|
|
"Intelligent" Women
The following internet discussion illustrates how women who "think" they are "intelligent" are the most irresponsible creatures on the planet. Numerous times during this discussion, the magnitude of the serious social pathologies which we are now experiencing were mentioned, and each time this "intelligent woman" deflected the discussion to her own personal problems and accomplishments. Not once in this entire discourse did she appear to be the slightest bit concerened about how the Nineteenth Amendment adversely affected family stability, how the fifty fold increase in the divorce rate has adversely affected the status and condition of American women, what the *negative* personal savings rate in the country means to the future of the country, nor how some of the highest crime and incarceration rates in the world will bankrupt the entire nation. Each point was met with a rationalization of some sort, the redirection of the discussion to a personal problem, and the reinstatement that she is "intelligent". This is why "half the population of the united states [should be excluded] from making decisions about the political representatives this country has". The female half must be excluded for their own good, and particularly for the good of the nation.
-------------------------------------- 5139151 druid Started on Sun Aug 12 09:13:12 2001 -------------------------------------- druid 8/10/01 10:06 PM hello fm 8/10/01 10:07 PM how are you? druid 8/10/01 10:08 PM i'm fine.
just wondering if you're serious about the whole repeal of women's suffrage. fm 8/10/01 10:08 PM absolutely--what do you think about that? druid 8/10/01 10:10 PM i wonder why the desire to exclude half the population of the united states from making decisions about the political representatives this country has.
i wonder if it's possible to choose a candidate that will best represent constituents if half of the consituents cannot vote.
what do you think about that? fm 8/10/01 10:12 PM you are talking about a social construct which completely contradicts Christianity, and which caused our divorce rate to explode--50 fold. Is it worth all that? druid 8/10/01 10:13 PM i wonder how you use Christianity as a political philosophy when the Constitution is directly prohibitive of establishment of religion. i.e. the government cannot exist to promote any religion fm 8/10/01 10:14 PM this is not quite correct--the Constitution prohibits the government from prohibiting free exercise of religion--which is just the opposite of what you just said. druid 8/10/01 10:15 PM "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,... "
to me, this means that Congress does not have the power to make law based upon one religion's ideologies.
do you see it another way? fm 8/10/01 10:16 PM when the Supreme Court banned school prayer, it reversed 2 centuries of case law to the contrary, and *established* its own religion--secular humanism. fm 8/10/01 10:17 PM that's what our Forefathers wanted to prevent. druid 8/10/01 10:18 PM i don't agree with the banishment of prayer in a school, though i do think that a school which receives federal funding should not be able to choose a religion and make the students pray.
if students wish to pray on a voluntary basis, i support them. druid 8/10/01 10:19 PM our Forefathers wanted to prevent a lot of things, mostly involving the ability of government to deny someone the natural rights accorded to them by virtue only of their being human.
is there just cause to deny women the same rights as men? fm 8/10/01 10:19 PM no school should ever receive federal funding--but even so, the federal government was prohibited from banning spoken Christian prayer in public schools for two centuries--that is when everything went haywire. fm 8/10/01 10:19 PM after school prayer was banned in 1963, that is. fm 8/10/01 10:20 PM it's a violation of the HOly Bible to give women political power. druid 8/10/01 10:21 PM i'll be honest with you. i am not a christian. i don't pray. but i also don't have a problem with christians praying in my presence, and i'm quite willing to talk to christians about their faith.
i find serious problem with trying to silence anyone who doesn't share a particular opinion. fm 8/10/01 10:21 PM sounds like that's exactly what you want to do, tho. druid 8/10/01 10:21 PM right, but the Constitution expressly prohibits Congress from making any law that establishes religion, including using religious doctrine to govern the United States. druid 8/10/01 10:22 PM i don't want anyone to be silent. i'd much rather hear everyone. fm 8/10/01 10:22 PM you want to tell teachers that they can't conduct spoken Christian prayers--which is a complete reversal from 2 centuries of tradition to the contrary--plus another 1776 years before that. druid 8/10/01 10:23 PM not at all.
i fully support any teacher who wishes to pray in school. the only thing i ask is that they don't force students who are not Christian (i.e. Jews) to participate.
religion should *always* be on a voluntary basis for those who believe. fm 8/10/01 10:25 PM the problem of course is that jews objected to Christians having spoken Christian prayers--and they shut the whole country down, even though they are only 1.9% of the population. druid 8/10/01 10:25 PM What I'd like to see are schools in which there are Christian led groups with teachers of Christian background speaking to those students who are are interested, as well as other groups.
I'd strongly encourage kids to go and learn about people, even if they are different, because knowledge makes one grow, both intellectually and spiritually. fm 8/10/01 10:26 PM 1.9% are telling the other 93% how to conduct their religious affairs--which is completely contradictory to the Holy Bible.
druid 8/10/01 10:27 PM I don't object at all. I've told you that I am not a Christian, but I have many friends who are. We talk about faith, and discuss beliefs, and they have all told me that they pray for me. I thank them for this. I do not share their beliefs, but I understand them.
I do think this country would be much better off if instead of silencing those we disagree with, we *all* (Christian and otherwise) learned a bit about each other and listened to each other. fm 8/10/01 10:28 PM unfortunately, jews don't have a track record of doing that--look at what's happening in Palestine right now. druid 8/10/01 10:29 PM Well, I do think that any group telling another how to behave, how to believe, how to practice belief, is wrong.
It leads to so many closed minds..... and in this day and age, closed minds are truly sad. We must all learn to accept one another, differences and similarities, as we are.
I find it disparaging that Christians and non-Christians cannot respect each others beliefs. fm 8/10/01 10:31 PM that has (unfortunately for the jews) been their downfall for thousands of years. Our experiment proved that this won't ever change. druid 8/10/01 10:31 PM The violence is deplorable, in both directions.
