Women

This thread is a continuation of a discussion that was started in "Women of the Silmarillion" thread. I am bringing it over here to keep that thread on topic. To catch up with what is being discussed please go through the link.

First off let me say that I am not into politics, in the least bit. I will even admit that I am not one to vote regularly. I do become interested in politics every four years, and I usually vote in presidential elections. Second, I doubt that I will be involved as much in this thread (if it even goes anywhere at all) as others who probably have more fact and figures, but I will speak up whenever I feel like women are being generalized. Third you may have noticed my style of debate, which is to ask many questions, but not give any real facts. I do this partly because it is an easy way to make a point and because I do not want to give the air that I am an expert and I do not want to change anyone's opinion. All I want is better understanding of a topic and to do that I ask questions.

I think the demographics of the election and the reelection of Bill Clinton, and the nature of the support for Al Gore, prove my point. The big to-do over The Kiss is simply an eloquent expression of the Nature of things. There are a lot of empty headed, astrology believing, Oprahfied women out there who have no business casting a vote to determine the destiny of Humanity. But I don't think all men should vote either.

Could the larger demographic of women voters that showed up to elect Bill Clinton has something more to do with his support of women in politics, the appointment of women to high offices in his Gov's office, etc. than because he was more "cute" than George Bush?

I think this is the second time at least that you have refered to "the Nature of Things." I am just curious what exactly you mean by that before I comment on that any further.

Your third sentence, is the hardest to swallow. Even though I am not in my opinion empty headed, do not believe in astrology, and do not watch Oprah, I can take offense at this. It is a generalization that women are not capable of making an intelligent decision based on the facts but that they are more interested in the frivolous. You soften the blow by saying that you do not think that not all men should vote either.....how convenient.

As I was trying to think of a clever title for this thread, it occured to me that this thread may well end up becoming a large debate such as the abortion, creation science, election, Canada, and nuke threads. For lack of a better subject heading I called it Women. Interesting that one gender over another could be (potentially) so controversial. Thing is men are hardly ever considered to be so debateable (except in personal matters ). I think that the fact that there is even discussion to this degree about women proves that there are still people out there that believe that women are not equal.

juntel:
Touche! There are a lot of empty-headed God-fearing men whose votes I find questionable. And I can hardly complain about someone else's style of argument when I am guilty myself! But I try not to be personal.

Nevertheless, to deny that many Liberals are Fellow Travelers, what Lenin called "useful idiots," is to deny reality. I myself have been labled a Liberal by some right wing extremists, because I am soft on Affirmative Action, Civil Rights, Minimum Wage, Fair Trade, and the Welfare safety net. I have taken a licking at times for standing on the left side on these issues. Just as I don't believe all women are vapid playthings, I do not believe that all Liberals are Communists.

Perhaps my description of the Oprafied Women is a bit tart, but I stand by it. To cast that as my view of all women, thus pigeonholing me as a sexist (and throwing in racism as well) is simply wrong. I would not do that to you.


anduin:
Please!

I think I pointed out that women should not be denied the vote on the basis of gender.

I don't think that women are not "equal" to men!

And as for Bill Clinton's gender gap, that's documented and obviously has nothing to do with his treatment of women. If it did, these same women would have been crying for the imprisonment of the serial womanizer and rapist. (Sorry to get straight to the delicate point on that, but this is a clear case of folks voting against their own interests. Clinton has just about single-handedly eradicated Feminism as a political force.)

Please, on a personal note, understand that I really was half-joking about this topic. But, the modern notion that gender equality under the law means similitude is ridiculous.

Men and Women are NOT the same, as I'm sure everyone has noticed.

As our French-speaking friends might say, "Viva la difference!"

But difference there is and will always be, and that is the Nature of Things!

Generally Speaking:
Many women are simply not inclined as men to grasp spatial relations and higher mathematics. Many women are not as inclined as men to reason through a problem. Many women are inclined to view government in a nurturing role rather than a protective one. Pertaining to a political discussion of female voters, many women, in the view of the Founders, were not suited to vote.

