PM
They are - why do you think they aren't?

Where are the lines of protest for women demanding equal representation on crab fishing vessels in the Bering Sea? Where are the protest marches demanding an increase in the number of women beat cops and active firefighters? Where are the NOW-led campaigns to fill the ranks of the SOCOM and other front-line combat units with women? They don't exist because women don't really want those jobs, by and large. Sure, there are some women that would literally kill to get into some combat roles in the military. But conversely, where are the women parading the streets to get more men involved in kindergarten and elementary education? Or day care? Or social work?

Does it make our society somehow less egalitarian or less civilized if the natural gravitation of men and women to certain professions has a basis in their evolutionary development rather than an artificial construct based on good intentions and ivory tower isolationism?

Jenny
12-05-2007, 06:08 PM
I don't understand what you are asking - are you saying that any action, application or legal activity that doesn't involve a march doesn't count? Me I don't see many marches for much on the employment front. That doesn't mean that there isn't a great deal of action performed to that end. And you think that instead of trying to open avenues to women feminists should be trying to open avenues to men? Like convincing them to give up blue collar jobs for the pink collar ghetto? Hmm. Well, I'd suggest that nobody is doing that because that would be a stupid thing to expend your energy on. Like rather than open avenues of better jobs to women, trying to force men into worse jobs?

I do think it is interesting that you can chalk up something as artificial and constructed as a day care or social work facility or a crab boat as natural evolution. I've already said that I don't think that men have a math gene. I don't think they have a crab boat gene either.

Mastridonicus
12-05-2007, 07:53 PM
Where are the lines of protest for women demanding equal representation on crab fishing vessels in the Bering Sea? Where are the protest marches demanding an increase in the number of women beat cops and active firefighters? Where are the NOW-led campaigns to fill the ranks of the SOCOM and other front-line combat units with women? They don't exist because women don't really want those jobs, by and large. Sure, there are some women that would literally kill to get into some combat roles in the military. But conversely, where are the women parading the streets to get more men involved in kindergarten and elementary education? Or day care? Or social work?

Does it make our society somehow less egalitarian or less civilized if the natural gravitation of men and women to certain professions has a basis in their evolutionary development rather than an artificial construct based on good intentions and ivory tower isolationism?

Are they being denied the ability to take these jobs if they apply? Or are they just not applying? I think the whole idea of equal rights was about them not being turned away based on gender, race, et all. Not expecting them to take an equal part in all jobs available.

Frankly, the flip side to equal rights, in my eyes, is that if I need to dig graves to survive, I will. I have very little pity for the woman that thinks she's above it just because she's a woman. (And they are out there, even ones who USE Equal Rights jabber to act like it KEEPS them from working the shit jobs) I don't think it's about forcing them to do jobs they don't want to do, but eliminating the "can't" from jobs they were excluded from before. The only way "Equal Rights" has any value is if EVERYONE has Equal Opportunity.

Sh0t
12-05-2007, 08:55 PM
NObody has a right in a job, IMO.

I should be free to discriminate based on any grounds whatever.

The Civil Rights Act and related have done nothing but undermined property rights. People just find other reasons to discriminate if they can't use their real reasons overtly.

If you've read books like "Why Women Make Less" and such, it's clear that women do NOT pursue the kind of things Mast is talking about.

xdamage
12-05-2007, 08:59 PM
Are they being denied the ability to take these jobs if they apply? Or are they just not applying? I think the whole idea of equal rights was about them not being turned away based on gender, race, et all. Not expecting them to take an equal part in all jobs available.

Correct, however there is no contention over the notion of equal pay for equal work. Nor is there any contention over whether or not women should be allowed entry into any positions they want.

The contentious point, the one that resulted in Lawrence Summer being fired, is about why more women are, still after many decades, not entering so many "male oriented' lines of work in greater numbers. Many still believe this is due to social training, but more and more are now believing that the social training is a reflection of our human nature, and our human nature draws us to different lines of work.



I do think it is interesting that you can chalk up something as artificial and constructed as a day care or social work facility or a crab boat as natural evolution. I've already said that I don't think that men have a math gene. I don't think they have a crab boat gene either.


No body believes in "math gene" so you are a creating a strawman with this, but nothing useful.