I believe, honestly, that killing fellow human beings to further religious or political ends is a travesty.
Working toward understanding is the way to improve oneself, murder (whether it is an Israeli killing a Palistinian or the other way round) solves nothing and serves evil. fm 8/10/01 10:31 PM brb
druid 8/10/01 10:34 PM I'm not entierly sure what to make of the situation in the middle east between the Palistinians and the Israelis, except to say that I don't think violence is ever going to solve anything.
I have to say though, I didn't expect this to be a discussion about Christians vs. Jews, especially after reading your website.
I thought that the main idea was to change the recent trend towards fatherless families. fm 8/10/01 10:35 PM absolutely fm 8/10/01 10:36 PM the only way to get there is through Christianity. fm 8/10/01 10:36 PM what is happening in Palestine is OUR fault--we are funding this mess, and it is fellow Christians in Palestine who are suffering. druid 8/10/01 10:38 PM I definitely don't agree with funding such a war. If history has proven anything, it's that "holy wars" result in nothing more than bloodshed. Nothing is solved by the fighting, and no one acheives anything in being killed.
I'm just not sure where this fits in with denying women basic human rights. fm 8/10/01 10:40 PM by giving American women the vote, you are denying them the right to be married and have children in legitimate families--there are now 30 million women of marriageable age who are now unmarried fm 8/10/01 10:40 PM they still have the natural urge to have children, so the illegitimacy rate sextupled fm 8/10/01 10:41 PM and raising children in single-mother households is the WORST thing that can happen to both children and women fm 8/10/01 10:42 PM American women gained absolutely nothing and lost almost everything because of the 19th. druid 8/10/01 10:42 PM I have to say that I agree fully with you in that fathers should always be with their families, raising their children, instilling in them the values that can only be given by a positive male role model.
Where I can't make the jump is from that to believing that women are not equal. I was raised by two parents, married to each other. They have been married for twenty seven years, and this has never been affected by my mother's ability to vote or have a job of her own. In fact, she is a teacher, who for years did not work so that she could put all of her children into school. It was only after that time taht she found a need to fill her days and began teaching. fm 8/10/01 10:43 PM it's a huge mistake to claim that men and women are "equal". They are exact opposites in almost any way you measure it--complementary, but not "equal", by God's design. druid 8/10/01 10:43 PM I can't imagine my mother's life if she couldn't vote. She's a very happily married woman who has been with my father, the only man ever in her life, for twenty-nine years.
They're happy together, they raised children who became very happy productive adults. Is it so terrible that she votes? druid 8/10/01 10:44 PM How exactly are they not equal? fm 8/10/01 10:44 PM butwhat you ignore are the 30 million single women now--both divorced and never married--whom American men would be absolute fools to marry under the current arrangement. fm 8/10/01 10:45 PM http://christianparty.fsn.net/sex.htm fm 8/10/01 10:45 PM http://christianparty.fsn.net/mf.htm fm 8/10/01 10:46 PM http://christianparty.fsn.net/menare.htm druid 8/10/01 10:46 PM i agree that there are women who are problematic. women who are welfare mothers who have no idea who the fathers of their children are.
but is it fair to characterize all women by that standard? fm 8/10/01 10:46 PM http://christianparty.fsn.net/genddiff.htm fm 8/10/01 10:47 PM unfortunately, it's the standard you support which caused MOST American women to be undesirable, and even dangerous, to all American men. druid 8/10/01 10:47 PM there are differences, yes. but i am not entirely sure that these differences make either sex more capable of logical and rational thought than the other. fm 8/10/01 10:48 PM the divorce rate is much higher than you can imagine--in many states, there were more divorces last year than there were marriages 20 years ago. druid 8/10/01 10:48 PM undesirable and dangerous in what way?
wouldn't you prefer to have a wife that you could talk to about intelligent subjects? fm 8/10/01 10:49 PM even women know that women are not capable of rational thought--that's why women, even though they are 11.2% more of the vote than men, have elected less than 10% of women as politicians fm 8/10/01 10:50 PM a woman having the right to vote doesn't make her intelligent, at all. none of them understand the important political issues, by their own admission. What's important to them is the color of Clinton's tie, rather than his ability to tell the TRUTH. druid 8/10/01 10:50 PM i'm as dismayed as anyone else about the divorce rate. i think it's horrible that it happens, and i'd like to know exactly what's causing this.
i just don't think that the blame can be placed entirely on women being able to get an education and vote.
the reality is that some divorces are caused by spouses beating each other senseless, some are caused because the people who got married did so foolishly.
it's not entirely due to one cause. fm 8/10/01 10:51 PM men need to control women--they are too emotional and reactionary, and easily influenced by sound bytes. fm 8/10/01 10:52 PM when they vote independently of men, they make very poor choices. fm 8/10/01 10:52 PM Japanes women have the vote--but their religion keeps the divorce rate from getting out of hand, so women vote according to how their husbands vote. druid 8/10/01 10:52 PM it is?
i don't really know about that one. i was absolutely disgusted by clinton's perjury, sickened by the fact that he used the oval office to get a blow job, and reviled at his treatment of cathleen willey.
if anyone should be in prison, it's bill clinton. i don't give a damn what kind of tie someone wears. i'm an engineer, my life is in the numbers. science is not an emotional subject.
i'm afraid the only emotion i feel about clintion is embarassment that he was ever president. fm 8/10/01 10:53 PM but women supported hiim in record numbers. druid 8/10/01 10:53 PM i vote according to fact. i suppose being an engineer has predisposed me to a very narrow frame of reference that includes logic and discards any sort of emotional plea. fm 8/10/01 10:54 PM if women didn't vote, his name would never have appeared on the political scene. druid 8/10/01 10:54 PM those who did were fools.
clinton is, was, and always will be slime.
