<some snippage done throughout> > Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >William T Goodall 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... <snip> > I think your leaving out a lot of women who have the > "male" type mind. I didn't mean to - heck, that 'text gender finder' had me being male (I think b/c of using numbers.) > 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. OK. <snipped websites listing women scientists> > > > "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....including > > the current one, the office manager and/or > >executive secretary is/are key to....the > > efficient and harmonious workplace environment.... > > > 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. <LOL> I take it you haven't worked in a private clinic, with the *massive* egos and "This needs to be done STAT! [b/c I forgot to order the blood test last time the patient came in]" -- SNAFUs occur daily in many offices. Adaptability and thinking-on-the-fly are essential in the typical office manager, because whatever procedures are in place, a typical week will involve something outside of the "norm." > > 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? I don't follow you here - I said that progress does not equal technology and business alone; as example I offered health and lifespan (which does reflect applied technology and applied knowledge - one only has to look at the former Soviet Union to see how advanced technology, poorly applied, does not correlate with the health and welfare of a people.) > > > 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. <snip> > 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. I'm not tracking here, Jan; failing to account for one set of calculations done in kilometers and one in miles (or feet) doesn't have anything to do with "empathy" from my POV; not listening to warnings from their experts is just plain foolish (and deadly, as it turned out). Now it does seem to me that with increased media coverage, people are more indignant over the inherent dangers in exploration (how often were the deaths of test pilots rehashed on radio and TV back before the 60's? I don't remember outrage over the loss of Grissom/White/Chaffee, only national sorrow), and that might not be justified -- but the first two examples in this paragraph are errors of judgement rather than genuinely encountered unforeseen problems, IMO. Do you have an article stating that there has been a technological decline, and how it is related to the women's rights movement? <snip description of microculture that employs both "male" and "female" modes of thinking> > > 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 think we're using different descriptions of "people skills" -- I meant exactly what I said, that a foreman needs to be able to judge who is best for a particular job/team, which includes being aware of who might cause trouble or need closer supervision, or who can be depended on to do the correct work without constant oversight. I did not say "brown-nosing" or "shmoozing." [The hospital term for that is "guiaic positive!" - from a test done on stool to check for blood. ;} ] > > > i.e. I think we are shifting from the standard > > >being the "male" model to the > > > standard being the "female" model....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...<snip> > >(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". Ah, I wasn't being clear: I was referring to those who want to be at the top of a pyramid *by squashing down those they consider their inferiors* - not people who just want to show their prowess in their chosen field. > >-- it is not to their purpose at all for > > everyone to fulfill their individual potential. > > Not in the empathic world we live in. Not in any world -- brutal bullies have always stomped on the necks of those they consider their inferiors, and jealously guarded their "rights" to lord it over the lowly slave/serf/common man. > > 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. <blinks at apparent non-sequitur> You deleted the part where I described the 'threatened men' as being found "particularly in many non-Western cultures, and in all extremist/fundamentalist religions. IMO" Or are you saying that *all* men are threatened by women having equal rights under the law? And our problem-solving modes are just different,with quite different approaches. A personal example: back in grad school, my prof was trying to figure out a way to quantify the numbers of a type of methanogenic bacteria in waste sludge. His approach was to sonicate the mixture, assume that all bacteria were equally ruptured, measure the amount of a particular chemical that these bacteria produced in their cells, and extrapolate back to the actual number of individuals (although he hadn't figured out how to estimate the amount per single bacterium yet). My approach was to do a standard dilution-and-plate-out series, and count the colonies that fluoresced under a particular wavelength (which was a property of that particular chemical). His was very high-tech and involved a lot of calculations, some of which weren't yet known; mine was low-tech and quite simple -- he was rather annoyed when, after he asked me to do a literature search, I actually found a group that had already done it 'my' way. (Would it be impolite of me to note that he came from the Middle East? <smirk>) > 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. I think what angers women is being denied equal pay for work done *as well* as their male counterparts, and being condescended to in their chosen professions, and being denied advancement when they are as well (or better) qualified for a position. "Equality under the law" to me includes having the opportunity to go as far as my skills and drive take me. Debbi __________________________________ 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
