22ac4819   
   From: thang@spitzola.com.org.net   
      
   On Fri, 1 May 2009 05:48:04 -0700 (PDT), nicimb@googlemail.com wrote:   
      
   >On May 1, 12:57 am, James A. Donald  wrote:   
   >> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:34:53 -0700 (PDT),   
   >>   
   >> nic...@googlemail.com wrote:   
   >> > I don't know what you mean insofar as a number of us   
   >> > are Brits whose view of the world differs   
   >> > significantly. I'm not sure what 'orthodoxy' it is   
   >> > that dominates. Even among those who have left there   
   >> > is not single political view though it is interesting   
   >> > to note that the majority of them are women and   
   >> > perhaps the orthodoxy you dislike is a belief in our   
   >> > essential equality?   
   >>   
   >> The orthodoxy of the latest blow up is that everyone   
   >> must use language that is vetted and approved as   
   >> endorsing women's essential equality - which vetting and   
   >> approval was not universally accepted, even by those who   
   >> agree with women's essential equality - which is just   
   >> about everyone.   
   >>   
   >> When not everyone agreed with the etymological theory   
   >> underlying the latest directive, some of those who felt   
   >> strongly about this etymological issue left in a huff.   
   >>   
   >> Now it is perfectly obvious that women and men are not   
   >> the same, that there are substantial differences, and in   
   >> many important areas small overlap in the distributions,   
   >> and that some of these differences make men better than   
   >> women, and some make women better than men, rendering   
   >> the content of the proposition that women are   
   >> "essentially equal" unclear, and the proposition that   
   >> they are literally equal (that is to say, similar in   
   >> mean and distribution) absurd.   
   >>   
   >It is as reasonable as 'all men are equal' and involves trivial things   
   >like equality before the law, equal pay for equal work and equal   
   >freedoms. I don't think anyone believes that all men are the same - in   
   >my observation there are significant differences both in terms of   
   >physical performance and mental acuity. The idea that all men are   
   >literally equal is not one that most people waste much time on, to   
   >waste time on it in this context is something of a red herring.   
   >   
   >I have spent quite a lot of my life in male dominated environments and   
   >find it difficult to make the sweeping generalisations about them that   
   >seem to be so common. I have not found that men are from mars and   
   >women from venus or whatever it is that I'm supposed to find.   
   >Broad statistical generalisations seem pretty meaningless at the   
   >individual level - I am better spatially than my husband and worse at   
   >languages. My daughter is better at maths than my sons and may be able   
   >to leg press as much weight as her sixteen year old brother (though he   
   >is unlikely to give her the opportunity.) I find it impossible to   
   >generalise about the abilities behavours and physical capacities of my   
   >female friends too. I tend to deal with people as individuals.   
   >   
   >If you don't believe that women are 'equal' in the sense that mosst   
   >people understand it, I am unlikely to dissuade you and feel   
   >disinclined to try. You might want to get out more and take the   
   >blinkers off.   
   >Nicky   
      
   What pretentious twaddle   
      
   thang   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)