he is a disgrace to america. fm 8/10/01 10:54 PM so why do women STILL support this KNOWN liar? druid 8/10/01 10:54 PM the more i talk to you, the more i think it's not all women that you're in disagreement with. i'm getting the impression that you don't like the feminist-apologist "victim class" women.
fm 8/10/01 10:54 PM the answer is that most women don't consider integrity to be an important issue. fm 8/10/01 10:55 PM they literally get bowled over by a kiss, like Gore's, rather than an honest man. druid 8/10/01 10:55 PM i consider integrity (honor if you will) to be the most important issue in any person's life. druid 8/10/01 10:55 PM i bet i can flip your lid. druid 8/10/01 10:56 PM ready for a big surprise? fm 8/10/01 10:56 PM without women voters, he wouldn't have been elected the first time, he wouldn't have been elected the second time, and he would have been impeached--Clinton rode on that platform. fm 8/10/01 10:57 PM k druid 8/10/01 10:58 PM i am an engineer (B.S. degree in computer engineering from the university of pittsburgh) i am ranked 'expert' in marksmanship i am strongly in favor of a mother-father married parentage i voted for george w. bush, and i voted for his father. i am an extremely logical pragmatic person and i absolutely despise dateline, 48 hours, lifetime tv, and all those other 'women's' tv shows and emotional programming.
oh yeah, and i'm female. fm 8/10/01 10:58 PM that was a given--where is the lid flipping part? druid 8/10/01 11:00 PM i seem to buck your stereotype of women.
i hate clinton, i'm not emotional, i don't think that 'fathers are unnecessary'...
that's why i wonder about your desire to repeal the 19th. i can't see a logical reason that i'm any less qualified than you are to make rational, well informed, educated decisions.
the only difference between you and i is what set of genitals we've got. fm 8/10/01 11:01 PM you view the problem in exactly the opposite direction that I view it. druid 8/10/01 11:01 PM how so? fm 8/10/01 11:02 PM you have repeatedly made the claim that there are women who are qualified to vote, which means that you ignored my point that most women are not qualified to vote.
fm 8/10/01 11:02 PM Clinton is just one example of how women vote differently than men fm 8/10/01 11:03 PM and how the outcome has been devastating to the country. druid 8/10/01 11:03 PM there are many who are not.
there are also many men who are uneducated and incapable of making a rational, logical decision based on fact.
i see this as no reason to exclude those who *are* capable of casting a well informed vote.
do you? fm 8/10/01 11:04 PM I know that you want to defend your position--but there comes a time in a man's thought process that society takes a higher position than "equal" or "individual" rights. fm 8/10/01 11:04 PM this never happens with women fm 8/10/01 11:04 PM you view this as a women's rights issue--men view it as a social commentary. druid 8/10/01 11:05 PM we got bush this time. i'm disgusted that hitlery is a senator. the uninformed masses have screwed up again.
but you better believe i'm damned qualified in any vote i make, because i actually do researche and i vote on fact and issue not emotion.
now i'm asking you why you think i shouldn't have the right to vote. fm 8/10/01 11:05 PM no woman I know ever grasps this, even though many of them agree that the 19th must be repealed. fm 8/10/01 11:06 PM because in reality, Bush would not have been elected if women didn't vote. druid 8/10/01 11:06 PM actually i don't.
feminists hate me because i refuse to pander to them.
i believe that fact, logic, values and honor are above all else. i make decisions in the voting booth based on only that. druid 8/10/01 11:06 PM so you'd rather have al gore than have bush, because women voted? fm 8/10/01 11:06 PM what do you know about Bush's position on affirmative action? fm 8/10/01 11:07 PM no, no fm 8/10/01 11:07 PM we would have had a QUALIFIED candidate, a Thomas Jefferson type candidate, if only men voted. fm 8/10/01 11:08 PM Bush is a complete whimp, just like Clinton, which is what gets people elected now. druid 8/10/01 11:08 PM i know that the republican position is that affirmative action is a code for discrimination agaings the white, able bodied, heterosexual male.
by the way, i don't like affirmative action and i'd like to see it removed from this country permanently. fm 8/10/01 11:08 PM do you know what Bush just did? fm 8/10/01 11:08 PM do you know what he said he would do about aa BEFORE he got elected? fm 8/10/01 11:09 PM he is living up to his campaign promise to extend aa--EVEN THOUGH 91% OF AMERICANS OPPOSE IT. druid 8/10/01 11:09 PM he lied.
like every other politician has done since the earliest days of my memory.
in my opinion, we need to get rid of all these no good liars and start getting people in there who will do the damn job they're hired for fm 8/10/01 11:10 PM and that requires a Thomas Jefferson, whom women will NEVER vote for. fm 8/10/01 11:10 PM I've been through Mr. Jefferson's papers with a fine toothed comb, and can't find even one SHRED of a lie in them. fm 8/10/01 11:10 PM Bush LIES 100 times daily. druid 8/10/01 11:11 PM be careful with your generalities.
i'll vote for anyone with honor, integrity, the sack to do something that takes a step forward.
the only thing i ask is that they don't sarcifice my rights as a human being when they do so.
am i wrong for that? fm 8/10/01 11:11 PM weren't you misled by Bush? fm 8/10/01 11:11 PM Bush also won because of the women's vote. fm 8/10/01 11:12 PM if you're an engineer, then you understand Gaussian Distribution, which means that you have an inkling of the overlaps between men and women.
fm 8/10/01 11:13 PM Yes, there are some women who may make responsible voting decisions, and there are some men who don't. druid 8/10/01 11:13 PM hell no
let me tell you what i thought this election year.
i read the voting records. i looked at all the statistics. i watched every debate.
and i thought to myself 'i have to choose the least of the evils here.'
