home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky soc.men:22013 alt.feminism:6727
- Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!panix!gcf
- From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
- Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
- Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
- Message-ID: <1993Jan2.205430.10619@panix.com>
- Date: 2 Jan 93 20:54:30 GMT
- References: <725981398@lear.cs.duke.edu> <1993Jan2.165409.5401@panix.com> <1993Jan2.183217.27632@wam.umd.edu>
- Organization: mydog in exile
- Lines: 38
-
- | >gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
- | >| ...
- | >| 4) Is not it interesting that when women are the losing side (e.g.
- | >| more men learn math), the default assumption is that society
- | >| is to be blamed, and the poor weak women need some compensation,
- | >| but when men are the losing side, the "pro equality people" are
- | >| ready with long explanation why it is just biology...
- | >
-
- gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
- | >should not be investigated. But the biological element should
- | >not be discounted either. In other words, there's probably not
- | >enough hard information around -- except, of course, if you want
- | >to use the issue for propaganda.
-
- rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
- |
- | Ahh, well. Then I would like to make the statement
- | that women are inferior to men at mathematics.
-
- Go ahead. It's sort of your style...
-
- | Remember, I'm not saying that the possible social causes of
- | the differences should not be investigates, but, the biological
- | element should not be discounted either. In other words, there's
- | probably not enough hard information around (but that doesn't
- | seem to dissuade anybody).
-
- It's a different issue. Education and jobs involving
- mathematics are manifestly social constructions. Longevity
- isn't (unless we socially knock a lot of people off).
-
- May I recommend that you not rely on echolalia as a method
- of argumentation?
- --
-
- )*( Gordon Fitch )*( gcf@panix.com )*(
- ( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta., NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
-