Sexuality Question In A Political Telephone Poll

[Rhuth]

Yesterday evening I actually got a call from a political opinion poll! I was excited. I always feel that those polls never reflect my opinion and now I was getting to insert my opinion! Or so I thought. The questions were worded to force a desired outcome, and you could only choose from the answers that they provided. For instance when they asked, "Which country is the greatest threat to America's safety", I wanted to answer the United States. That was not one of my choices. So... if all the politicians start threatening China, that's my fault. Sorry. I just wanted them to stop threatening Middle Eastern countries for a while.

The reason I am posting this here was the last question they had in the poll after asking my ethnicity and political persuasion.


Pollster: Now here's a question for ya! In the newest Superman movie, do you think that the Superman character is gay or straight?

Me: Can I choose Bisexual?

Pollster: Um... No, you can only choose between gay, straight, or don't know.

Me: Typical. I'll choose gay I guess.

Now I wish I had chosen "don't know" for three reasons.

I have not actually seen the movie yet.
It was probably a question to determine if I was left, right, or center.
"Don't know" is probably closer to Bisexual anyway.

[Driver 8]

Hmm, now I want to do a poll.

"How strongly do you agree with me? Your only options are: 100%, very strongly, and strongly."

[TaylorMade]

About Superman, you're closer than you think...

Brandon Routh trips my bi-dar... and that ain't a bad thing... Now If I can just get Gary Sinise drunk... :devil:

*TM*

[smokey]

I got a poll like that last year. gaurenttee yours was republican. I forget the actual name for them but they are loaded polls. And the republican party specializes in them. Mine was concerning the govenors race here in virginia and they kept asking me loaded questions like what was the most important issue in the race...cutting taxes, maintianing the death penetly, banning gay marriage, protecting 2nd amendment rights, family values etc. and when I said none of the above a stunned questioner asked me what was the most important issue then. And when I said whether the person elected can actually govern effectively for all the people...they very quickly informed me that they were sponsored by the kilgore (republcian) campigan and hung up on me. I laughed until I almost peed myself. Imagine someone actually interested in whether the candidate can govern effectively or not...the termnity.

[arana]

Wow, how dare you Smokey! You'll screw up politics totally with that business! :tong:

I think Superman is more bi than gay, since he has the hots for Lois Lane and likes his tights. I'd say he is either bi or closet cross dresser or both.

[ScifiBiJen]

I actually got a political telephone last year, from the party for the Republican candidate for governor.

One of the questions: "On a scale of 0 to 100, how strongly are you against same-sex marriage, 100 being most strongly opposed?"

Me: Can I give a negative number instead?

[glantern954]

From personal experience, Superman is celibate. He believes in safe sex and no condom can withstand his orgasm.

:)

[Driver 8]

Larry Niven's famous essay Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex (http://www.rawbw.com/~svw/superman.html) takes on just that question. "The purpose of this article is to point out some medical drawbacks to being a kryptonian among human beings, and to suggest possible solutions," in Niven's words.

[smokey]

yes but he isn't popular in bed because he cums faster than a speeding bullet...talk about premature ejaculation :eek:

[JrzGuy3]

It's called push polling and was invented by none other than (sit down for this one) Karl Rove.

The first time I heard of it being used was in the bible belt during the Republican primary for the 2000 Presidential Election, when John McCain was neck and neck with George Bush. The question was, "How would your opinion of John McCain be affected if you knew that he fathered an illegitimate black child?" Now John McCain's daughter is kinda-sorta outta wedlock, though she was on the count of both parents as she was adopted. And while I guess you could say black, she was actually born in Bangledesh. But hey, to a Southern Baptist i'm sure they're all just darkies.

[NightHawk]

I get lots of party polls. They are virtually all simple-minded whether they come from the Democrats or the Republicans. They share the common error of over-simplifiying the choices. They also share the tendency to confuse intent with result.

Democrat example: One rather wishes that everyone might earn enough to live independently, so of course any good person favors an increase in the minimum wage. Right? Wrong. An employer cannot pay anyone more than about one-half to one-third of what adding that person to payroll will add to the income of the company. Adding a person adds tax, insurance, benefit, space, tool, and management time costs, which must be recovered. The simple-minded ignore all this. Minimum wages are increased and the poorly educated and the inexperienced young people are not hired as a result. The weakest employees lose their jobs. This is good? Most of these employees or potential employees still live with their parents and need experience to earn enough to live independently. Most who start at minimum wage manage to leave minimum wages behind within a year.

