12-19-2007, 07:49 PM | #21 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Quote:
I'd like to see if your hero Romney would spout this blather. He wouldn't because half the directors of corporations he's formed are women, and he'd be done as a candidate in one second if he did. I have as little repsect for sexism as I do racism. I know hundreds of women who are great mothers and would disembowel you professionally in the blink of an eye.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster Last edited by SeattleUte; 12-19-2007 at 07:52 PM. |
|
12-19-2007, 08:36 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,502
|
From an anthropological perspective, the evidence does indeed suggest that men were the ones doing the vast majority of the hunting in hunter/gatherer societies. However, the evidence also suggests that the women were providing close to, and in some cases more than, 50% of the support. The women provided the stable, day-to-day food for the children, while the men were adventuring around and providing unpredictable bursts of healthy nutrition. From this perspective, the women were at least as important in providing for young as were men.
Also, it seems that men participating in the rearing of children would have become important fairly early in the evolution of Homo sapiens, and is likely the reason why our culture emphasizes marriage and monogamy so much. To get to the point, recognizing differences between men and women is one thing; pigeonholing the sexes into roles based on one's short-sighted interpretation of these differences is another. There is no reason to believe that women should not participate in working for the material support of children, just as there is no reason to believe that men can not rear children as effectively as women. These concepts have been perpetuated by religion in spite of the best evidence. |
12-19-2007, 08:42 PM | #23 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Quote:
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster Last edited by SeattleUte; 12-19-2007 at 08:48 PM. |
|
12-19-2007, 08:49 PM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,084
|
Quote:
There are always exceptions to the general rule, but in general to say women do things better than men and men do things better than women is not sexist. It is facing facts and as long as you are comfortable and allow for the exceptions, that position is not sexist, myopic or ignorant. What is sexist is to give opportunities where none is deserved. How about Title IX or X. The one that says have the activitiy that provides all the revenue pay for the ones that don't. I can't wait for the day when I take my sons to a ball game and some government agency insists I take my daughters to a ballet of equal value. |
|
12-19-2007, 08:55 PM | #25 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Quote:
I've not said there aren't differences between men and women. Actually, what I believe is that some of those differences may make women better suited than men to the elite white collar careers.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
|
12-19-2007, 08:57 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,502
|
Quote:
Last edited by woot; 12-19-2007 at 08:59 PM. |
|
12-19-2007, 08:59 PM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,084
|
Quote:
For instance I think Title 1X or X is stupid. If everything is to be so dang equal, why do we have womens and mens sports. Just have one college football, basketball, golf, etc. team. Why do we have to have one for each. |
|
12-19-2007, 09:05 PM | #28 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Quote:
It all depends on the whole circumstances. What I oppose here is generalizations. I am not saying what women shoud do, contrary to Norcalcat or DJ Ross.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
|
12-19-2007, 09:13 PM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,084
|
Quote:
If this weren't the case, I would argue that more kids, primarily minorities, wouldn't be on TV thanking their moms and grandmoms. There is no reason to think that a woman entering medical school and a male entering medical school that the male will end up the better Dr. ON the other hand, I think there is ample evidence that you could make a guess in general which gender would make the better stay at home parent and which gender would do better at sitting at a bar getting drunk. |
|
12-19-2007, 09:19 PM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,502
|
Quote:
You don't think there could possibly be any other reason why people say "Hi Mom" on TV? |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|