Daniel

>Doug,
>
>> John and Steve seem to look for ways to go after each other. They almost
>> always fall immediately into "you said", "you said" and then argue about
>> that. I call that bickering.
>>
>I agree.

Great. This was my original point...

>
>>> Bickering schoolgirls. Boys will be boys. What's wrong with this picture?
>>> Why is it acceptable for boys to argue but not for girls? I don't want
>>> society to sanitize us to the point where the majority of the people
>>> believe there is no difference between males and females, but I sure hope
>>> it will continue to promote gender equality.
>>
>> I don't recall asserting that I thought that it was "acceptable for boys
>> to argue", did I? Can you show me where I actually asserted this please -
>> or apologize for inserting your thoughts into my messages.
>>
>You didn't. The whole text of our discussion was in my previous post and the reader can easily determine you didn't write the "boys wil be boys" part. You made a comment about society and I wrote the "boys will be boys" repartee to state what I believe is wrong with society.

Ok.. Simple mis-commnication then. NBD..

>
>I did not insert my thoughts into your messages but I do apoligize for upsetting you.
>
>> Unless you want to argue about it. <g>
>>
>> "gender equality" - What the heck is that??? There's no such thing.
>>
>Gender equality is treating males and females the same way anytime they do the exact same thing. It means an individual should not be discriminated against because of his or her gender.

That's all well and good until you get to areas where those differences can mean the difference between life and death - literally.

Firefighters. Women simply do not have the upper body strength men do (typically). What has happened? We've lowered the PT standards to accomodate them and then watched them die when they get stuck trying to get someone out of a burning building. Totally wrong IMO and a classic example of political correctness overcoming common sense.

It's these kinds of issues I'm getting at.

Same written tests? You bet! Same driving tests? Absolutely!

But.. There are differences and we need to be clear-eyed and clear-headed about them IMO.

>
>> There's no such thing. As a matter of fact there are NO EQUAL HUMAN
>> BEINGS - at least in terms of capabilities, attitude or anything else.
>> We're all individuals.
>
>I agree.
>
>> If you mean equal before the law - sure, Lady Justice had a blindfold over
>> her eyes the last time I looked. But, the notion of equality before the
>> law has its roots in the notion that all men are equal in God's eyes.
>> Now... Given that we are fortunate enough here in the US to have this
>> notion codified in our laws is great. In practice money tends to separate
>> and make things less equal in terms of access. Should the law be applied
>> equally without regard to status, wealth or anything else. I guess in most
>> cases, sure... Is it? Nope..
>>
>Gender equality is not just equal treatment before the law, it also means equal treatment from individuals too.

I would agree regarding the law side. On the treatment from individuals I would totally disagree simply on the basis of the differences in personalities without even beginning a discussion on physiological differences. We all treat each other as individuals and for society to force people into artificial relationships is just plain silly. If I don't want to associate with you you should not be able to force me to so do. Same for you.

But, that's not what's going on out there.

>
>> But, falling into the socialist trap of confusing equal outcome with equal
>> opportunity is sloppy thinking at best.
>>
>I am not at all a believer of equal opportunity leads to the same outcome. I chose to solve difficult, and sometimes life-critical, problems because I believe that I will discover a solution that is much better than your typical hyper-developer's solution. Does this make me sound like pompous ass? Some of my clients would certainly agree with you. Fact is, clients hire me because they have problems they cannot define or solve and I have an excellent track record of solving the "impossible". Does this make me a better person than you are? Not at all. It just means that I can solve some problems that in all likehood, you cannot. So what? You're evidently better on the business side judging by the size of your new home. Does it make me jealous? Not at all. I accepted who I am a long time ago and chose a career path that is compatible with my goals and expectations.

If you reread your own words and think about it a little you're saying exactly what I am. You're an individual and demand to be treated that way - and IMO rightly so! Don't then turn around and try and impose on me some artificial expectation about how I should treat others. We're really saying the same thing only I think I'm being a little more honest in my choice of words.

>
>> Given that then why don't we get rid of all the touchy-feely special
>> programs that are specifically geared towards one race or another which
>> are, in reality, more often than not absolute faiures, and truly make our
>> society colorblind and sex-blind (Gender is the technically incorrect word
>> By the way). The problem is is that in fact there are differences and to
>> point them out is not sexist - it's realistic.
>>
>> Unless you're a politically correct knucklehead. <g>
>
>I can't comment on the special programs because I have not watched anything other than X-files (once or twice a month), sports (1 event a week), and movies on cable tv.

Right.. I don't watch much TV either. Does the phrase crass and banal come to mind? <g>

>
>I didn't know about sex being the proper term and it may be a language issue. The first company I worked for used the term gender exclusively and I assumed it was the correct term from that point forward.
>
>Pointing out a difference between the sexes is fine by me if the difference actually exist.

They do and when I point one area out I get called "sexist". Go figure. <g> I call that a double standard.

> My problem is that the difference you assigned to the schoolgirls group may be in reality a trait that is more prevalent in the schoolboys group.

Could be. With a couple of just-post-high school nieces and after several length conversations with my lovely wife on this very issue I'd beg to differ. She'd far rather work for a man than a woman as the men aren't as bitchy and unprofessional (her words).

>
>>> About newscasts. I listen to the news on NPR because I don't find much
>>> value in television newscasts.
>>
>> NPR - Ah, yes.. Deceit with Dignity at its best. <g>
>>
>>> I choose depth before breadth.
>>
>> Well, in that case I'd say go read a book. <g>
>>
>FYI, I read anywhere from 50 to 150 books a year. Two-thids (sf, fantas, fiction) for pure enjoyment, one-third to learn something.

Great! I love to read.

>
>>> It's perfectly ok for you to have a different opinion.
>>
>> Gee, thanks. That's very magnanimous of you. <g>
>>
>I meant that I would not argue the point if you had a different opinion. I don't see anything wrong in choosing breadth over depth.

<g>

Just giving you a hard time Daniel... <s> Now as to which one of us represents depth v breadth.. Let's leave that for another day. No more ropes and I'm out of p**. <g>


>
>>> As for celebrating the differences between male and female, stating that
>>> schoolgirls are bickering is not exactly cause for celebration…
>>>
>> No, but they do bicker whether you want to see it or not.
>>
>Read my post again, I said they did indeed bicker.
>
>> The problem most folks have Daniel is that they don't really want the
>> truth.
>>
>Are you sure you don't watch the X-files? <g>

LOL!!! Only in my dreams. <g>

>
>Daniel