Republican example: We all favor the family and we all love children, so we must believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman or the children will suffer. Therefore you should oppose the marriage of two gay people. OK, here I need not explain what is simple about this, but I do have to in Tulsa, OK when I talk to the seed of Oral Roberts.

In any political poll I take, the answer to at least one-third of the questions is always none of the answers offered. It really irritates me to be expected to answer I Do Not Know when I Do Know. So I do not answer the question.

Now, is it really possible for the US to have nothing to do with the Middle East? If we have something to do with it, is it really possible to be uninvolved in the mess they have made of themselves? Is it really possible to avoid their hate? If our foreign policy were like Canada's would we be free of threat from Muslim terrorism even though they have not been? Hmmm.

[NightHawk]

I remember push polls from the Nixon - Kennedy race. Yes, they have evolved and are more consistently designed now, but this has just been a matter of tweaking.

There were push polls on issues such as Quemoy between Taiwan and Red China and on the Democrat's invention of a missile gap with the Russians, among other things.

[glantern954]

Wow! How do you find this stuff!?


Larry Niven's famous essay Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex (http://www.rawbw.com/~svw/superman.html) takes on just that question. "The purpose of this article is to point out some medical drawbacks to being a kryptonian among human beings, and to suggest possible solutions," in Niven's words.

[Rhuth]

Now, is it really possible for the US to have nothing to do with the Middle East?

Lol Of course not! I just wanted us to be a little less bully like saying such things as "If you're not with us you're against us". I seriously doubt my answer will shift attention from the Middle East though.

Thank you for defining Push Polls for me! I hadn't heard the term before. Now what you didn't answer for me is what you think of Superman! *tease*

[JrzGuy3]

What do I think of Superman?

I have to say, I'm generally very good about not calling things "gay" as a derogatory remark. I rarely do it and I wince when other people do (and I'm not in a time I can respond, like when I'm tutoring).

Thus said, "Fortress of Solitude"?? Crikes. Why do I feel like Clark Kent was beaten up by all the other Supermen when he was in day care?

[leredacteur]

If anyone who reads Niven's "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex" wants to dig deeper into the subject, scour the web for a long-ish article titled "A Psychopathology of the Comics" by a psychologist named Gershon Legman.

It was published in a "little magazine" titled "Neurotica" in the very early 50s, I think, and was well-researched and very well-written.

In the 30s, 40s and 50s, comic books and the superheroes appearing therein were exceedingly violent and there was a powerful racist undercurrent to the plotlines. One of Legman's howlingly funny references was to Superman, who he called " . . . a one-man flying lynch mob."

[NightHawk]

Rhuth,

Sorry, but I have not seen the latest Superman movie. If he really is a Super Man, then shouldn't he be able to love both men and women? If he can't, then isn't he both ordinary and less than super?

Of course, it might be that Kryptonite made him either rock-solid heterosexual or homosexual by playing with some biochemical hard switch in him. Guess I cannot fault him either way if so. I will accept him even if he is not fortunate enough to be bisexual. Now maybe with that speeding bullet cumming he needs a more rugid, less delicate, lover. Maybe he needs someone who can take it like a man.

Yeh, if you are not with us, then you are against us is a bit severe. Yet, this is the fairly understandable response when a force threatens Western Civilization. You want there to be people willing to fight the war the terrorists have declared on the West. It is good, even essential, to remember that the war is carried out actively by a minority of Muslims, but it is also essential to remember that they get widespread support from many other Muslims. Jihad is very popular. The West has to respond to it, but it is good to respond with some understanding that many of the people of the Middle East are miserable. It is tough living in a country where the wrong kind of haircut will get you killed. It would be hard to be a woman who cannot drive and cannot own her own property. It is tough to be ruled by arbitrary and ruthless leaders such as those now in Syria and Iran and until recently in Afghanistan and Iraq. A culture that kills people who sell ice because Mohammed did not have ice or kills people who eat a food he did not have, is a wee bit sick. Eventually, the people of the Middle East will likely straighten this out, but how do we all get from here to there? It looks like a rough ride with no easy answers. Neither pacificism nor pure war-like behavior is the answer. But, firmness will have to be a part of the answer, part will be setting a good example where we can, and part will be to do what we can to educate the Muslims. The problem is likely to last for decades and it is not going to be possible to ignore it. Wishful thinking is not going to provide an alternative. Americans and Muslims are going to die in substantial numbers, as long as Imans preach Jihad against the West every week in their religious services.