after much consideration, i realized that the lesser-evil person to get into the white house would likely be bush, and that voting for anyone other than bush would give gore a better chance.
i *hate* politics now, because it seems there's no one i'm voting for. i'm always voting against the greatest evil druid 8/10/01 11:14 PM as there are some men who make responsible voting decisions, and there are some men who don't.
i can't say i can collectively deny that right to either gender based on those who fuck (pardon my french) it up. fm 8/10/01 11:14 PM There was a time in this country when people voted to uphold the US Constitution--they no longer do that. fm 8/10/01 11:15 PM the SEcond Amendment is another example: more than half of men oppose "gun control laws"--but three quarters of women support them. fm 8/10/01 11:16 PM it's strictly because of women voters that the Second Amendment has been trashed--but not following Constitutional rules. druid 8/10/01 11:16 PM i'd die for that constitution.
but it has to treat men and women as *human beings*.
neither being the master of the other. i can't have kids, (medical problem), so i'd be willing to DIE for the constitution.... so other parents' children could grow up as free as i did.
fm 8/10/01 11:17 PM and as long as American women have that attitude--they are patently unmarriageable. druid 8/10/01 11:17 PM to me, gun control means a half inch group, iron sights at 100 yards with an m-16.
i am not 'most women'.
do you see now why you can't lump all women together? druid 8/10/01 11:17 PM have what attitude? fm 8/10/01 11:18 PM that the entire country must cater to an individual woman, rather than recognize the common good. fm 8/10/01 11:18 PM you and I are exact opposites on this point, and neither will change the other's opinion. fm 8/10/01 11:20 PM there are now 30 million American women who will never experience what my own mother experienced--a safe, rich, wholesome family environment. fm 8/10/01 11:20 PM my own sisters are two of them. druid 8/10/01 11:20 PM that's for shit.
(i apologize, i talk like a drunken sailor)
political correctness and all this damned feminist apologist shit need to go out the window.
men and women must treat each other like human beings and not ask the other to change.
i know how it is, believe me. i'm an engineer, and that's a male dominated field.
i go into the lab, i'm the only woman among thirty or so men. i don't ever ask them to change how they act. i will either play the game their way, or go the hell home fm 8/10/01 11:22 PM what do you make of the Gaussian Curves at: http://christianparty.fsn.net/grebrainsizegrap s.htm druid 8/10/01 11:22 PM i'm 23 years old, i graduated from college, i enjoy my work, and i'm hoping i'll get married to a man who is every bit as or more intelligent than me so that we can have great discussions and treat each other fairly for the rest of our lives.
i don't understand where the problem is druid 8/10/01 11:23 PM i'd tell you if i weren't getting a server error that the domain is unreacable.
lynx will not cooperate. fm 8/10/01 11:24 PM well, since you can't have children, you can't think in the terms that 99.999% of parents think, so how children fit into the equation becomes a bit difficult to explain. fm 8/10/01 11:24 PM is it Lynx, or the particular page? could you get any of the url's to come up? druid 8/10/01 11:25 PM i have to think in terms of other people's children.
i think about what i can and must do to make this a better, safer, more stable world for them to grow up in.
i contribute to the future by making the road for other people's children to walk on. druid 8/10/01 11:25 PM i tracerouted fsn.net and can't get a thing on it.
it's dying after 8 hops. fm 8/10/01 11:26 PM wow. fm 8/10/01 11:27 PM http://members.fortunecity.com/christianparty/ rebrainsizegraphs.htm
What about this one? druid 8/10/01 11:27 PM i'm getting 100% packet loss on pings.
it could be a problem with my isp, if a link somewhere is down it'll knock out my ability to see any server beyond that link.
the technological world is fraught with problems.
don't worry though, the urls are all in the history list and i can go back later. druid 8/10/01 11:28 PM there we go. that page has loaded fine. ooh. graphics. going to have to move out of lynx. fm 8/10/01 11:28 PM ah, are you at school? fm 8/10/01 11:29 PM I got it in 16 hops. druid 8/10/01 11:29 PM no, i'm running on an sdsl connection in my apartment.
i've got a 1 meg synchronous line with static ip. fm 8/10/01 11:30 PM through your phone company? druid 8/10/01 11:30 PM i'm looking at the graphs here, and i haven't seen the statistical analysis, but i can say for the tests i've taken, i'm far above the mean for women. fm 8/10/01 11:30 PM which, of couse, is not the question ); druid 8/10/01 11:31 PM no, i've got a contact who runs an ISP, and from that ISP i got the line and sixteen static IP addresses.
it worked out well for me fm 8/10/01 11:31 PM lot cheaper than this cable modem, for sure. druid 8/10/01 11:33 PM well, for SDSL with 16 static ips (thirteen are usable, since one is the router, one is the nameserver and one is for ineternal networking), it's more expensive than your average subscriber cable line, but here i'm guaranteed my IP, i can run my own nameserver, i host two domains (my roommate hosts a third domain), there's a counter strike server, and it's not shared bandwith. all in all it's worth the money. fm 8/10/01 11:35 PM so you keep the system running all the time? druid 8/10/01 11:35 PM i've got a network of five computers running out of here that operate 24/7.
two unix boxes, two windows boxes and the roommate's counterstrike server. fm 8/10/01 11:36 PM what do you do with all that? druid 8/10/01 11:39 PM one of the unix boxes is the name server. i have a windows box for most of my personal use, web surfing and all, a unix box that i use for email and playing with new distro's of solaris, my roommate has a windows box, and he runs another box that's the counterstrike server.
we keep all of that on a 100 Mbps fully switched ethernet in the house and use the dsl line for outside.
