New Study Vindicates Harvard's Larry Summers

I think the posters nitpicking your viewpoint are overdoing it, GoD. I agree with what you're saying. Women will always be women, i.e. genetically and emotionally inclined for nurturing and tasks of finesse or delicacy. This does not translate to "inferiority."

However, women should be allowed to do what they want. It's all well and good to present the facts of history of women's roles and criticize the societal values anchoring those notions of "inferiority", but in the end, it's what the women want that dictates everything. If they want the choice of living their lives out in the world rather than in the home, power to them.

I, personally, would like to see more women at home being mothers rather than dumping their kids at the babysitter's or the extenda-care so they can go for a girl's night out at the pub or alone time in the gym or even pursuit of an over-the-top business-type job. I support that women should be entitled to the same opportunities as men in the workplace, but I'll be damned if I'm the one at home raising little ones...men generally suck at that.

Feminism hasn't been trying to turn women into men. It has been attempting to achieve rights for women by establishing them as spiritual and political equals. Only recently has feminism taken on a connotation of unrealistically attempting to establish that women and men are purely interchangeable. Nothing short of a WTF?! will make me lactate or develop maternal instincts. I can't do everything a woman can do or understand everything a woman knows. Why should the converse be any less true?
 
unfortunately, the cost of living has skyrocketed rather astronomically, so many households require both parents to obtain jobs in order to make money to keep the "family" afloat.
 
anonymousnick2001 said:
I think the posters nitpicking your viewpoint are overdoing it, GoD. I agree with what you're saying. Women will always be women, i.e. genetically and emotionally inclined for nurturing and tasks of finesse or delicacy. This does not translate to "inferiority."

However, women should be allowed to do what they want. It's all well and good to present the facts of history of women's roles and criticize the societal values anchoring those notions of "inferiority", but in the end, it's what the women want that dictates everything. If they want the choice of living their lives out in the world rather than in the home, power to them.

I, personally, would like to see more women at home being mothers rather than dumping their kids at the babysitter's or the extenda-care so they can go for a girl's night out at the pub or alone time in the gym or even pursuit of an over-the-top business-type job. I support that women should be entitled to the same opportunities as men in the workplace, but I'll be damned if I'm the one at home raising little ones...men generally suck at that.

Feminism hasn't been trying to turn women into men. It has been attempting to achieve rights for women by establishing them as spiritual and political equals. Only recently has feminism taken on a connotation of unrealistically attempting to establish that women and men are purely interchangeable. Nothing short of a WTF?! will make me lactate or develop maternal instincts. I can't do everything a woman can do or understand everything a woman knows. Why should the converse be any less true?
Click to expand...

I think this is a good and fair post. But I still think feminism turned to male traits to get these rights.
 
Well, thanks. :)

I think feminism is deconstructionist if anything. It's equality we want here, folks, not a world of men and women acting like men. Equality can be achieved without feminism. There's very little "feminine" about feminism.

Susan B. Anthony didn't fight for women's rights by acting like a man. Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher were national leaders who mobilized troops, organized government, etc. and did all that without sprouting nutsacks. Women have achieved plenty for themselves without the hostility of feminism.
 
Margaret Thacther? She made it as a tough daughter of a bitch. Fighting wars, privatizing, those pant suits and such. I cant see too many women privatizing innumerable state owned companies when they know there will be massive downsizing, or starting wars over useless islands. But anyway.

I know if I was a woman, I would be perfectly happy finding a sugar daddy and indulging in whatever trivial interest all day, rather than trying to make it as a career woman.
 
NeverIsForever said:
Interesting if it is in fact true, but I don't see anything new or ground-breaking about it besides perhaps the specific tests they employed to come to these conclusions. Didn't scientists already know that men and women are essentially hard-wired to think differently in some situations? There is variation between the sexes in behavioral response to the same events and/or stimuli throughout the animal kingdom; it would reasonably follow that the same is true for humans.
Click to expand...

That there are sex-linked differences in brain structure is not new information, what is groundbreaking about this study is that it is the first to indicate that these differences are present from birth, rather than being developed through cultural conditioning.
 
and that is a commonly accepted notion... at least i thought it was.

the line is crossed when one takes that information and concludes that either sex is better/stronger/smarter. that i would say, is absurd
 
Silent Song said:
men and women are more proficient at different tasks and situations. that it is supposedly genetic and not social hardly changes the assumption. i would not however, say that either men or women are the smarter sex.

as for the racial differences, i completely disagree until proven wrong.
Click to expand...

So you believe in genetic differences between genders, but not races? In other words, you are not friendly to the concept of evolution?
 
if "races" exist, there is no evidence of racial superiorty amongst them, and no justification to suggest it. none. i couldn't care less about the concept, humans are humans.
 
Silent Song said:
the line is crossed when one takes that information and concludes that either sex is better/stronger/smarter.
Click to expand...

Different intelligences means better for different tasks.
 
Silent Song said:
if "races" exist, there is no evidence of racial superiorty amongst them, and no justification to suggest it. none. i couldn't care less about the concept, humans are humans.
Click to expand...

1) Some humans are dumber than others.

2) Racial separation isn't about judgment. It's about realizing that if you let in foreign populations, your own gets bred into oblivion.

If you want to refute this, tell me all about the great mixed-race empires of history and how long they've lasted. THX
 
infoterror said:
1) Some humans are dumber than others.

2) Racial separation isn't about judgment. It's about realizing that if you let in foreign populations, your own gets bred into oblivion.

If you want to refute this, tell me all about the great mixed-race empires of history and how long they've lasted. THX
Click to expand...
well YOU tell me about all the "pure race" "empires" in history and how great they were? there aren't any. racial superiority is a myth for those with ignorant contempt in their hearts.
 
SS said:
racial superiority is a myth for those with ignorant contempt in their hearts.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Also, men and women are adapted for different tasks, not "better" at them. A man isn't "worse" at breast-feeding than a woman. Simply not designed for the task.
 
Because men don't have tits or milk. How can one be worse at something he can't even do? There's no room for comparison!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back