Sorry to be the historical realist. I understand that you are a really nice person and you just want to be really nice to others. Very unfortunately, some others are very happy to interpret that as weakness and will be very happy to behead you. I think that would be very sad and very intolerable, even if your head were not so incredibly beautiful. By nature I am one who evolved and has always chosen to be a protector of women and children. In the final analysis, it is all men were ever needed for. Otherwise, nature might have made women capable of impregnating one another and why bother with the evolution of man? So, there are those who would rather go after the terrorists abroad rather than only trying to protect the NYC subway system here or the Sears Tower. Of course, building schools in Iraq and introducing them to real elections is good. On the other hand, there are so many thugs there that it is unreal. People blowing up pipelines so they can make money hauling oil by truck is certainly a different viewpoint of life. People hating one another because one is a Kurd, another a Turk, another a Sunni, and another a Shiite is really strange. In general, we are far evolved from tribalism while they are still very tribal. This and the religion of that area of the world do make us very different.

[JrzGuy3]

By nature I am one who evolved and has always chosen to be a protector of women and children. In the final analysis, it is all men were ever needed for. Otherwise, nature might have made women capable of impregnating one another and why bother with the evolution of man? So, there are those who would rather go after the terrorists abroad rather than only trying to protect the NYC subway system here or the Sears Tower.

I'm calling shenenanigans, and raising the wager that you've never taken a college course on evolution, ecology or anatomy, much less with any regards to sexual dimorphism. :2cents:

[NightHawk]

I have not. At the time, I studied physics and math, with a bit of chemistry. If I had, that would have been 37 years ago. I believe something has been learned in the meantime.

Actually, I understand that there are some advantages with respect to genetic diversity in having two sexes. Most of my reading on the subject of evolution is in Scientific American, though some has been in other general science magazines and newletters over the years.

Please feel free to add content to your remark. I will be interested.

[glantern954]

I'm calling shenenanigans,

Alright! Somebody hand me a broom!

[JrzGuy3]

Men did not evolve to protect women and children. Most (if not all, I don't remember ever learning of any) early (animalian) life forms which undergo sexual reproduction live solitary existances. Men, in terms of homo sapiens, did not evolve but simply inherited the successful characteristics (sexual reproduction) from our ancestor species.

[twodelta]

OK - Here's my two cents worth. First of all, we are not involved militarily in the Middle East because we want them to live happily ever after in a democratic society. If that were the case, we would have been there LONG before now. We are there now to make sure that the almighty oil pipeline keeps flowing our way! In my part of the woods, we believe in calling a skunk a skunk. But You know what - it stinks no matter what You call it - Dave

[Avocado]

I started off being against the war in Iraq. Then I was for it. Now I don't know. On the one hand, I want to believe that we are liberating these countries. On the other hand, when I see our puppet governments putting people on trial for converting to Christianity, I don't really see a desire from the West to make real change there. And I'd be mighty tempted to join the insurgency if I was an Iraqi after them troops shot those civilians, you know? On the other hand, at least we put these people on trial. Osama Bin Laden never put anyone on trial for 9/11. But then we go back to the fact we only replace one Sharia state with another. Stopping terrorist attacks on the West is a priority for these people, but do they realise they'd have more support for the war on terror if they actually replaced one Sharia state not with another, but one that won't behead people for converting from Islam? Do one or the other. Do nothing, or if you're going to do this, fuck having sensitivity towards Sharia law.

[NightHawk]

JrzGuy3,

Sure, there actually would probably be a male homo sapien simply based on the anatomical similarities to other mammals, etc. I tossed off the comment about there being no need for men a bit flippantly. But, the need would surely have been less and the evolution of mankind as social animals would certainly have been very different if men had simply performed impregnation acts and disappeared as the males of many other species do. We can only wonder what differences this would have made for the development of many of the distinctively human traits and abilities. Would humans then be anything like the social animals they are now?

