Good Newsweek article

Emily wrote:

P. Tierney wrote:
"Emily" wrote in message
...

Now, it's impossible to say how representative those
explanations were (they don't say how they picked them).
One thing that's striking is that all of them speak in
generalities: even when the authors that refer to their
own experiences still generalize to other mothers/familes/kids.


Isn't that inevitable, considering the question involved? One is
being asked, basically, to apply one's philosophy to the rest of
the parents in the world. (One could abstain, but those thoughts
probably wouldn't be published.)

That's what I said, in the first line you snipped.

Given that, the "no" responses don't put me off much. If one
is to answer the question "no", in fact, I'm not sure what other
reasons they could give. What "no" rationale could a parent
give that would be logically acceptable to a working parent?

How about - she is taking the job from a man who is supporting his
family?

Yeah, given the question. If it were a personal question:
would it be best for *your* family for both parents to work,
then all kinds of reasons would be logically acceptable.

Emily

grandma Rosalie

P. Tierney wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
Similarly, although we know there are some
differences between men's and women's brains, I think
it's bunk that this means women are "naturally" unsuited
to certain careers, or analytic thinking, or any number
of other things that have been said.

I haven't read the whole thread, so perhaps others have said things
like this, but I wanted to make sure you didn't think I was meaning
anything like this. I have a computer science and engineering degree,
and worked in computers before I changed careers to be with my kids
more. I definitely don't think women are incapable or analytical
thinking.

Oh don't fool yourself. Women most certainly are incapable
of doing such things. I know this for certain.

You see, my sister once pursued a career in the sciences.
It seemed like a good idea, but once she got a job and worked
at it everyday, the tasks required *really* stressed her out. It
made her too thin and unhealthy looking. It didn't work out
at all and we knew that we had to fix it before she went insane.
---------------------
Then she did it wrong, some do and have to stop.
Most women in it are hail and happy.
You're telling yourself what you WANT to believe. Nothing more.


So, we talked about it, and the reasons for her struggles
was inescapable: Women simply must not have the instincts
for the sciences. We think that it may be because women
are less evolved due to their prehistoric role as the caregiver.
----------------------------------
Nonsense. Utter nonsense that no Evolutionist would support. That's
NOT the way Evolution works.


Now, she stays at home and parents, and of course, dabbles
in a bit of charity work with her ladies tea group. It is clear,
from this experience, that her natural role is better for her, and
that she stay away from those things that, through no fault
of her own, she does not have the proper instincts for -- since
she is female.
-----------------------------
In the very short rarified phenomenon of the isolated female of
the 19th century, only, and its few echoes in the rich classes.


Some might disagree, but it's really better and easier for
everyone if we do what has been done for millions of years
and let men do the sciences rather than the women.
---------------------------------
Which means that women like you should keep your stupidity to
yourself.


And by the way, I certainly don't expect anyone to be
offended by such notions. It's just how it is, you know?
P. Tierney
---------------------------------------
Not bloody ****ing so at all, you dumb bitch.
Steve

P. Tierney wrote:

Oh don't fool yourself. Women most certainly are incapable
of doing such things. I know this for certain.

You see, my sister once pursued a career in the sciences.
It seemed like a good idea, but once she got a job and worked
at it everyday, the tasks required *really* stressed her out. It
made her too thin and unhealthy looking. It didn't work out
at all and we knew that we had to fix it before she went insane.

Poor thing! This is what comes of teaching girls sciences in school. A
little literature, some fine art, music, good social skills, and of
course the domestic arts (not sciences) -- those are appropriate.

So, we talked about it, and the reasons for her struggles
was inescapable: Women simply must not have the instincts
for the sciences. We think that it may be because women
are less evolved due to their prehistoric role as the caregiver.

There you go. Wasn't there that clever man from Harvard who said the
same thing?

And let me tell anyone who wants to know, it's no lesser role either.
When you have to clean one baby's bottom while keeping the other from
incinerating itself in your cooking fire, and make dinner for the
family at the same time and still maintain a serene and orderly
household...well, it's angelic. Sometimes it's beyond that -- where
even angels fear to tread.

And when you've finally got it all sorted out, and everyone's had
dinner and gone to sleep, (except for the baby, who evolved to be
noisy): Peace descends on the household and it may fairly be said that
the hand that rocks the cradle..(I don't remember the rest. Evolution
didn't give me the same acuity of recall as a man.)


Now, she stays at home and parents, and of course, dabbles
in a bit of charity work with her ladies tea group. It is clear,
from this experience, that her natural role is better for her, and
that she stay away from those things that, through no fault
of her own, she does not have the proper instincts for -- since
she is female.

