This is probably getting offtopic for d-women, if someone wants me to shut up, just tell me, and I'll do it.
2008/10/10 Gaudenz Steinlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:08:44AM -0500, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: >> I sometimes wonder why nobody seems to be in a rush to encourage more >> boys to knit, bake cookies, or take up sewing. > > Most people aren't in a rush to encourage girls to work with computers > or on other "nerdy" subjects either. True, but at least there exists a public debate about it. What I was trying to say is, why is there such a public debate about pushing girls into traditionally-male dominated fields but no symmetrical debate for boys? As I was saying, I somewhat understand this lack of symmetry: it's not so much about pushing women simply into traditionally male fields of endeavour, as much as pushing them into the fields of endeavour that give control. Which is fine. I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, just kinda rambling, sorry. > I really don't believe in natural predespositions of any kind. > They are simply a to convenient excuse for > not doing anything to overcome these traditions. The usual argument is that we have no controlled environment to fully test this, it's a kind of forbidden experiment, but the fact remains that women are abundant for some tasks and men are abundant for others. You may blame this all you want on patriarchy and stupid social mores, but what if, and please don't take this the wrong way, but what if it simply is true that no matter what environment you put women in, they will still have a predisposition to act in a certain way or do certain things? I wouldn't like that to be true. I don't like the idea that people are born with predispositions and without control of their lives. But sometimes I think, "what if it is true? What if our efforts to change it are for naught?" - Jordi G. H.