My evolution was not only one of genetics, but it was also one of being the oldest child in a family with 6 children, having a Dad who was often away as a cold-war warrior, and having a Mom who badly needed a helping hand. I very early decided that I was going to be a protector of my 4 younger sisters and my much younger brother and that the chores a father might usually do, I would do. I started cutting the yard when I was 8, and scrubbing the kitchen and bathroom floors, and taking out the trash. I also helped with the dishes and cleaned windows and vacuumed. I also changed diapers for 3 sisters and a brother. I baby sat. When I was not working, I read a lot and I played hard when I played. I saw what needed to be done and I did it. I chose who I was going to be. I evolved into the man I wanted to be.

That is the Bigger Picture.

[smokey]

your dad was a cold warrior? didn't he have any winter clothes? :tong: :rolleyes: ;) :bigrin:

[arana]

your dad was a cold warrior? didn't he have any winter clothes? :tong: :rolleyes: ;) :bigrin:
ROFLMAO ah a smartass after my own heart.

[Rhuth]

My point of starting this thread was to laugh at the idea that I was formally given a choice between gay and straight, and was not given the option of choosing bisexual. Is there anyone who has any comments on that?

The tangent on superhero's sexuality was entertaining. Learning about push polls was interesting. Arguing about politics was making me uncomfortable, so I tried to steer it back to a lighthearted Superman conversation.

Thank you, JrzGuy for trying to point out that I am not a pretty little lady that needs protecting from Muslims. As I said in my personal message, that was what was bothering me most, but a lot of other things said also made my blood boil. However, I no longer think any minds will be changed here, no matter how much proof is offered. I like how twodelta and Avacado tried to steer the conversation to personal opinions about the war without making blanket presumptions about anyone. I would love to hear more comments like theirs!

/Rhuth

[JrzGuy3]

Sorry Rhuth, I'm not done with this yet.


My evolution was not only one of genetics, but it was also one of being the oldest child in a family with 6 children, having a Dad who was often away as a cold-war warrior, and having a Mom who badly needed a helping hand. I very early decided that I was going to be a protector of my 4 younger sisters and my much younger brother and that the chores a father might usually do, I would do. I started cutting the yard when I was 8, and scrubbing the kitchen and bathroom floors, and taking out the trash. I also helped with the dishes and cleaned windows and vacuumed. I also changed diapers for 3 sisters and a brother. I baby sat. When I was not working, I read a lot and I played hard when I played. I saw what needed to be done and I did it. I chose who I was going to be. I evolved into the man I wanted to be.

I'm not saying I don't admire the role you took, nor am I saying that I'd take anything from you. However, I will contend that this decision has everything to do with a strong personal composition and sense of duty (which are both comendable) but absolutely nothing to do with that piece of flesh hanging between your legs. Unless of course, you're implying you wouldn't have taken this role (either by choice or by inability) if you were a girl. :2cents:

[NightHawk]

Rhuth,

If you wish to take personal risks it is generally your right to do so. If you do not wish to wear a seat belt, or a helmet when on a bike or motorcycle that should be your choice. If you wish to drink to excess, use a dangerous drug, or commit suicide, that should be your choice. However, I do not know how your wish to be unprotected from terrorists can be accomodated without putting my family or friends or employees at risk.

I live in a Blue state and in particular in a part of it that is especially blue. Everyone talks as though everyone shares their politics of the left here. It is assumed. When I question a viewpoint I am often regarded as impolite. Now, I have family in a very Red state. When I visit them, those outside my family, assume that I share all of their political views. So, I hear people talking disgustedly about homosexuals and how gay marriage is evil and a terrible threat to the family. I question this and make it clear that I do not agree. I am regarded as impolite for doing so. In America today, it is considered impolite to question the common viewpoints of whatever area of the country one is in. So, the Blue state people are comfortable in their beliefs and in calling the Red staters stupid, wrong, and bent on the destruction of America. Well, quess what? The Red staters have about the same opinion of the Blue staters.

I have family whom I love in Red states. Some of them are religious conservatives and they are good people. They are as good as the Blue state people who live around me. How am I to feel when a constant chatter of put downs for these people, not limited even to issues of sexuality, is shared here in the same assuming way that Christian evangelical ideas are often assumed and shared in some Red states?