I'm so glad she was rescued from her own folly. My aunt was similarly
rescued from her intention of becoming a doctor. Of course that's
foolish. She would only have dropped out and gotten married. A waste of
everyone's time and money.

Some might disagree, but it's really better and easier for
everyone if we do what has been done for millions of years
and let men do the sciences rather than the women.

And by the way, I certainly don't expect anyone to be
offended by such notions. It's just how it is, you know?

Oh, we understand.

P. Tierney

"Emily" wrote in message
...
P. Tierney wrote:
"Emily" wrote in message
...

Now, it's impossible to say how representative those
explanations were (they don't say how they picked them).
One thing that's striking is that all of them speak in
generalities: even when the authors that refer to their
own experiences still generalize to other mothers/familes/kids.


Isn't that inevitable, considering the question involved? One is
being asked, basically, to apply one's philosophy to the rest of
the parents in the world. (One could abstain, but those thoughts
probably wouldn't be published.)

That's what I said, in the first line you snipped.

Sorry about that. Illness, myself and all of the family,
has my head pretty fuzzy on this particular Monday.

Given that, the "no" responses don't put me off much. If one
is to answer the question "no", in fact, I'm not sure what other
reasons they could give. What "no" rationale could a parent
give that would be logically acceptable to a working parent?

Yeah, given the question. If it were a personal question:
would it be best for *your* family for both parents to work,
then all kinds of reasons would be logically acceptable.

I agree.


P. Tierney

Mr. Walz,
You might want to look at the prior posts of the person
that I was responding to. If you did that, then perhaps you
will see my words (though frankly, probably 75% of the
words are straight from her) in a different light.


P. Tierney


"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
P. Tierney wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
Similarly, although we know there are some
differences between men's and women's brains, I think
it's bunk that this means women are "naturally" unsuited
to certain careers, or analytic thinking, or any number
of other things that have been said.

I haven't read the whole thread, so perhaps others have said things
like this, but I wanted to make sure you didn't think I was meaning
anything like this. I have a computer science and engineering degree,
and worked in computers before I changed careers to be with my kids
more. I definitely don't think women are incapable or analytical
thinking.

Oh don't fool yourself. Women most certainly are incapable
of doing such things. I know this for certain.

You see, my sister once pursued a career in the sciences.
It seemed like a good idea, but once she got a job and worked
at it everyday, the tasks required *really* stressed her out. It
made her too thin and unhealthy looking. It didn't work out
at all and we knew that we had to fix it before she went insane.
---------------------
Then she did it wrong, some do and have to stop.
Most women in it are hail and happy.
You're telling yourself what you WANT to believe. Nothing more.


So, we talked about it, and the reasons for her struggles
was inescapable: Women simply must not have the instincts
for the sciences. We think that it may be because women
are less evolved due to their prehistoric role as the caregiver.
----------------------------------
Nonsense. Utter nonsense that no Evolutionist would support. That's
NOT the way Evolution works.


Now, she stays at home and parents, and of course, dabbles
in a bit of charity work with her ladies tea group. It is clear,
from this experience, that her natural role is better for her, and
that she stay away from those things that, through no fault
of her own, she does not have the proper instincts for -- since
she is female.
-----------------------------
In the very short rarified phenomenon of the isolated female of
the 19th century, only, and its few echoes in the rich classes.


Some might disagree, but it's really better and easier for
everyone if we do what has been done for millions of years
and let men do the sciences rather than the women.
---------------------------------
Which means that women like you should keep your stupidity to
yourself.


And by the way, I certainly don't expect anyone to be
offended by such notions. It's just how it is, you know?
P. Tierney
---------------------------------------
Not bloody ****ing so at all, you dumb bitch.
Steve

Don't you love when people stumble into a thread and bash a poster all to
hell, without really knowing what went on before? It's like the boorish
drunk at the party who comes in during the middle of the conversation and
proceeds to tell you how wrong you are for your opinions. Bah. I wouldn't
waste any other breath on this guy.
--

Jamie
Earth Angels:
Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- Little Miss Manners, who says, "No skank you" and
"Tank you very much, momma."
Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- The Prodigy, who can now roll over, and pull
herself to standing while holding onto someone's fingers!

Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password:
Guest
Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and
Password

"P. Tierney" wrote in message
news:OqASd.15150$4D6.12797@attbi_s51...
Mr. Walz,
You might want to look at the prior posts of the person
that I was responding to. If you did that, then perhaps you
will see my words (though frankly, probably 75% of the
words are straight from her) in a different light.