we're both computer geeks, so we basically have a lot of fun with it. he also likes porn, so the bandwidth is all his for downloading . (yes, i said i have a male roommate. we're practically family and each have our own bedrooms). fm 8/10/01 11:41 PM my ex-room mate from years ago married a billionaire a few years ago--and just got busted for selling about $100 worth of cocaine to a narc--made the headlines around here. fm 8/10/01 11:42 PM it was kind of funny watching them put handcuffs on her on TV ); man, was she pis.ed. druid 8/10/01 11:43 PM i'm not into drugs. i drink alcohol and i'll admit to having smoked some pot, but i'm not a moron about it.
i know i've got no excuse for the weed. i just have an amazingly stressful life, often spending 20 hours a day working, and once every couple of months a joint is in order to wind down.
i'm not gonna be a dip shit though, selling is not on my table. i've got a hell of a mind, and i'll be damned if i sell it up the river to make a quick buck. druid 8/10/01 11:43 PM can i ask you something? fm 8/10/01 11:44 PM well, she sure didn't need the money--no idea why she got caught up in this.
what's that? druid 8/10/01 11:44 PM how old are you? fm 8/10/01 11:45 PM ancient. druid 8/10/01 11:46 PM i was honest.
is there a reason you don't want to be? fm 8/10/01 11:46 PM I'm also married--so the question is moot. druid 8/10/01 11:48 PM it'd only be moot if i were hitting on you, which i'm not.
i'm in a committed relationship with a very wonderful man, and i've got no need to flirt with others.
the question was out of curiousity, and nothing more. fm 8/10/01 11:50 PM what did you think of those graphs? Are you familiar with them, or are they a surprise? druid 8/10/01 11:53 PM they're not a surprise in the least. i'm not 100% convinced that they're due to genetic difference, at least not until educational equality is completely achieved.
i went through most of my pre-college schooling being ridiculed for thinking that a female could even go to college let alone be an engineer. i'm sure that has an effect, and i'd like to see as many variables as possible removed before i decide that one sex is inherently 'smarter' than the other.
scientific method after all does include statics and changing only ONE variable at a time. not 'smaller brain and more berating and lets see how they stack up.'
by the way, i got a 650 on my SAT math. fm 8/10/01 11:55 PM if you got a 650 on SAT math, then you can certainly do a better job of that in interpreting those graphs. which part do you think is genetic, and which part do you think is social? druid 8/10/01 11:59 PM until one of the variables is a control and the other is the difference, i don't think i can accurately say.
and of course, there will always be outliers on both sides.
i'm a computer engineer, i deal with binary systems and i design microprocesors. i'm very rigid in the control of all variables but one. i think it'll take some more time to determine whether 'nature' or 'nurture' plays a bigger role.
i can't even relate it to my own exprience, because for as long as i can remember i have excelled academically. of course, it never occurred to me that as a "girl" i was supposed to behave any differently than the boys i grew up with. fm 8/11/01 12:00 AM one of those charts is cranial capacity--do you think that is genetic or social? druid 8/11/01 12:01 AM i recognize that correlation does not necessarily mean causation.
after all, neanderthal's brain was far larger than modern day human beings of either gender, and neanderthal didn't come up with any of the technological advances that modern humans have. druid 8/11/01 12:03 AM capacity as in size is a genetic issue. the neurologic connectivity that occurs also seems to be genetic, with females having more connectiviity across the cerebral cortex than males (that is, the left and right hemispheres are more interconnected for females than for males)
but size alone does not designate intelligence, as is easily demonstrated by neanderthal and cro-magnon human, both having brain capacity much larger than madern human, but achieving none of the technological advance of modern human. fm 8/11/01 12:04 AM Neanderthal wasn't designed with intelligence in mind. within intelligent humans, comparisons can easily be made. druid 8/11/01 12:04 AM is that why 56% of college students are female? fm 8/11/01 12:05 AM did you note how closely test scores and cranial capacity correlate? fm 8/11/01 12:05 AM no, that's not because of test scores--that's because of affirmative action. druid 8/11/01 12:05 AM yes i did. have you taken a statistics class?
if so you would also note that correlation and causation are not the same thing. fm 8/11/01 12:06 AM they certainly can be--and in this case they certainly are. druid 8/11/01 12:06 AM is it?
i scored 1380 on the SAT and had a 3.944 gpa.
do you think i got in because of affirmative action? fm 8/11/01 12:07 AM if you look at all of the other correlations which show r-squared, you will know that there is only one exception. fm 8/11/01 12:08 AM why do you always talk about a single possible exception rather than the rule? The comment addressed the rule, not the exception. fm 8/11/01 12:08 AM if admissions were based only on test scores, three quarters of college admissions would be boys. druid 8/11/01 12:08 AM because i'm also looking at these graphs and the fact that "best fit" curves were applied.
the outliers are still on the graphs. what should be made of those? fm 8/11/01 12:09 AM which curve are you referring to? druid 8/11/01 12:09 AM admissions should be based upon standardized test scores and grade point average.
do you see me asking for affirmative action? hell no.
i don't need it fm 8/11/01 12:10 AM but that's not even the point I was making. druid 8/11/01 12:11 AM the bottom 9 graphs all show best fit curves with significant outliers.
your data would be more impressive if the outliers weren't there. fm 8/11/01 12:11 AM do you see which data point is always an outlier? fm 8/11/01 12:11 AM the idea is to show all the data, not to be impressive. fm 8/11/01 12:12 AM the one which is almost always the outlier is Negroid males. druid 8/11/01 12:12 AM in that case i'd like a look at the raw data.
i see what you're trying to prove, i see a very vauge trend in it, but i also understnad that there are other variables in play than strictly cranial capacity. fm 8/11/01 12:13 AM but it is only cranial capacity which doesn't fit--all the other parameters do fit. fm 8/11/01 12:13 AM there are certainly lots of variables. These are the ones which have the highest correlation. druid 8/11/01 12:15 AM some of the discrepancy in salary versus cranial capacity is easily due to the fact that women were not allowed to hold salaried jobs for the majority of american history and have only begun to "climb the corporate ladder.'