In fact, the Blue state political agenda is right maybe 30% of the time and the Red state political agenda is right maybe 30% of the time, in my opinion. A reasonable political agenda could be cobbled together by putting together the best of each viewpoint. Most of both viewpoints are simple-minded and unexamined. This is largely because people are too polite in either region to ask the questions and have the discussions that are needed to formulate rational viewpoints in a complicated world. This is what is preventing such simple and needed improvements as allowing gay civil unions. It is important that Red staters and Blue staters actually learn to talk to one another. If they do, both will likely change for the better.

[NightHawk]

JrzyGuy3,

I married such a woman. My oldest daughter is such a woman. I hired two such women. All four of my sisters are such women.

However, if you expect me to separate myself from what is between my legs, you can forget it!

[NightHawk]

JrzyGuy3,

You are almost ideally politically correct! I am impressed. So, if you had to face a sabre-toothed tiger with a spear, you would be just as likely to choose a woman to face it with you as to choose a man. Right?

Unless you find a really exceptional woman warrior in your small group, you sure are willing to spot the tiger a lot of points. As I understand it, that was a very risky thing to do. Maybe your biology and evolution courses are so politically correct that the sabre-tooth is now taught to be a pussy cat and the women were just as likely to be in the forefront of the hunting party? Were there just as many women in the Greek line at Marathon when the Persians attacked?

Sure, I do not doubt that there have been excellent women warriors, but they are the exception. Women can do many things. Indeed, they can be excellent in virtually everything that modern civilization requires. When civilization fails or never was established, survival called for a higher level of aggressiveness and strength. Where there is no civilization and life is brutal, men tend to rule. The really bad despots are rarely women. Yes, they are almost always men. Recognizing this is probably OK for the politically correct, since it implies men are evil and women are just too good to be so evil. It does imply that there are some real differences of some sort. You should be williing to deal with the differences if you have any regard for reality.

It is civilization that makes it possible for women to share an equal role in power. Where civilization is minimized, as in most of the Middle East, women share little of the power.

[JrzGuy3]

I never made any assertions that a women would be a man's equal in prowess fighting sabre tooted cats, strawman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman). I'll concede that men are better suited to go nose-to-snout with sabre tooth cats. Hell, I'd even make a blanket statement that men, having higher muscle mass than women, are generally better suited for hand-to-paw combat with large predatory animals than are women. Now let's get back to the point I did make, which you so graciously strayed from. I'll even boldface it for you.


I'm not saying I don't admire the role you took, nor am I saying that I'd take anything from you. However, I will contend that this decision has everything to do with a strong personal composition and sense of duty (which are both comendable) but absolutely nothing to do with that piece of flesh hanging between your legs. Unless of course, you're implying you wouldn't have taken this role (either by choice or by inability) if you were a girl.

[glantern954]

Maybe the best answer to the question would have been, since I didn't see the movie I don't know. But if there is a question about his sexuality why isn't bisexual one of my choices. From what I know of Superman, he has had a relationship with a woman...but he does wear tights. ;)

[Rhuth]

Maybe the best answer to the question would have been, since I didn't see the movie I don't know. But if there is a question about his sexuality why isn't bisexual one of my choices. From what I know of Superman, he has had a relationship with a woman...but he does wear tights. ;)

Isn't it frustrating when you whish you would have said something else after it is too late? I wonder how many polls have happened where people hang up and immediately wish they had chosen a different answer. Do x% of the country really feel that way then?

Unfortunately I learned with other questions that expressing my frustration about not being able to choose bisexuality would never have gotten heard by anyone but the girl on the phone. She had no place to write down my comments. She just checked off the answers provided. Still, her checking off "I don't know" would have been better. If enough people did it, the statistic would have been:

"Most people find Superman's sexuality indeterminable!"

[glantern954]

Isn't it frustrating when you whish you would have said something else after it is too late? !"

I do this all the time.

[smokey]

personally when it comes to going hand to paw with a saber tooth tiger...I will find the most macho guy I can find and let him do it. They are usually stupid enough to try and its one way to get rid of them. Besides after the cat as eaten he won't be as much of a threat for awhile. :bigrin: :bigrin: :bigrin:

[NightHawk]

JrzyGuy3,

My sisters rarely volunteered to help with the chores I took on. My 3 daughters rarely volunteer or volunteered to cut the grass or clean the gutters. If the dog throws up on the carpet I am the one most likely to clean it up. If a spider needs to be caught, it is usually me who does it. But then, who knows, maybe other women like these tasks. Certainly some are also known to do what needs to be done.

