--- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK; now that I've put out a couple of embers and have > replenished my chocolate level, I think I'll disagree > with several points below. > > --- Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3110594.stm > > > "Women have overtaken men at every level of > > >education in developed countries around the world. > <snipped rest of article quote> > > > What about an education system and workplace that > > are now more focused on > > empathic and rote memorization ability than on > > problem solving ability? > > If by "problem solving" you mean mathmatical problems, > then men generally do have an edge over women, but if > "problem solving" includes practical solutions to > quandries encountered in the home or workplace, I'd > say women have just as much ability to organize, > coordinate and solve such problems. Frex, the field > of microbiology owes much to the practical knowledge > of one of Robert Koch's assistant's wife, Fanny > Angelina Eilshemius: she assisted her husband in the > lab and introduced _agar-agar_ as a semi-solid > bacterial growth medium -- which we still use today > (ah, I recall the marvelous aroma of cooking agar! > :P). > http://www.slic2.wsu.edu:82/hurlbert/micro101/pages/Chap1.html#Agar
I think your leaving out a lot of women who have the "male" type mind. certainly Eilshemius might have been one of those people. There are of course also men with "female" type minds. The use of the term problem solving should have been qualified. > And as for formal science and innovation, here are a > couple of websites listing women scientists in a > variety of fields: > http://www.astr.ua.edu/4000WS/discipline.shtml > http://www.geocities.com/cherzenberg/history_of_women_in_science.html > > > "Womens lib" has benificial effects, but it also has > > some detrimental effects > > as well. I suggest that technolegy and buisness > > would be progressing much > > faster had "Womens lib" never happened. The focus in > > the work place on > > empathic systems rather than problem solving systems > > leads to a highly > > political environement more focused on polotics than > > getting the job done. > > ??? > In practically every office in which I've worked over > the past ten years (city-> townlet, one-doc-office-> > teaching hospital, Maine-> Oregon-> Texas), including > the current one, the office manager and/or executive > secretary is/are key to the smooth running of that > office: from keeping supplies ordered on-time to > coordinating conflicting schedules to smoothing > ruffled feathers, she is indispensible to the > efficient and harmonious workplace environment. Her > one-week vacation - however she has tried to > anticipate potential disasters - often causes several > weeks' worth of snarled meeting schedules, short > supplies, and various other SNAFUs. Offices with an > ineffective or vindictive manager are hellacious > places in which to work. Strange it allways seems to me that these same people are setting up and applying procedures which work against the company rather than for it. And that this is why things go SNAFU when they are not around. > I also don't think that "progress" is only measured by > technology and business -- particularly I don't think > that most corporations have a shining "vision of the > future"- other than their own profits (of course there > _are_ responsible and innovative companies which do). Was it allways that way? > > Support for this can be shown in advancements made > > in the last century prior > > to "womens lib" and those made after it. > > ??? > My understanding (and if someone has a site showing > otherwise, I'd appreciate the posting) is that > scientific advancement in the past hundred or so years > has been on a nearly asymptotic curve (IIRC the term) > compared to the prior millennia. Certainly lifespan, > as a measure of improved health, nutrition, and safer > working conditions, has nearly doubled since 1900 here > in the West (and other "Westernized" cultures) [CDC > stats previously posted]. > > Here is a timeline of the women's rights movement (USA > mostly) from 1848->1990's: > http://www.legacy98.org/timeline.html Exactly it is only when the effort was achieved that the advancement deterioraited. NASA can't even listen to their experts any more, and why? Becouse they are not "people persons" enough to get themselves heard in a strickly empathic driven political environement. > > If this were true, then a socity which desired to > > gain advantage by being > > more efficient would recognize the abilities and > > benifits of both "gendered" > > mindsets and the spectrum between the two extreems. > > And focus not on an > > overreaching standard, but on the strengths of the > > individual, and the > > benifits of the microcultures which employ both > > modles. And use the right microculture for the right tasks!!! > Reason, logic, intuition and empathy definitely are > synergystic when working on major problems, with of > course one mode sometimes being more important than > the others at different stages; the > engineering/materials science had better be solid when > a bridge is designed and built, and the foreman better > have good people skills when it comes to choosing the > right worker(s) for the particular job, and being able > to spot trouble before it gets out-of-hand. I disagree. What possible use could a forman with People skills? The right workers are the ones that get the job done. The only trouble that is important is those that effect the task at hand. Focus on the people skills and who gets the job depends on who likes who, what personalities fit together, not who can get the job done. And if you are concerned with conflict then don't be. Conflict can be just as much a benifit as a detriment. Conflict is naturual, let it happen. > > i.e. I think we are shifting from the standard being > > the "male" model to the > > standard being the "female" model and this is why > > you see the numbers in the > > article. At the same time I do not think that either > > extreem is the best one, > > but rather the acceptance of individuals. > > I agree that using the best strengths of individuals > is an ideal to strive for, and would add that > improving an individual's weakness(es) will benefit > not only the individual but their community. (Except > from the POV of those who want to be alone at the top > of a pyramid A type workers will allways try and make it to the top and then stay there. Why not focus their advancement on technical results rather than shmoozing, and being "people persons". >-- it is not to their purpose at all for > everyone to fulfill their individual potential. Not in the empathic world we live in. > Women's equality under the law threatens the "I'm > better than at least half of the population!" > mentality of many men, True if the only focus was on technical ability in engeneering and science, and the probability of getting a probelm solveing brain really is higher for men than for women, the ratios of men to women in the leadership of such fields would be skewed. They really would be better statisticaly. An acknowledgment of this truth is not sexism. Denying an individual who is exceptional (given that this model is correct) would be. i.e. if men really are better than women at certain tasks (& vice versa) then why do we as a people care if more men than women (or vice versa) are prominent in fields that require those tasks? Especialy when wer recognize that we can't tell where a person is on that spectrum just by acknowledging their gender. ===== _________________________________________________ Jan William Coffey _________________________________________________ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