Social work and day care facilities are places of nurturing... there is reasonable evidence that women are drawn to nurturing positions.

All men and women can learn to do math to varying degrees, but relatively few people love math so much that they want to make it a life long career, and rarer still, the 1 in 10 or 100 million who obsess over it day and night and contribute new discoveries. They are rare, but there is evidence that when it does happen, like an idiot savant of sorts, it is more likely to happen in to males.

His crab boat example is an example of a job involving harsh conditions, little human interaction, away from society/families ... there is evidence that men are more likely to be drawn to a lifestyle like that then women, statistically, not absolutely.

You have a significant lack of clarity on this matter. This is what happens when you try to force a square peg into a round hole (which the pure socialization theories do) and you have to twist thinking to fit observation rather then starting with observation and working out from there.

Richard_Head
12-05-2007, 09:09 PM
They can't find a good black man because we aren't trying to be found.Either that or because all the black men are dating white women. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, just making an observation.

mr_punk
12-05-2007, 09:28 PM
I see what you are saying - but surely you realize that if you want to be taken seriously as an academic you should be speaking to topics on which you have expertise. Making intellectually heretical speeches at conferences on topics in which you have background and knowledge is one thing. Making intellectually heretical speeches based pretty much on your intuition in fields in which you don't have expertise is quite different. These things fit together you know. It's all a rich tapestry.okay, but does one need to be an expert in gender relations to offer a hypothesis based on actual research which shows there is a statistical difference between men and women math and verbal abilities? if the purpose of the speech is to find ways to increase female participation in science and engineering professions. isn't it better to provoke thought and research what factors may play a role as to why women choose not to participate and use that information to find ways to attract female talent rather than explain the underrepresentation by reciting the party line of, "it's all a result of the patriarchial, oppressive, sexist pigs". after all, there may be other factors involved and i find it a breathtaking display of hubris to dismiss other possibilities because it's politically incorrect or the hypothesis isn't made by an expert in gender relations who may have done no research along those lines themselves. i'm just saying.

And just... by the by, he was NOT presenting an academic paper. It was a "things that make you say hmm" kind of speech.ummm...OK. BTW, LS did mention he was speaking unofficially and not in his capacity as President of Harvard in his opening remarks.

Like I said - does it mean he should have been wrestled out? Honestly I don't know. I get your point - I mean, tenure exists for a reason, and if it doesn't protect bad judgment as well as good, it's kind of useless. I mean, as an administrator, I don't think it covers him, but the principle is still there.well, i'm not talking so much about tenure status, but just the general idea of free inquiry. IMO, he offered a perfectly legitimate hypothesis in the proper forum. it very well may be a factor or perhaps not, but none of these experts who do the actual research will rise to the challenge. if they are either afraid of the reaction or the answers.

However, considering that he had a poor record for "Diversity", the speech might have given rise to serious and legitimate concerns that he was putting some undo weight on these theories in other issues like hiring and tenure.perhaps and it may also be due to the fact that he wanted professors to actually teach, research and reestablish academic rigor instead of attending book signings, appearing on rap albums or getting face time on TV.

Why is her sex a "knee jerk" choice? What would the other choice have been? Non-knee jerk?if the public perception is LS insulted women. the obvious political conciliatory gesture of appeasement is to replace him with a woman to easily placate the outrage of the torch wielding, PC mob. it's crude, but effective. i mean, you were pleased with the results, right?

xdamage
12-05-2007, 09:36 PM
okay, but does one need to be an expert in gender relations to offer a hypothesis based on actual research which shows there is a statistical difference between men and women math and verbal abilities?

Is it just me? This makes me think of Star Trek. Like we need to create special ambassadors now between men and women. Geezus. It's why I hated college (so much utter academic BS) and loved getting back to work. I swear too many people in academic environments live in some kind of of la-la land.

Jenny
12-06-2007, 12:38 AM
NObody has a right in a job, IMO.

I should be free to discriminate based on any grounds whatever.
Yeah, but you're not.
And nobody has a right to job. They have the right to not be refused a job based exclusively on very particular criteria. I mean, I get your point, but there is a big and important difference there.


The Civil Rights Act and related have done nothing but undermined property rights. People just find other reasons to discriminate if they can't use their real reasons overtly.
Actually, it has undermined freedom of contract Sh0t. You still have quite a lot of ground to discriminate based on property rights.