By the way, I was 8 in 1955. Girls felt a lot less obliged then than now to cut the grass. Given that scrubbing floors is hard work, there were few objections from the women to my doing the floors. You should hear the moans if I ask my daughters to either scrub the floors or cut the grass. But then, I suppose there are a lot more boys now who would also moan. It is not a trivial matter to separate the changing expectations with the times. Now days, I suppose a boy would ask why does he have to cut the grass when his sister does not. Some boys anyway. Strangely enough, when I see a kid cutting the grass in our neighborhood it is usually still a boy. Mostly it is fathers, however. Boys and girls are both less inclined to do chores anymore.

[allbimyself]

Isn't it frustrating when you whish you would have said something else after it is too late?

This is so true, Rhuth.

A few years back I was pulled over by a state trooper. He asked me, "do you know how fast you were going?"

The next day I thought of the perfect response.... "No." But what I said was "You're the one with the speed gun, fascist pig, you tell me."

Really wish I'd thought of "No" at the time....

[softfruit]

To empathise with Rhuth's original post - I take part in regular online opinion polling site. When they're doing anything that ties in to party politics the questions will tend to go something like:

1) Which party do you intend to vote for - Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Green, [...]

Which regardless who you choose will take you to something like:

2) So who do you want to have as Prime Minister - [Labour leader] or [Conservative leader]?

At which point, given the answer is "neither", I tend to froth at the mouth a little, try and remember who I put last time and pick the other one this time!

[JrzGuy3]

NightHawk,

All well and good. But the point remains that these roles being taken are not roles intrinsically hardwired into your children's or sisters' heads along with the schematic for a female reproductive system. These are entire human social constructs and people falling into roles which they feel are expected of them (beyond a general malaise for unsavory work, which I think permeates equally both genders).

But, the point stands. Correlation with gender? Absolutely. Causation? No.

[jamiehue]

Well ..im at the library and sitting across from me are two of finest ....how would i love to pole them!

[NightHawk]

JrzyGuy3,

Ok, this is progress. Now I know that you allow for some physical differences other than the genitalia themselves and breasts. Further, you appear to be saying that otherwise men and women are emotionally and intellectually identical except for the effects of social expectations. Please correct me if I am wrong in my understanding of your beliefs.

So, for instance, when President Summers of Harvard referred to studies of the male and female minds and tried to suggest some possible implications for the relative numbers of men and women who choose to enter fields such as math and science, were those who called for his resignation correct in doing so? Is it wrong to wonder if something other than social expectations and discrimination may be the cause for fewer women entering these fields, especially in view of studies that do indicate some differences in brain structures and some hormonal effects upon emotions? Do you dismiss all such science then? If so, on what basis do you do so?

Do not assume that I am asserting that women cannot be great mathematicians and physicists. I have the highest respect for Madame Curie and for Maria Goeppert Mayer, for instance. But, it is not a foregone conclusion that the center of gravity for the keenest operation of the the average female mind is the same as that for the average male mind. Some studies have apparently implied that differences may be especially significant among the best minds of each sex. I, for one, am not so committed to political correctness that I am sure all such studies are wrong. My commitment is to understanding reality, rather than simply wishing that everyone was the same or at least that the male and female averages are the same in all things. Indeed, my personal experience causes me to expect that studies showing some differences by sex are on to something valid. Interestingly, this is politically correct in some forms, but not in others. So one can say that women are more in touch with their feelings and more communicative and one can say things that are negative about men.

Such differences have implications for simple-minded assessments that if there are different numbers of men and women in a given field, then it must be because of discrimination or the programming of men and women simply to meet societal expectations. With respect to physics, I think there is almost no discrimination, though there is something of a factor of women's expectations of what will give them happiness. Where all of these factors will settle out as we come to understand the complex interplay, I do not know. But, I do expect that it is more complex than that only societal expectations are in play here.

While understanding the mental and emotional differences between men and women is somewhat helpful in understanding broad societal issues such as why there are more women in some professions and more men in others, this does not relieve one of the requirement to judge each person as an individual for any given position. There are wide overlaps between men and women in their distributions with respect to all mental and emotional parameters. It would be dumb to not hire Madame Curie for a position as a physicist because more men than women become great physicists. No, when a Madame Curie comes along, you hire her and get out of her way.

