[thechat] outburst

[deacon]

On 19 Jan 2005 at 11:53, Tara Cleveland wrote:

> <snip>
> > Why is it so unacceptable to recognize that perhaps *some* of the
> > differences in aptitude might be biochemical as opposed to being due
> > to women's oppression of men?

> (I'm assuming you meant men's oppression of women ;-)

Well, no, actually, I meant women's oppression of men. 

Traditionally, the master has worn silk and jewels, while the slave does 
heavy, dirty, dangerous and unpleasant work. The reason why women, 
as a rule, earn 70 cents on the dollar for men is because, as a rule, 
you don't get paid for what you do, you get paid for what you put up 
with. 

In the 18th century, men and women had similar lifespans; she tended 
to die in childbirth and he died in industrial accidents. We've made 
childbirth pretty safe, but ignored his working conditions. 

When a man and a woman commit crimes together, you often hear 
that the prosecutor offers to let the woman get off scot-free if the man 
pleads guilty and takes a prison term. I've never heard of a deal being 
offered where she goes to prison for him; have you?

If a woman doesn't want the responsibility of a baby, she can give the 
baby up for adoption. If a man doesn't want responsibility, he can go 
fish. 

When a neighbor calls the cops on a domestic dispute, two times out 
of three, the cops find a woman attacking a man. 
 
> Well, it could be because there is a history of *very* strong  
> discrimination in the fields of science and engineering.

I can testify to that. When I was in Chemical Engineering at UD, there 
were six fellas and one womanl. She not only got the *highest* offer, 
but she got seventeen of them; the six guys combined had eleven 
offers. The previous year, there were seven men and one woman. The 
highest offer that year went to a woman, too. 

> See  
> http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-70-398/disasters_tragedies/ 
> montreal_massacre/ for an extreme example of this attitude.

That too. Once in a while, you find a slave revolt. 

> It could be that I've heard totally sexist and demeaning things said 
> to me in the course of my work countless times

No doubt. Everyone seems to get assaulted in that manner, male or 
female. So why is it different when offensive sexual jibes are made to 
women than to men? I don't think *anyone* should have to "shut up 
and take it like a man."  

But men are taught at their mother's knees that their only reason to 
exist is to support and serve. It starts with sexual mutilation at birth, 
something that's considered barbaric when it happens to females, and 
as he grows up he learns that it's not proper to hit back when girls hit 
him. As as adult, he learns that "if you play, you pay" - but only if you're 
male; females get a tax-free income stream for 18 years if the joy of 
sex turns fruitful.  

> When we get rid of all that discrimination, sexism and nastiness, well,  
> maybe then you can start telling women it's all in their heads.

Actually, he was saying it was structural, rather than psychological.

I was for the ERA, but most everything else always sounds like "all 
animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"

deke

--
AmishHosting.Com

Lots of space. 
Lots of bandwidth. 
Lots of speed. 
Lots of reliability. 
Lots of support. 
Lots of preinstalled scripts.
Not a lot of money.