Jenny
12-06-2007, 12:58 AM
okay, but does one need to be an expert in gender relations to offer a hypothesis based on actual research which shows there is a statistical difference between men and women math and
verbal abilities?
I think you might need to be an expert in some field related to the research to offer such a hypothesis while cloaking oneself in the sacred "free academic inquiry" blousing. Otherwise it is just a guy responding to his intuition and talking about his kids playing with trucks.


if the purpose of the speech is to find ways to increase female participation in science and engineering professions.
Well - I think one might reasonably argue that it wasn't the purpose of his speech.


isn't it better to provoke thought and research what factors may play a role as to why women choose not to participate and use that information to find ways to attract female talent rather than explain the underrepresentation by reciting the party line of, "it's all a result of the patriarchial, oppressive, sexist pigs". after all, there may be other factors involved and i find it a breathtaking display of hubris to dismiss other possibilities because it's politically incorrect or the hypothesis isn't made by an expert in gender relations who may have done no research along those lines themselves. i'm just saying.
Again - it's just me to whom all this "women are just different" line isn't like breathtakingly new and rigorous? Like, I heard it and read it for all possible jobs in all possible fields. I could find you a thousand speeches from a thousand guys from 1850 to 1950 about reasons that women were ill suited to be doctors and lawyers, that all hearken back to this "women are innately different and have different strengths and weaknesses" line.

And when I was in high school I had a teacher who openly and deliberately changed my math grade at the end of the year so that a boy could have my spot in the class, and stood by the decision when I complained. So to me it seems not even hybretic but full out blind to dismiss "the patriarchy" when examining the choices women make when entering college (which will generally inform the choice they make and have available when entering the workforce).


ummm...OK. BTW, LS did mention he was speaking unofficially and not in his capacity as President of Harvard in his opening remarks.
So he made a disclaimer?


well, i'm not talking so much about tenure status, but just the general idea of free inquiry. IMO, he offered a perfectly legitimate hypothesis in the proper forum. it very well may be a factor or perhaps not, but none of these experts who do the actual research will rise to the challenge. if they are either afraid of the reaction or the answers.
Okay - I think this depends on how we define "legitimate" here.


perhaps and it may also be due to the fact that he wanted professors to actually teach, research and reestablish academic rigor instead of attending book signings, appearing on rap albums or getting face time on TV.
It could be. Or it could be that he was just more interested in promoting more professors who were more like him.


if the public perception is LS insulted women. the obvious political conciliatory gesture of appeasement is to replace him with a woman to easily placate the outrage of the torch wielding, PC mob. it's crude, but effective. i mean, you were pleased with the results, right?Not particularly. I'm less interested in making a woman a figurehead and more interested in substantive results. But I find it interesting that you declare the choice of a woman to be "knee jerk" when the only other choice available is "man" - so like the only legitimate, non-knee jerking choice is a non-woman. Also not a particularly new way of viewing women in the workplace, by the way.

mr_punk
12-06-2007, 07:33 AM
I think you might need to be an expert in some field related to the research to offer such a hypothesis while cloaking oneself in the sacred "free academic inquiry" blousing. Otherwise it is just a guy responding to his intuition and talking about his kids playing with trucks.well, Copernicus certainly wasn't the pope. yet, he proposed the radical hypothesis that geocentric model of the universe was incorrect in a book which was banned by the Catholic Church because it was in direct conflict with the scripture. of course, as we all know, the church was correct in their response against such a foolish claim. after all, what did that heretic know? he was just some crazy guy responding to his intuition and babbling about the stars instead of reading the bible.

Well - I think one might reasonably argue that it wasn't the purpose of his speech.LOL..reasonably? sure, if one is about as reasonable as the 17th century Catholic Church.

And when I was in high school I had a teacher who openly and deliberately changed my math grade at the end of the year so that a boy could have my spot in the class, and stood by the decision when I complained. So to me it seems not even hybretic but full out blind to dismiss "the patriarchy" when examining the choices women make when entering college (which will generally inform the choice they make and have available when entering the workforce).did you try smiling, looking pretty and being nuturing instead of being your usual shrill, pushy and castrating self, woman? no? well, i can hardly blame the guy for putting you back in your place. seriously, i didn't dismiss the possibility. unlike you, i'm saying it may not be the only possibility. but hey, i understand why you would take such a position. you're a radical feminist and if you can't lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of the man. what's the point?