They also thought that many men were not fit to vote either. They grasped at the only practical solution of the day, which was to limit the vote to adult, male, property owners. Abigail Adams objected strongly, but her voice was little heard.

Why should anyone who evidences no stake in civilization be allowed to determine its course? The best answer is that they obviously shouldn't. The question is, how do you apply a standard to voter franchise that is not discriminatory?

The easy answer is that you apply no standard at all, which we have accomplished with the unhappy results that were predictable and indeed predicted.

The hard answer is that you develop a standard that gives an equal opportunity to all. And civilization has not accomplished that yet. Property is out of the question, because that discriminates based on capital. Gender is an unfair standard on the pretty face of it. Race and Religion are equally repugnant standards. Intelligence is more egalitarian, but Barliman Butterburr is wise enough on his own ground and can see through a brick wall in time. Though not as fast on the uptake as the bright little hobbits, he should not be denied a vote in Bree because of it.

That doesn't leave much for us in the way of applicable standards!

Science fiction writer Robert Heinlein in Starship Troopers (a novel better than the recent movie) postulated a civilization where the vote, and elective office, could only be held by Veterans. Not active duty military, but service veterans.

I haven't seen a fairer system that answers the Founder's objection to a universal voter franchise.

It certainly would not exclude women!

(And with that, the little hobbit realizes that he has proposed a system that would disenfranchise himself!)

***I don't want to let my rhetoric get carried away on the impersonal screen, and personally offend anyone. Let me apologise here if I already have!

"Robert Heinlein in Starship Troopers (a novel better than the recent movie) postulated a civilization where the vote, and elective office, could only be held by Veterans. Not active duty military, but service veterans."

I have not yet read the book (booh! shame on me!).
But I did see the movie (that many people say doesn't do justice to the book).

But what comes to mind is that, even though it is not implied, the veterans would be more likely to vote for military people who went into politics...

Well, that sounds to me like the military would be the government, implicitely.

Like in some countries, you know...

So, unless R.Heinlein had other "rules" in mind for that political "solution", then I don't see how it could be palatable.

Militocracy or geniocracy are subtle yet unacceptable (to me at least) forms of government.
=>They don't take into consideration the complexities of the nature/nurture dilema.
The big problem is what is "The Nature of Things", not that there is a "Nature of Things".
What is "The Nature of Things" is still debated, studied, questioned, as it should be.

J.Untel

Agreed.

Heinlien postulated only out-of-service veterans could participate.

Gotta go!

Where do you get that women are not as inclined as men to grasp spacial relations and higher mathematics? I don't think this is something inherent in women's nature, but rather a fallacy of our society that has, traditionally, shown up in our educational system. Women have simply not been encouraged in the past to pursue these fields. I cannot come and say I'm good at math. I did take calculus in high school and passed it by the skin of my teeth. Was this because I am female or because I did not apply myself? I know that the answer is the latter, because I'm not all that interested in math. But I do know that I'm intelligent enough to have done better, if I'd wanted to. I did take education classes and have held a teaching certificate for a time (high school French) and never in any one of the classes I took did it say in any of my texts that females are less capable of grasping higher mathematical concepts than males.
I just don't think you can go around generalizing on these types of things. This is just one example. BTW I also took exception at the empty-headed Oprahfied comment. I know it wasn't your intention to offend, but that's another type of generalization you probably shouldn't go around making. I don't believe in astrology, do not believe I am empty-headed, and have not watched Oprah in several years (I got turned off when she got all preachy-spiritual). But I do think Oprah is an extremely intelligent woman, so I don't think it's fair to characterize those that do listen to what she has to say to be empty-headed.

