At 2002-09-10 21:28 -0400, Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
It's my
oppinion that any matters of importance like
those of politics, science, economics, philosophy
should not be dicussed with women.
One should never engage in serious discussions
with women anyway. They are not genetically
equiped for it.
If I said anything equivalent about men, you and lots of other people would be,
justifiably, up in arms.
Not if what you were saying was correct.
I could compose quite a big list with 'bad'
habits of men.
Okay, the first sentence is a bit overdone. There
are women who do quite well in politics. ;-)
The sentence that one shouldn't start serious
discussions with women is from my own experience.
Woman tend to take arguments personally, will
think that you're a 'bad person' when you're not
thinking what the rest of the community thinks
etc.
As regards the genetics. Men were selected
for being good co-operators during the hunt.
They would discuss hunting tactics around the
fire but the next day they would have to hunt
again together and be able to trust each other
even if they disagreed the last evening. Men
were selected not to have a problem with that.
For them discussions are a game, which they
like, but don't take overly serious. We like
the men best that are the toughest in the
discussion, becasuse they come up with the
best arguments. In ancient days that could
mean the difference between having food or
not and therefore between survival and not.
Women used to tend to the children and gather
roots and fruit etc. It was not necessary to
cooperate with other women and it would even
be bad for her family to share the findings
or knowledge about where to find things.
When one of the men would kill a large beast
however, he would need the help of the others
to transport it back to the base and it would
be foolish not to share it, because it would
spoil very soon or be eaten by bugs in the
African climate and usually the hunting process
was a combined effort anyway.
Another matter is the woman's IQ. Prof. Dr.
H. J. Eysenck has interesting theories about
this. He poses that men have a bigger diversity
in all kinds of properties, due to the fact
that they are missing one 'leg' in their
Y-chromosoom. This means that for a lot
of properties their fenotype is based on
only one gene and that can be a recessive
gene. (A woman would need two of those genes
to have the same fenotype.) The major example
is colorblindness: This affliction is much
more common under men than under women.
Probably a factor of four. Eysenck argues
that since the IQ is very complex some
of it's genes will probably also reside on
the Y-chromosome and therefore IQ will
also vary more widely in men. Even assuming
that men and women have the same average IQ
(which is not unlikely) it would account for
the fact that there is a lack of intelligent
women. It's about 1 in 30. On the other hand
it also explains why there is also an excess
of dumb men on the other end of the scale.
He noticed for example that in the lower
social classes the woman is usually smarter
and handles practical things like filling
in tax forms.
If this is really your attitude, you are not mature
enough to be working on this, or
any, project with adults of any sex. If it isn't, I want an apology for the insult.
No,
it isn't funny. And saying you were only joking will not convince anyone of anything
except that you don't have the guts to admit you said something stupid.
QED
Vicki Rosenzweig
By the way, when you're jewish as your name suggests,
you can add about 15 points to your average IQ. Perhaps
that explains why you're one of the few women here?
If anybody is interested in these matters, I suggest
reading books like:
- Eysenck, H.J.
- Intelligence: The battle for the mind.
- 1981
On the development of mankind:
- Desmond Morris
- The naked ape
- 1967
In Dutch:
- Marcel Roele
- De Mietjesmaatschappij
- (this is a book with a lot more about modern 'politically
correct' fallacies, including an article about average
IQ's that really differ from race to race)
- 2000
Ah, and before I forget: I may try to avoid discussions
with women, but I talk with them and emancipation comes
up from time to time and there is also a downside to the
current tendency to assume that women should have careers
too. Some women don't want a career but just want to
have children and take care of them, but in our current
folly that women are the same as men we are doing that
kind of women injustice by giving them a guild complex,
about not working. And we are maybe depriving the
children of a happy childhood with their mommy.
And to avoid that some of you, especially you Americans
(and French), may think I'm not that bad after all:
I think that all drugs should be legalized.
Greetings,
Jaap