So he made a disclaimer?no, it's just an FYI back at you. you know, just so you know.

Okay - I think this depends on how we define "legitimate" here.sorry. i forgot about you preference for such a hypothesis to be vouched by the proper PC gatekeepers.

It could be. Or it could be that he was just more interested in promoting more professors who were more like him.well, we'll never know. his term was brief and his agenda was bold and aggressive compared to his predecessors.

Not particularly. I'm less interested in making a woman a figurehead and more interested in substantive results. But I find it interesting that you declare the choice of a woman to be "knee jerk" when the only other choice available is "man" - so like the only legitimate, non-knee jerking choice is a non-woman. Also not a particularly new way of viewing women in the workplace, by the way.bzzzt wrong, straw man. it's like i told earlier, the most important qualification is that person is the most politically palatable choice for the faculty. are you so naive that you believe academic politics played no role in LS hiring, resignation and choice of successor? anyway, are you saying you didn't feel just the tiniest bit of "we stuck it to the man, girlfriend", "it's about time" or "breaking the glass ceiling" type of gratification in support of the sisterhood aftering learned he resigned or a woman took his place? c'mon, you can tell your Uncle Punk.

Jenny
12-06-2007, 07:39 AM
c'mon, you can tell your Uncle Punk.Don't try to lull me into a false sense of security.

Sh0t
12-06-2007, 11:02 AM
Did marriage make more sense when our lifespans were shorter?

Getting married at 20 when you lived to be 40 doesn't seem like such a long. But getting married at 25 when you live to be 70 and up...40+ years is a long, long, time.

The phenenom of middle aged dating is relatively new to human experience considering our lifespans of previous eras.

xdamage
12-06-2007, 11:23 AM
Could well be Sh0t. In addition to living longer, they are living better. People that take care of themselves, avoid the harsh elements, take advantage of medicine, take advantage of better nutrition, etc., can end up looking and feeling reasonably youthful well past 40. Various signs of youth can often be had, like good teeth, relatively free of scars, relatively smooth skin, clear eyes, etc., are increasingly easier to maintain well past 40. In other societies that is far less likely to be the case by 40.

Lapaholic
12-06-2007, 11:50 AM
Shot lets also not forget that those avg ages number include a ton of infant mortalities. So there were a lot of old people living on once they got past that whole birthing thing and then had to make it to adulthood. So i would say that middle aged dating is not anything new. Not saying we dont live longer but its not like a thousand years ago u dropped at 30. Just getting to adulthood was a lot more doubtful so it skews the numbers. Which is why the US rates lower than other industrial countries because we include premature infants in our mortaliy number where other countries do not.

But Ill agree with X - we are prolly better looking at 50 than those poor bastards from long ago - I know I am anyway ;)

Sh0t
12-07-2007, 12:28 PM
I can't say where but there is a thread on pink all you guys should take notice of.

in other news,I enjoyed not this article but most of the comments



I'm also making a video to reply to budai with.

I'm tired of geezers who trick trying to pretend they have something to teach my generation

Mastridonicus
12-07-2007, 12:44 PM
Did marriage make more sense when our lifespans were shorter?

Getting married at 20 when you lived to be 40 doesn't seem like such a long. But getting married at 25 when you live to be 70 and up...40+ years is a long, long, time.

The phenenom of middle aged dating is relatively new to human experience considering our lifespans of previous eras.

I believe that in times when to-40 lifespans where paramount living to be single and never marrying often marked you as a social outcast. I just think people, as they are still doing so today, looked at marriage as "the next step" in a relationship not realizing that there are many other steps you can take.

Though in today's day and age, there is a donning realization of "mortality" that is all-to-often achieved after people have made life changing commitments. I'd go so far as to call the materialization of these realizations the "mid-life crisis"

Lapaholic
12-07-2007, 01:13 PM
I'm tired of geezers who trick trying to pretend they have something to teach my generation

Yeah well Im usually frustrated by young'ns who dont think they can learn anything from us ol' geezers.... But then again I remember being a young person thinking that the old folks didnt have a clue. Now I know that it was I who was clueless... Funny how this age shit works ;)