It would be great if you were to open a new thread to discuss these issues and lay out your viewpoint in some detail. To this point, your position has been remarkably unspecific and marked almost entirely by little more than that you disagree with me. So how about staking out an actual position, which you are willing to defend?

[Avocado]

So one can say that women are more in touch with their feelings and more communicative and one can say things that are negative about men.


Exactly! Or infidels, or non-gays (including us bis) etc. That is why political correctness is aload of bollocks.

[Driver 8]

So, for instance, when President Summers of Harvard referred to studies of the male and female minds and tried to suggest some possible implications for the relative numbers of men and women who choose to enter fields such as math and science, were those who called for his resignation correct in doing so?
It is worth placing these comments in context. MIT, a very similar school, had just done an internal study finding a long-standing pattern of discrimination against women in the sciences. Women professors and researchers were given less lab space and less grant money. When male faculty were offered jobs in the private sector, MIT gave them raises; when women faculty were offered jobs in the private sector, MIT didn't; and so forth.

So when Summers suggests that, gosh, women just aren't as good at these things, and that's why they're underrepresented, it suggests that he's willfully ignoring the known facts. And if people think that calls his competence as university president into question, I think they have a point.

[Sparks]

About Superman, you're closer than you think...

Brandon Routh trips my bi-dar... and that ain't a bad thing... Now If I can just get Gary Sinise drunk... :devil:

*TM*


I'm with you Taylor on both counts. :)

[JrzGuy3]

So how about staking out an actual position, which you are willing to defend?

What do I need to do? Make the text blink?


I will contend that this decision has everything to do with a strong personal composition and sense of duty (which are both comendable) but absolutely nothing to do with that piece of flesh hanging between your legs. Unless of course, you're implying you wouldn't have taken this role (either by choice or by inability) if you were a girl.

You have strong personal convictions, even if you haven't yet answered my question. My standpoint has been, is now and will continue to be (even next time you complain I haven't taken one) that such personal virtues exist independant of whether you have a penis or vagina (and other secondary features which come along with each respectively).

[NightHawk]

Personal virtues exist in many ways in many men and women. They are not always expressed in the same way, however. There are tendencies for men and women to have different approaches and even to put their efforts into different spheres of human action. Being a young boy in the 1950s, I did take note of the fact that I was male and that when my Dad was gone, I was the only male with a mother and several sisters to look after. This attitude was appreciated by both my mother and father and my younger sisters were also appreciative.

The fact that there are more female than male nurses is probably not primarily the result of discrimination against male nurses.

The comments on the MIT case are interesting. Perhaps MIT had a real problem of discrimination against women. Many universities are so eager to have women faculty in the sciences that they discriminate against men. A good woman candidate is actually preferred to an equivalent male candidate and they are sought eagerly with higher salaries and with better lab support. The same is commonly true in the commercial world where government contractors are under pressure to show that they have equal numbers of women in all sorts of professional positions, including technical positions. Despite this, there are too few women in the math and sciences for it to be possible to hire equal numbers of women and men.

President Summers was not looking to discriminate against women. He was simply citing research that indicated that there were differences in the way men and women thought and that these differences might have some relevance to understanding why it was so hard to find enough women for faculty positions in the math and sciences. Ignoring the reality of such effects can only result in finding discrimination all over, when much less probably exists than is thought.

When I tell a woman that I am a scientist, you cannot imagine what fraction immediately respond by telling me that they are a people person. More than discrimination, I think many women shy away from math and the sciences because 1) they want to be a people person and 2) they are convinced that scientists cannot be people persons. Many women also complain that men think too analytically. Well, math and science put something of a premium on thinking analytically. Could this also be a significant issue?

Of course, we could put our head in the sand and ignore the differences. We could expect women to respond to drugs when they are diseased in the same way that men do, for instance. Oh yeah, we have been doing that. Unfortunately, this is bad for the health of women. They very often respond to drugs differently than men do. But, in the name of equality, we are morally driven to treat them the same as men! Well, no, I do not think so. Morality demands that we discover the differences and do our best to treat everyone so that they will be as healthy as possible.