Posted on 08/08/2009 4:39:06 PM PDT by GOPGuide
Men and women really are different. The findings of hard science – in endocrinology, brain structure and function and genetics, for instance – have forced rational feminists to admit that, statistically speaking, men and women have different aptitudes, interests and responses, little though this is yet understood. Such generalisations never apply to an individual, of course, and although – for instance – women are underrepresented at the extremes of intelligence and statistically are less good at higher maths, chess, musical composition and physics, any one woman might be brilliant.
Similarly, while women tend in general to be less aggressive and more conciliatory, there are plenty of ferocious females and Wodehouse aunts, and plenty of men who are shrinking violets – with obvious implications for their working lives.
The point here, and it’s another centrally important fact, which feminists either don’t know or refuse to admit, is that you would not therefore necessarily expect men and women to be equally represented in any particular occupation. The fact that just two out of 25 top maths dons or bond traders or gangmasters are men, say, is not self-evidently due to discrimination against women mathematicians, bond traders or gangers (although it may be). And this underlies an obvious killer fact for the politics of equality: equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equality of outcome.
It is a dangerous mistake doggedly to pursue equality of outcome and equal numbers of men and women in everything. The entire basis of the gender equality movement, equality by numbers, stems from an unquestioned and wrong assumption, taken as fact in defiance of the actual truth.
The tragedy of feminism is that it has been dogged, or perhaps I should say bitched, by a lot of fixed ideas and unquestioned beliefs.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
Also equal in God’s eyes. Which is of course the basis for equality under the Law, at least historically.
“Ummm - last I checked we’re in America where we speak American type English ...”
And last *I* checked, the article was published by the Times of London (that’s in England, in case your feminist geography book says otherwise), which quite correctly uses UK English.
Ok and your point is?
The article is from the Times of London.
Should it have been translated to protect you from viewing alternate usage?
Except, sad to say, that is why socialism is taking over.
Not really - the sentence structure is wrong even for UK English ....
And, in many ways, men are superior to women.
Somewhat like breeds of dogs, some tend to be quite territorial, like a sheep-dog, some tend to be very friendly with everyone (like many “family-dogs”), and some are inclined to be vicious (like guard-dogs)... basically, it all depends on what you want, what you’re testing for that allows you to say whether one or another is superior.
Similarly, while women tend in general to be less aggressive and more conciliatory, there are plenty of ferocious females and Wodehouse aunts, and plenty of men who are shrinking violets – with obvious implications for their working lives.
I thought it would be worth reemphasizing these lines from the article before everyone starts trying to contradict it with anecdotal evidence.
The irony is that is just this ‘Difference’ that makes for all of the raison d’etre. A World without these differences is one populated by robots or clones.
IMO only malcontents use these differences to divide.
Yup, that is funny :-)
Could be redone to poke fun at Obama’s economic plan.
Ah, feminist logic— gotta love it.
My point is that you were wrong to claim that the article made a grammar mistake.
Think about it ... “less good” ....
ps - think about “way good” or “these ones” ....
Upper body strength doesn't help in childbirth either. A man sees the charging elephant and the woman looks down for snakes and spiders...
Everyone except the feminists and newpaper reporters know we are not equal but complimentary..
The structure seems a little non-standard to me. I would have worded it differently.
British English often allows slightly different sentence structure as well as different wording. I’d want a review from a well-educated Brit before agreeing her grammar was improper.
Ok, sounds reasonable to me ....
My comment was simply to make the point that (conservative) feminists can have a sense of humor - and even (gasp) use self-depreciating humor.
I'm 5'6 and weigh a lot more than that...I hate you (said with a smile on my face) :O(
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.