i expect that much of the discprenancy will play out within the next fifty years as women begin to gain the seniority to take on the higher salaried jobs such as CIO, CFO, CTO, and CEO. fm 8/11/01 12:16 AM one thing you might consider is that Negroid males would be a perfect fit if they had a cranial capacity closer to 1265 cm3 fm 8/11/01 12:16 AM the economy wouldn't survive such a thing. druid 8/11/01 12:16 AM any inclusion of salary must also include the blatant fact that high salary white collar jobs have traditionally not been open to women, thus there is a major discrepancy based on the limited ability of women to obtain a job through no fault of their own.
it's rather easy to look at salary figures and say 'men have bigger brains and earn more' if you ignore the fact that women, historically, have been completely forbidden from competing for the same types of jobs that men have. fm 8/11/01 12:17 AM do you thing that giving women these jobs is going to increase their cranial capacity, or their GRE scores, or their SAT scores, or their TIMSS scores? druid 8/11/01 12:18 AM regardless of the change in brain size, given another fifty years those graphs are going t change, big time.
women who were kept in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant half a century ago making little to no money are only beginning to reap the beneifits of uninhibited advancement up the corporate ladder. the higher they go, the more the curves are going to balance out. druid 8/11/01 12:19 AM i think that women *earning* these jobs will change things. fm 8/11/01 12:20 AM affirmative action is dead. CAlifornia outlawed it, which makes it illegal in the entire country. women will be leaving the workforce by the millions, unless Bush pulls his scam off. fm 8/11/01 12:21 AM do you realize that American family purchasing power was 3 times in 1973 what it is today--before women joined the workforce in record numbers? druid 8/11/01 12:21 AM i won't be leaving.
i've earned everything i have, from my degree to my job.
i'm appreciated and respected for my ability, and if i didn't produce results and working products, i'd be shit canned.
fm 8/11/01 12:22 AM and that Japan today, with women being less than 1% of their managers and administrators, now has family incomes twice American family incomes? druid 8/11/01 12:22 AM and what should i do about that?
it's like you're asking me not to use the mind i was born with simply because of what set of genitals i've got. fm 8/11/01 12:23 AM once people grasp the significance of our economic collapse, they will be clamouring for every solution they can find. druid 8/11/01 12:23 AM japan also has total and complete gun control.
do you want that here? druid 8/11/01 12:23 AM am i a human being to you? fm 8/11/01 12:24 AM we have 4 timesa as many Americans in PRISON for gun control law violations than Japan has in prison for all crimes combined. druid 8/11/01 12:24 AM what's the population of japan vs. the united states? fm 8/11/01 12:24 AM we DO NOT have the right to bear arms--women voters eliminated that in the 1960s with 22,000 gun control laws. fm 8/11/01 12:25 AM half
druid 8/11/01 12:25 AM please answer the question.
am i a human being? fm 8/11/01 12:25 AM which means that per capita, we have twice as many people in prison for gun control laws than they have for all crimes. druid 8/11/01 12:26 AM what should we do with people who break the laws, since it is clear that you do not wnat them in prison?
japan is a completely different culture. what works for japan is not what will work for america. fm 8/11/01 12:26 AM you're back to asking questions that have nothing to do with the subject of the 19th Amd. fm 8/11/01 12:27 AM what works in Japan today is exactly what worked for this country a century ago--before women had the vote, before we had 22,000 gun control laws, before the divorce rate increased 50 fold. fm 8/11/01 12:27 AM Japan's society today is a mirror image of the US in the 1900s. druid 8/11/01 12:27 AM actually, i'm not.
if i'm a human being, i can't be denied the same rights as any other human being in the united states simply because one is male nad one is female.
this country has made a guarantee of equal protection under the law, which means even *if* the 19th amendment were repealed, as a citizen and a human being, i retain the right to vote. fm 8/11/01 12:29 AM you're dead wrong. The word "equal" appears nowhere in the US Constitution, and women lost the right to vote when the Constitution was ratified in 1776. fm 8/11/01 12:29 AM for 145 of our best years, women didn't have the vote. druid 8/11/01 12:29 AM oh no it's not.
japan's society is a totalitarian regime that does not derive rights from god. rights are granted by an all powerful government.
the united states has NEVER been such an institution. rights in the united states belong to the poeople by virtue of their human-ness and power is only ON LOAN to the government from the people.
very, very different. druid 8/11/01 12:30 AM you really want to go back to the times of slavery? fm 8/11/01 12:30 AM except that right now, today, Japanese people have far, far more individual rights, and responsibilities, than Americans. fm 8/11/01 12:31 AM slavery ended half a century before that. druid 8/11/01 12:31 AM do they have a bill of rights? do they have a constitution? fm 8/11/01 12:31 AM yes, and we wrote it for them. druid 8/11/01 12:31 AM except that women in wyoming were voting since the 1860s. druid 8/11/01 12:31 AM they don't have the right to keep and bear arms fm 8/11/01 12:32 AM neither do we. fm 8/11/01 12:32 AM 22,000 gun control laws make the Second Amendment an absolute sham. druid 8/11/01 12:32 AM speak for yourself.
i keep and bear arms that are completely in line with the constitution, and there's not a single legal or judicial body in the country that has been able to deny me those arms. druid 8/11/01 12:33 AM do they?
i can carry concealed in several states :) fm 8/11/01 12:33 AM If we had NO Constitution, we would have fewer gun control laws than that. fm 8/11/01 12:33 AM you just watch how fast that changes. fm 8/11/01 12:33 AM we're not done passing these laws--Congressmen are proposing more and more each and every day. fm 8/11/01 12:34 AM once the Second Amendment was violated--all hel. broke loose. druid 8/11/01 12:34 AM there are ninety million law abiding gun owners in the united states who possess two hundred fifty million privately held firearms.
