Posted on 12/16/2005 9:52:09 PM PST by tbird5
Until last winter, I had assumed that fundamentalist feminism had peaked in the early 1990s with the Anita Hill brouhaha, and that Bill Clinton's political survival in 1998, which hinged on his near-unanimous support from hypocritical feminists, ended the era in which anyone took feminism seriously.
The Larry Summers fiasco, however, showed that while feminism may have entered its Brezhnev Era intellectually, it still commands the institutional equivalent of Brezhnev's thousands of tanks and nuclear missiles. After just a few days, Harvard President Lawrence Summers caved in to critics of his off-hand comment that nature, not invidious discriminations alone, might be to blame for the lower percentage of women who study math and science. In short order, he propitiated the feminists by promising, in effect, to spend $50 million taking teaching and research opportunities at Harvard away from male jobseekers and giving them to less talented women.
Perhaps in a saner society, then, we would have less need for Leonard Sax's engaging combination of popular science exposition and advice guidebook, Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know about the Emerging Science of Sex Differences. But parents as well as professors could benefit from it now.
(Excerpt) Read more at claremont.org ...
Very likely I would have apologized at some point, however as his tone continued, I could not help remembering that at the age of 10 I was sexually assaulted by an elderly male who told me that sex was all I would ever be good for.
I will not apologize to the poster, but I deeply regret any negativity I may have inspired in other posters and lurkers.
I'm not quite certain what you are trying to say, but more egalitarian societies have fewer stereotypes.
Individual initiative is the ultimate sin of such policy, fiercely racist/sexist/anti-gay in its implementation - it knows no true measure of tolerance or reward for good qualities.
Perhaps you would care to read the following article:
Fostering Resilience in Children
The studies cited within this article seem to support the thought that a more egalitarian family life does precisely the opposite of what you have proposed - that children are more individualistic, their curiosity is encouraged, they learn independence, etc. Egalitarian societies are far less racist, sexist, or anti-gay.
Quite the opposite, it baits and enslaves our entire culture toward its current degenerate state.
I disagree with your conclusion, for the United States is definitely a heirarchical society, with moral degeneration a natural result of forcing people into role definitions based solely on gender.
The problem boils down to this:
But I did laugh when I read your comment. :)
lol. My thoughts exactly.
I work with a female manager who is quite the "bitch", but she sure knows how to get things done around the office! Not surprisingly, she is unmarried. But she even admits that the kind of man who would tolerate her personality is probably not the kind of man she would want to marry.
bump
I do not think all men are bad just because of my experience- I think guys are great as a whole- and I am very blessed to have some wonderful ones in my life that add to it immensely. And while there is not much too that a man can do that I can't do (I will admit to being a complete dunce about anything that requires tools LOL), I still want a man in my life again eventually and that is not all about sex either. There's something intrinsicly unique in the nature of a relationship with a member of the opposite gender that you can't get in the friendship of someone of the same gender. So-- long live the good guys. :-) Have hope, Fido, and don't let it turn you bitter.
Thank you for reminding me. There are indeed valuable lessons to be learned from both genders.
Separated almost 9 years - divorced just about 5.
I am done plenty of dating, had a few relationships, etc. But, you know, when someone is 48 years old and single, well, gosh, chances are there is a good reason for that. Myself included, I am sure.
I dated a women a while ago, and she talked about how she was going to have a "healthy" relationship THIS time, blah, blah, blah. It occurred to me that both of us had failed in EVERY SINGLE intimate relationship that either of us had up to that point. Sometime you got to say: This is not something I am good at! But, Lord knows, hope springs eternal. (Denial is a powerful thing, too.)
I like dating, if done just for dating's sake, it is a blast, and yes, I have some very good women friends. Heck, I'd say some of my best friends are women. And, as a matter of fact I am in a relationship now, with someone 330 miles away and haven't seen for 5 months. That distance seems about just right some days, and keeps me "out of circulation", thank God.
Well, God Bless us, very one. Even the bitchy ones. I just decided I don't have to put up with that constant abuse anymore.
Peace.
And God Bless you, too.
Peace.
There is no such agenda, only perception and the choices made by millions of individuals to live out their supposed stereotypes, happily and without apology.
I don't know if I can really trust an article by ba persosn who incorrectly uses the term "gender," when he is supposed to use sex. I assume this article is not about grammar.
I refer you to WWII. Initially, America called upon women to fill otherwise traditionally male roles as "Rosie the Riveter".
Once our boys came home, however, women were supposed to be good little droids and march faithfully back home to bake those brownies and wear those aprons.
No agenda? Please think again.
The typo error was corrected about one minute later.
Regarding the ad hominem atttack, it just shows an inability to deal with the facts. In this case, that gender does make a difference. Males are better at some stuff and females better at others.
It also shows that women get frustrated and say things like "don't breed" - very typical and obviously feminine!
Your quote from post 14 indicates that you have a bit of a problem dealing with the facts: "If there were boys there, they would see how hopelessly inferior most of them are in those disciples." I've met and worked with a number of women with Ph.D.s in the hard sciences, including physics. They are not "hopelessly inferior".
In this case, that gender does make a difference. Males are better at some stuff and females better at others.
Oh absolutely men and women have very obvious gender-based differences, and I never said otherwise. However, intellect and the ability to succeed in areas considered to be "man's country" are not amongst those differences.
It also shows that women get frustrated and say things like "don't breed" - very typical and obviously feminine!
You are attempting to create a sexist stereotype where one does not exist. I've often seen men use this same phrase against women within the hallowed halls of FR. I guess my mother was correct when she said, "To be considered equal, women only have to be twice as good", including, it would seem, public discourse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.