The point of my post was not to prove or say otherwise whether or not you are for or against women voting. Or whether you think that women have the right to vote. But to point out by your statements that you give the impression to others, including myself who is a women, that you feel them to be the more inferior of the species. My argument is that you really have no proof of that, and to go on saying that, many women are simply not inclined as men to grasp spatial relations and higher mathematics, or many women are not as inclined as men to reason through a problem, or many women are inclined to view government in a nurturing role rather than a protective one, is offensive.

Could it be that women are viewed as "not inclined to grasp spatial relations and higher mathematics" because they have been conditioned to believe that their place is in the home, behind an iron and in front of a stove?

Please, on a personal note, understand that I really was half-joking about this topic. But, the modern notion that gender equality under the law means similitude is ridiculous.

In the current world of politcal correctness I would hope you would be aware that you can't just joke or even half joke about things in such a way without someone taking notice.

And I wasn't aware that "the modern notion of gender equality under the law meant similitude". I thought it meant that women and men are suppose to be protected equally under the law........just as an individual's faith, race, and (in some cases) sexual preference, are protected under the law.

The easy answer is that you apply no standard at all, which we have accomplished with the unhappy results that were predictable and indeed predicted.

I am not really sure what you are saying here......could you expand on that further please?

Women and math...

In the 20s, 30s and 40s, there lived Emmy Noether in Germany, a brilliant mathematician. But as a woman, she was refused a permanent teaching post for a long time; colleagues had to give her money to help her in her research; she was allowed to teach after a time, but again not as a full teacher, and again was paid under the table by friends.
She made MAJOR contributions to the mathematical formulation of Einstein's General Relativity (he wasn't that good in math himself... at least less good than Emmy).
She made other contributions to math and physics, especially one of the most important theorem in theoretical physics, without which physics wouldn't be the same: the famous Noether Theorem that links conservation laws to symmetries in the system.
I don't expect you to understand the math and physics above, but let me tell you that this woman contributed major building blocks to what is modern physics.
Yet she's still an unknown to the public.

Another important woman mathematician was Sophie Kowalenskaya (spelling may be wrong), in the 19th century, who made major contributions to math, but again against male chauvinism.

And of course a better known example is Hypatia.
I think she lived in the 3rd or 4th century C.E.
Her father raised her by teaching her the sciences, philosophy, etc... ie teaching her things that were reserved to men in the region where they lived (Alexandria? i'll check on that).
She contributed important theorems concerning geometry.
But she was disliked for what she was, what she knew, what she said, for only men were allowed those rights.
==========
(/Edited: here's a few of the things she said, not related to math, but that made her so hate by some:
-"All formal dogmatic religions are fallacious and must never be accepted by self-respecting persons as final."
-"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all."
-"To teach superstitions as truth is a most terrible thing." //)
===========
She was captured, tortured, probably flayed, and then killed.


What is my point?
Well, my point is in support of what Eruve said, and what I hinted before: the conditions in which men and women live in have an important impact on what they become and how they live.
There may be a "Nature of Things", but what it is is not clear, and to say "women aren't good in math in general" may be more a comment about our society and it's still existing inequalities than about the true potential of individuals (eg women in this case).

We are STILL coming out of a society that has very questionable views on the "Nature of Things", and evidently such views survive to this day, and many are subject to heated debate.

The cocoon is still there around us, let's not be fooled: the butterfly still has to come out.
May it still have wings when it does, wings woven by the diversity of its constituants, not only the intellectuals, but all of them, whitout discrimination.

/Edited:
Oh! And also Rosalind Franklin... not a mathematician, but a British x-ray cristallographer who provided much to the discovery of the structure of the DNA in the 50s; unfortunately she died of cancer quite young, and since Nobel prizes are not awarded posthumously, only the men involved in the discovery received the Nobel prize for that great discovery.
She had to fight the University in which she was working, for even in GB in that era women in sciences were not well viewed.

Of course, I could have spoken about Marie Curie, but she's quite an exception as a woman scientist: I guess she fitted better the Hollywoodian view of woman scientist.

Well said Eruve! I am glad that I am not alone in thinking that those statements were a bit out of line.

