Replies

"Even if I were to accept your examples as representative of life in the United States, I would point out that all of them pre-date the 1950s for which you have expressed such great disdain."

You're right! The two college examples that I pointed out were from the late sixties. Also, women could be kept out of the state jury pools until the Supreme Court struck it down in the early 60s.

"Many homosexual activists insist that their sexuality is inborn and therefore not subject to choice. That argument, specious though it may be, seems to be gaining currency in some circles. "

But you probably believe that homosexuality is a choice and gender isn't... So why would it matter what some activists believe. The point's still valid. Women cannot change their gender.

"You declined my challenge to define sexism and to explain why it is the role of the federal government to change people's sexist attitudes."

Because there's obviously a segment of the population that feels that women should be in the kitchen as witnessed from this thread, and these men have jobs
where they have to interact with women. I very much doubt that they would willingly promote a woman over a man.

"Discrimination, yes. It could also be a perfectly rational business decision. Again, explain to me why the federal government should have any say in the matter"

The Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act say that a company must pay equal wages to men and women with the same qualifications and quality of work. It sounds to me like it's always a good business decision to pay people with equal qualifications the same amount. Otherwise, you might lose a valued employee to a better deal.

"Perhaps so, although norms and mores were undoubtedly more flexible than you have imagined. In any case, people in a free society should have the liberty to live according their preferred social norms and mores. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to change people's attitudes about marital arrangements."

No, but it's the government's job to make sure that those personal preferences don't affect other people's lives. Which is what sometimes happens when the govern. doesn't step in... During the 1940s and 1950s, "gentleman's agreements" (i.e. housing covenants, informal discrimination in stores) was the most prevalent form of racial/ religious discrimination in the North. It isn't that big a jump to think that women during the same period were affected by a "gentleman's agreement" of sorts in which due to the informal norms and mores of the time, male dominated universities accept women and corporations didn't hire them.

"Nor should there be such laws in a free society."

So basically you believe that it would have been okay for a college to reject a qualified applicant just because she's a woman. That's a perfect example of sexism right there.

"Forced? Nonsense. You really should talk to some women who came of age during the 1950s. "

Well, there was nothing else that she could do during the 1950s... Marriage and children were basically the only options for many women.

SHES GOONA BLOW WHEN SHE SEES THIS ONE !!!!

Dear Accy:

Dr Paul Irwing is a senior lecturer in organisational psychology at Manchester University. He claims that men are more intelligent than women.
(quote)-
"All the research I've done points to a gender difference in general cognitive ability. There is a mean difference of about five IQ points. The further you go up the distribution the more and more skewed it becomes. There are twice as many men with an IQ of 120-plus as there are women, there are 30 times the number of men with an IQ of 170-plus as there are women"