i fucking *dare* the government to try to collect. druid 8/11/01 12:34 AM i'll live free or die.
do you have the same balls? fm 8/11/01 12:34 AM they just did--in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Australia
we're one step away from that. druid 8/11/01 12:35 AM if you believe the battle is lost, then it is lost.
i'm not giving away my freedom. are you? fm 8/11/01 12:35 AM I took an oath to uphold the US Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC.
and I will honor that oath. fm 8/11/01 12:36 AM there is much more to this than the 19th--but that is a prerequisite. druid 8/11/01 12:36 AM the us military has problems with me going into combat, which makes me a member of the "unorganized militia."
i will defend the constitution if i have to die for it. though i'd much rather make some other son of a bitch die for his beliefs. druid 8/11/01 12:36 AM you disappoint me. fm 8/11/01 12:37 AM we can't unload these 22,000 gun control laws until the 19th is repealed. fm 8/11/01 12:37 AM not ONE of them can be proven to have saved ONE life. druid 8/11/01 12:38 AM these gun control laws have nothing to do with the 19th amendment.
you're confusing constitutionalism with hatred of women fm 8/11/01 12:39 AM you're confusing protection of women with hatred of women--the best way to destroy American women is to let them fester in feminism. druid 8/11/01 12:41 AM i am a woman, which means i know, first and foremost what would destroy me.
the kind of society you're talking about, where i'd be nothing but a subservient slave, unable to use my mind, prohibited from using my voice....
i'd rather be dead than live there.
what you're asking for, it's no better than the taliban.
no rights for women, just men to control them. and if i piss you off, what then? will you stone me to death? fm 8/11/01 12:43 AM right now, most American women don't even have the protection of a family, where they would have a two fold higher standard of living. But women in the workforce plunged American incomes so much that now Japanese women live in households which earn more than twice of ours. fm 8/11/01 12:44 AM that's just part of the difference--Japanese households now have net savings of more than $1 million each, while American households are in debt, with a zero personal savings rate. druid 8/11/01 12:44 AM it's not all about money....
it's about me. i'm a human being, i have a mind, and i would be tortured if i couldn't use it.
what about me? do i not deserve to have a career that i am happy with? fm 8/11/01 12:44 AM even though you claim to be an engineer, you don't seem to be too impressed about these absolutely shocking figures.
fm 8/11/01 12:45 AM it's not "all about money", but money measures the value of a society druid 8/11/01 12:45 AM you know what's shocking?
that you care more about money than you do about quality of life. druid 8/11/01 12:45 AM the hell it does. fm 8/11/01 12:45 AM right now, ours is in DEBT, incomes are still plunging, savings are NEGATIVE. fm 8/11/01 12:46 AM quality of life just 30 years ago in the US was about what it was in Japan 30 years ago--today Japan is so far ahead of us that I can't even begin to describe it. druid 8/11/01 12:47 AM i'm not in debt. of course to you, i don't count.
i'm a nothing. a woman who should be barefoot, in the kitchen, pregnant, unable to use my mind and totally dependent on a man. fm 8/11/01 12:47 AM Same with Germany, and even Russia. Ther are many shortcomings about Russia--but their quality of life has improved vastly recently. druid 8/11/01 12:47 AM i don't consider a 'quality' life living with six people in a 500 square foot apartment in tokyo. fm 8/11/01 12:48 AM do you notice how I make a comment about society, and you retort with claims that you are an exception to the rule? your exception is meaningless in the face of $20 trillion in debt. fm 8/11/01 12:49 AM you also don't know Japan--what they have in the country would knock your eyes out. the flats in Tokyo are just for sleepovers. druid 8/11/01 12:50 AM i've been to japan. i wasn't impressed. fm 8/11/01 12:50 AM you went to the Ginza, and came home. That's not even a millionth of Japan. druid 8/11/01 12:51 AM i went to okinawa as well, and i can't say i found anything there i'd rather trade my life in america for. fm 8/11/01 12:52 AM well, I lived in Okinawa and know lots of places that you can't even imagine. druid 8/11/01 12:53 AM places with geisha ? fm 8/11/01 12:53 AM I watched American tourists tripping through there as if though they knew what they were doing. druid 8/11/01 12:54 AM it's not my life, and i never want it to be.
i'm sure you've figured out that i am by far not a meek woman. i think, and i speak my mind. fm 8/11/01 12:54 AM lots of different places,though I was referring to the way Okinawans live--which is exactly the opposite of your image of 600 square foot apartments in Tokyo. fm 8/11/01 12:55 AM do you think this is a quality that men want in women? druid 8/11/01 12:55 AM not all men.
men like you, it seems. fm 8/11/01 12:56 AM why would you think that? druid 8/11/01 12:56 AM because everything you've said to me has been your assertation that women are beneath you fm 8/11/01 12:59 AM You said:
Im sure you've figured out that i am by far not a meek woman. i think, and i speak my mind.
And I asked if you thought this was a quality men want in women, and it seems that you suggested that this is something that I appeared to want.