A view of the "bad old days":
The following is from a 1950's Home Economics textbook intended for High School girls: "How to prepare for married life"
>
> 1. Have dinner ready: Plan ahead, even the night before, to have a delicious meal, on time. This is a way of letting him know that you have been thinking about him, and are concerned about his needs.
> Most men are hungry when they come home and the prospects of a good meal are part of the warm welcome needed.
>
> 2. Prepare yourself: Take 15 minutes to rest so you will be refreshed when he arrives. Touch up your make-up, put a ribbon in your
>hair and be fresh looking. He has just been with a lot of work-weary people. Be a little gay and a little more interesting. His boring day
>may need a lift.

His boring day? what about the housewife's boring day, cooking and cleaning all day???

>3. Clear away the clutter. Make one last trip through the main part of the house just before your husband arrives, gathering up school books, toys, paper, etc. Then run a dust cloth over the tables.
>Your husband will feel he has reached a haven of rest and order, and it will give you a lift too.
>
>4. Prepare the children: Take a few minutes to wash the children's hands and faces if they are small, comb their hair, and if necessary, change their clothes. They are little treasures and he would like to see them playing the part.
>
Boy this seems like a lot to take care of in the last 15 minutes befroe hubby comes home: freshen youself up, freshen the kids up, clean up the clutter, put the finishing touches on that meal you've been planning since the night before...

> 5. Minimize the noise: At the time of his arrival, eliminate all noise of washer, dryer, dishwasher, or vacuum. Try to encourage the children to be quiet. Be happy to see him. Greet him with a warm smile and be glad to see him.
>
> 6. Some DON'TS: Don't greet him with problems or complaints. Don't complain if he's late for dinner. Count this as minor compared with what he might have gone through that day.

So you have to break your back to have dinner ready on time but can't complain if he's late (which could very well ruin the special dinner you worked so hard on)? Hardly seems fair!

> 7. Make him comfortable: Have him lean back in a comfortable chair or suggest he lie down in the bedroom. Have a cool or warm drink ready for him. Arrange his pillow and offer to take off his shoes. Speak in a low, soft, soothing and pleasant voice. Allow him to relax and unwind.
>
>8. Listen to him: You may have a dozen things to tell him, but the moment of his arrival is not the time. Let him talk first.
>
> 9. Make the evening his: Never complain if he does not take you out to dinner or to other places of entertainment; instead try to understand his world of strain and pressure and his need to be home and relax.
>
> 10. The Goal: Try to make your home a place of peace and order where your husband can relax.



Does anyone else think there's a double standard here? Sure glad I wasn't born 20 years earlier...

"Be a little gay and a little more interesting. His boring day may need a lift."

Hmmm... If my wife/girlfriend brought along Anne Heche home one day to entertain me, that would make my day!
Wouldn't be displeasing!
As for the lift... well, I don't want to be banned here!

//Cheap joke, i know... couldn't resist!

As far as the issue of women versus men goes...

Most women that I've met are idiots.

I won't venture to go so far as to say "nearly all", but definitely the majority of women I've met are idiots. As far as I'm concerned, this trend of idiocy starts at puberty.

Can I _prove_ any of this? Heck no. Am I convinced of this? Yes.

Why? Personal experience, and lots of it.

Now, let me say something here. I've never had an IRL meeting with a woman who could equal me in the mathematics, in the construction, maintenance, and programming of computers, or, for that matter, in football.
(Note that I'm not suggesting that this COULDN'T happen, just that it HASN'T happened)

I have met men who can top me in all three. Namely, IronParrot, JoBUSH, and ATFW/ Yeomy, respectively. (You probably won't know the last two unless you frequent IronParrot's BB)


Now, with all of my experience with stupid, idiotic, perhaps even "inferior" women, it should be tempting for me to declare that men are superior... right?

No.

Because of the one woman that I have spent more time in the presence of than anyone else.

My mother.