P. Tierney

"Jamie Clark" wrote in message
...
Don't you love when people stumble into a thread and bash a poster all to
hell, without really knowing what went on before? It's like the boorish
drunk at the party who comes in during the middle of the conversation and
proceeds to tell you how wrong you are for your opinions.

I don't mind it at all -- I expected someone to post something
like that, and I expected to point out the context, as I just did.
With a thread that balloons out of control as this one did, I can't
expect each poster to to completely catch up before chiming in.

354 messages in five days? Yow. I'd guess that 300 of them
were in the first two days of the thread.


P.
Tierney



Jamie
Earth Angels:
Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- Little Miss Manners, who says, "No skank you"
and "Tank you very much, momma."
Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- The Prodigy, who can now roll over, and pull
herself to standing while holding onto someone's fingers!

Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1,
Password: Guest
Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and
Password

"P. Tierney" wrote in message
news:OqASd.15150$4D6.12797@attbi_s51...
Mr. Walz,
You might want to look at the prior posts of the person
that I was responding to. If you did that, then perhaps you
will see my words (though frankly, probably 75% of the
words are straight from her) in a different light.


P. Tierney

Well I read them all...and I expect everyone else to, too!

wink
--

Jamie
Earth Angels:
Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- Little Miss Manners, who says, "No skank you" and
"Tank you very much, momma."
Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- The Prodigy, who can now roll over, and pull
herself to standing while holding onto someone's fingers!

Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password:
Guest
Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and
Password

"P. Tierney" wrote in message
news:0ZASd.15142$kS6.7692@attbi_s52...

"Jamie Clark" wrote in message
...
Don't you love when people stumble into a thread and bash a poster all to
hell, without really knowing what went on before? It's like the boorish
drunk at the party who comes in during the middle of the conversation and
proceeds to tell you how wrong you are for your opinions.

I don't mind it at all -- I expected someone to post something
like that, and I expected to point out the context, as I just did.
With a thread that balloons out of control as this one did, I can't
expect each poster to to completely catch up before chiming in.

354 messages in five days? Yow. I'd guess that 300 of them
were in the first two days of the thread.


P.
Tierney



Jamie
Earth Angels:
Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- Little Miss Manners, who says, "No skank you"
and "Tank you very much, momma."
Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- The Prodigy, who can now roll over, and pull
herself to standing while holding onto someone's fingers!

Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1,
Password: Guest
Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID
and Password

"P. Tierney" wrote in message
news:OqASd.15150$4D6.12797@attbi_s51...
Mr. Walz,
You might want to look at the prior posts of the person
that I was responding to. If you did that, then perhaps you
will see my words (though frankly, probably 75% of the
words are straight from her) in a different light.


P. Tierney

In article ,
"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

---------------------
Then she did it wrong, some do and have to stop.
Most women in it are hail and happy.
You're telling yourself what you WANT to believe. Nothing more.

Get a grip, Steve. If you'd read the whole thread, you'd realize that
P. was writing a delightful bit of humor.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

I'm just smarter, and so
that's how it's natural for me to parent.
That doesn't seem somewhat patronizing (even though
it's demonstrably true that people have varying levels of
intelligence

Oh why am I coming back to do this more!

I guess if someone thought they were dumb, this might offend them. I
guess you are right, people are just touchy about parenting. I happen
to believe very similar things about other instincts, so to me I just
don't see it that way.

For example, I have seen shows about human sexual instincts, and one
of the instincts was parading. That is walking around alot in public
places to be seen by the opposite sex. It is especially prevalent in
late teens, early twenties, and it is found in all cultures. I had it
bad. I paraded like crazy when I was a teen. I purposely came into
ralleys late on the wrong side so I could walk where all the boys would
see me. I would go to the bathroom far more frequently than necessary
to be seen by boys. I really was boy crazy to the extreme (probably
mre than I can portray just by saying those things), and I am sure I
seemed pretty shallow and boring to the girls who were not so into the
mating dance. I think I had that instinct very strongly too, really to
the detriment of my future success as despite having an easy time with
school, I had no ambitions at that point but to do the mating dance.
Some girls very visibly were not so into the mating dance. I was at
the extreme of that behavior. Now I am sure nobody feels slighted that
I think I had more of an urge to do that behavior, but I guess when it
comes to mothering people are touchy.

To further show that I really do not think I am superior, I will say
that I am a very poor physical specimen. I have crippled feet (that
come from genetic deformities, my dd has the same feet that hopefully
with my care will note end up being crippled), diabetes, and a bleeding
disorder. I have always been slow at races even at things like
swimming and typing that didn't involve feet. I am sure many of you
are from healthier stock than I. Perhaps my family has perservered
with our physical disadvantages due to increased procreating instincts.


KC