My question is what is it that makes you think that? druid 8/11/01 1:00 AM i thought you were referring to the 'geisha' type.
i don't really think you want a woman like me. i'm open minded, thoughtful, intelligent, outspoken and very willing to defend my position.
i think you're the type of guy who wants a geisha, and i'm thankful not all men are like you. fm 8/11/01 1:01 AM so evidently your betrothed appreciates this quality in women? druid 8/11/01 1:03 AM he'd be extremely unhappy with someone who wasn't at least on his level of intelligence and didn't have a capacity to engage in serious intellectual discussion. fm 8/11/01 1:05 AM do you know for a fact that he regards a discussion with you as the same as a discussion with his fellow classmates, or fellow workers, or fellow athletes, or fellow military men? fm 8/11/01 1:06 AM iow, do you believe that you really are capable of a similar class of discussion, as a woman? druid 8/11/01 1:06 AM hell yes i am. we graduated from university with the same degree and work in the same field (though for different companies). fm 8/11/01 1:08 AM why do you want to be like a man?
why would he want a woman who is like, or wants to be like, a man? druid 8/11/01 1:08 AM what do you mean by that?
i'm a woman, i just happen to be a very smart, independent, capable one. fm 8/11/01 1:10 AM but you seem to pride yourself as being like a man to your betrothed? howcome? druid 8/11/01 1:13 AM i'm not 'like a man'
i know he doesn't see me that way.
i'm 100% woman..... and he can relate to me on all levels.
he's my best friend, my partner, my other half. we've got a good thing going. fm 8/11/01 1:16 AM do you think that I view you as "intelligent"? druid 8/11/01 1:16 AM i think you see me as a second class citizen.
maybe i'm intelligent to you, but i doubt you see me as being just as capable as men are. fm 8/11/01 1:19 AM men tend to be concerned about the issues we covered above--you weren't the least bit interested. Some men have amazing memories for such things and mention them years later--but I don't know any women at all who haven't attempted to make excuses for this social pathology. druid 8/11/01 1:22 AM you're not in a position to judge my interest in something.
as far as making excuses, i'm telling you that until you control everything except one variable, you can't tell me you've got a scientific study.
i really don't give a damn that you're going to call that an excuse. i read your site, i made an educated guess as to how you'd treat me when you found out i was a woman, and so far i've been right on. fm 8/11/01 1:23 AM the fact that you are a woman was no surprise. that was obvious right away. fm 8/11/01 1:24 AM This is what gave you away:
"i wonder how you use Christianity as a political philosophy when the Constitution is directly prohibitive of establishment of religion. i.e. the government cannot exist to promote any religion"
druid 8/11/01 1:25 AM hence why through this entire discussion you have tried to describe yourself as "right" and me as "wrong" druid 8/11/01 1:25 AM actually, that's because i'm a buddhist. not because i'm a female. fm 8/11/01 1:25 AM because if you attempted to build a society based on the self-centered female ego, it wouldn't last 3 minutes. fm 8/11/01 1:26 AM you forget that I grew up with Buddhists--I know how Buddhists think better than "Buddhists" like you. druid 8/11/01 1:27 AM i grew up buddhist
nowhere in the eightfold path or the tipitaka does it advocate treating any group of human beings like second class citizens.
that's your schtick. fm 8/11/01 1:30 AM whew--most Buddhist countries never gave women the vote--and even in Japan, women really can't vote independently of their husbands. and in all of China, regardless of how Mao Tse Tung attempted to establish "equality" in China, Buddhism reigns supreme. fm 8/11/01 1:31 AM how Buddhism works and how you think it's supposed to work sound like they are opposite ends of the field. druid 8/11/01 1:33 AM siddharta would be disappointed.
treating half a population as if they are non-persons is definitely not in in line with the tipitaka.
not that it matters to you.... all you give a damn about is maintaining your macho power over others.
i bet it bothers you to no end that i don't need a man to tell me what i think. fm 8/11/01 1:35 AM how you think is certainly a concern--but not in the way you think it is. druid 8/11/01 1:38 AM i'm surprised you admit i can think at all, what with my brain being smaller than a male's and the fact that women are just 'emotional' and don't use logic at all. fm 8/11/01 1:39 AM how do you account for the difference in the approach we take to problem solving? druid 8/11/01 1:40 AM different educations? fm 8/11/01 1:42 AM you seem to believe that having a negative personal savings rate is no big deal--you think this difference is due to different educations? druid 8/11/01 1:43 AM where did i say that being in debt was no big deal? fm 8/11/01 1:45 AM you diverted the discussion to the size of apartments in Tokyo, rather than addressing the point. even disputing it would have indicated more interest than just ignoring it. druid 8/11/01 1:46 AM i don't think that being in debt is a good thing, in fact i think it's terrible. people should be saving money, instead of spending more than they have.
i can't tell you that i (or you) know where that kind of consumer mentality comes from, but i can say it's not helped by watching the boys in washington run a deficit constantly. fm 8/11/01 1:48 AM it actually has little to do with consumer spending and everything to do with the boys in Washington. fm 8/11/01 1:49 AM government costs us 42 cents of each wage dollar, it costs the Japanese only 20 cents--the 22 cent difference is what they put in the bank (plus some), while we have no income left over after taxes for personal savings. druid 8/11/01 1:50 AM my parents, both of whom work, are very responsible about their money
the only debt they've got at all is the mortgage on their brand new house. granted, they're only one example, but i don't think that because some americans have a massive tendency to put themselves in hawk, that all families with working women do the same. druid 8/11/01 1:51 AM we need to strip government spending like crazy. druid 8/11/01 1:51 AM out with every program that is losing money and doesn't work. fm 8/11/01 1:51 AM do you realize that it costs more for working wives to go to work than they add to family incomes? fm 8/11/01 1:52 AM they all lose money--but some are necessary--like defense, which ought to be the only federal program. druid 8/11/01 1:52 AM usually only if paying child care. fm 8/11/01 1:52 AM most married couples who work pay child care. druid 8/11/01 1:53 AM the only cost i have that i wouldn't if iweren't working is tax. druid 8/11/01 1:53 AM many do not. my parents never did. i never will. druid 8/11/01 1:59 AM ok, it's 5 am. i have to get up in 2 1/2 hours and be functional.
i'm gonna have to head off and catch a nap now fm 8/11/01 2:00 AM ok, sleep tight--
later
|
|
Modified Saturday, January 12, 2008 Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party
|