In a nutshell, the virtues and intelligence she's repeatedly shown me have made me realize that there may very well be a woman out there who can top me intellectually - and that it is indeed unfair to deny women rights simply because they are women.

Oh, and by the way, she was going to major in... I believe it was biology... at a major Canadian university, but decided to study something more useful - home economics.

(just asking: what's an IRL meeting?)

(A TLA is a Three-Letter Acronym)

IRL stands for In Real Life. As in, you and I have most likely never met, but myself and IronParrot have.

To whomever is interested...

From the introduction:
"Welcome to the web page for biographies of women in mathematics. These pages are part of an on-going project by students in mathematics classes at Agnes Scott College, in Atlanta, Georgia, to illustrate the numerous achievements of women in the field of mathematics"

Biographies of Women Mathematicians

Men and women aren't born different in terms of intellectual differences, especially in specific fields.

It's how they're raised.

I have to learn to make short posts like yours IP!!

JL: Most women that I've met are idiots.

Out of curiosity, how old are you? Same age as IP more or less? If so, give them time, they may grow out of it. Otherwise I suggest you try meeting women in other places than where you currently try to meet them. I could retaliate and say most men are idiots... Quite a few of them can be at one time or another.

JL: I've never had an IRL meeting with a woman who could equal me in the mathematics, in the construction, maintenance, and programming of computers, or, for that matter, in football.

Again, perhaps your not meeting the right women. Or the women you meet aren't interested in these things. That doesn't mean they don't have the potential to know about these things. Knowledge of computers, mathematics or football are not measures of intelligence. One can be highly intelligent and not have had exposure to these things; that doesn't make the person less intelligent.

ITA with IP!!

Juntel: :lol: I figured someone would make a comment along those lines... BTW Anne Heche has apparently gone straight!

"Anne Heche has apparently gone straight"

Wooooooooooopie!!!!!!!!
(hehe... as if I had a chance to meet her...)

Anne Heche is a delight to watch and a fine actress!

I read that HOME ECONOMICS excerpt on the radio one day with I MARRIED JOAN playing in the background! What a hoot!

I just finished cooking dinner. We had green beans, baked potatoes, tomatoes, and broiled steak. You can see what a horrible old patriarch I am! (Come to think of it, I cooked breakfast and lunch today, too!)

Anduin was right! This has proven to be a popular thread.!

I hate that anyone was offended by the facts.

You can certainly point through history to women and to men who break the stereotypes and who are the exceptions to the rule. But the broadbased studies are clear. In general, women are less capable of mathematical reasoning than men.

It's unreasonable to get upset over it. It has nothing to do with individuals.

Einstein had a brain that featured more prominent development in the region of the brain in which this sort of thinking develops. It is expected that persons with this genetic difference perform much better in the field of theoretical physics.

Men and women have differently developed brains. We know from long experience, and now from modern study, that women and men are wired differently.

One of the general differences is evidenced in mathematics, toward which men generally have greater inclination.

But general tendencies, even individual tendencies, even similar environments, are not necessarily predictive. In high school, I breezed through all things mathematical and helped our Valedictorian understand her math homework. She is now a VP in the company that coincidentally, I now work for as a lab tech. I had the greater inclination, she had the greater tenacity. :/

I am not saying one gender is better than the other and so we should write our laws that way!

But as a former broadcaster, let me tell you that daytime television is not only aimed at women, it is aimed at the lowest common denominator (to speak mathematically!) to obtain the largest audience. That's who Oprah is spiritualizing to. And that's who decided Al Gore was their man because of The Kiss.

Oh man! That is priceless Eruve!! Do you collect old text books, or did you just happen to have it lying around? I like to collect old Popular Machanics and Machanix Illustrated. I have several from the 40's and 50's. One of the things that caught my attention about them was their ads (of course it wouldn't be the info contained within.....girls aren't capable of understanding those sorts of things ) . Many of them have cigarette ads in them and on the back covers. Some have sport figures (mostly hockey players) endorsing their product. But my favorites are the ones that have medical endorsments.