Harvard President's remarks

[Supernova]

Education
Harvard president apologizes for sex differences remarks
Summers: Comment sent 'unintended signal'


http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/01/20/harvard.summers.ap/index.html

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Nutmeg]

My point is, you have all these posts saying "Well I know a girl who is good at math, so that theory is obviously wrong." Just because you have some personal experience, and even possibly overwhelming experience, with something, doesnt make it true. People get so wrapped up in what happens to them personally and think that it applies to everything, i.e. their experiences with people of different beliefs, cultures and races color their entire perception of those cultures and races. THIS is "basing your judgement on what you observe, rather than what you expect," except what you observe generally tends to match what you expect. This is why people do studies and TRY to remove subjectivity and partiality from observation.

Experiment all you want, but te fact remains that in the world of social psychology, there will never be any ability to establish the necessary sorts of controls, and hence, you can never find causation in social psychology (apart from draconian Nazi-esque experimentation, perhaps). This being the case, you can either throw up your hands and decide it is all unintelligible and will forever remain as such, or you can do your best to observe the world. And I do a damned good job.

Of course, if you want to give me crap for my assertion, then why not provide some sort of counter to the observation? If you don't think anything can be learned or inferred, then I really don't give a rats ass what you think.

 

[RangerD]

you ladies are being overly sensitive. did it ever occur to you that men and women are, in fact, DIFFERENT? there have been numerous studies which show that there are very different patterns of brain activity in men and women; this has in part been attributed to hormonal influences...

That's right. I think that is all the Harvard guy was referring to. He wasn't try to imply that one sex was superior to the other. They are different...and that God they are different! What a boring place this would be if everyone thought the same.

 

[MoosePilot]

No, I think you have it wrong. Unless someone loses my respect, I have to approach with respect. Think about this. You wouldn't walk down the street and yell names at people or hit them or something. Its because you respect even though they haven't earned it. I hope you don't treat you patients like they have to earn your respect. But another thing, I'm going to med school to be a doctor and continue on with my life, not surrender it. Seriously folks, its medical school but I'm not going to completely lose my identity by just 'sucking up' whatever comes my way.

There is "courtesy" which is what strangers and patients get and then there is "respect", which I agree has to be earned. Moreover, since you can't see whether I respect you, there's no way you can compel it. So talk of not tolerating a lack of respect is silly. You might tell on that guy if he outwardly shows you disrespect, but he could show you polite indifference and there's nothing you or anyone at the school could do about it.

 

[rayofdiana]

Vader, thanks for the first well thought out, non-reactive, post I've seen here.

Things like innate brain differences bother me because while there does seem to be some evidence that they exist (statistically significant, albeit small, differences), they are typically used to support socially constructed norms (a dangerous, usually prejudiced technique). Instead, they should be used to ask questions: why do these differences exist? Are these actually significant (I know that they are statistically, but contextually they might not be)? What are the biases of the researchers? As a pre-med, I obviously care about biology, but human biology without a social context is pointless, particularly when discussing things like genetics and behavior.

Anne Fausto-Sterling has written volumes on the problematic nature of almost all sex-difference studies. Unfortunately, I left my copy of
Sexing the Body at home, or I'd quote it here now. She breaks down how researchers construct their statistics to gain significance, evaluates problematic methodologies, and points to meta-analysis as a source of possible guidance. Importantly, she shows that meta-analysis yields much more variation within each sex than there is between the sexes. Additionally, like Vader said, the brain is highly plastic. Are "male brains" different from "female brains" because of a strict genetic code, or do social interactions contribute to a molding of gendered brains?

All in all, it seems irresponsible to use this research to suport social norms (which are unique to our time and place in the world), when the research itself (methods, statistical analysis) is contentious.

 

[Lester]

Well, I think the poll is far from scientific. Sampling the Harvard campus does not take Summers off the hook. And part of being the president of an institution as laudable and impressive as Harvard is being a good orator. If he can't even shoulder that responsibility.... I say off with his head!

Oops - forgot to reply to this one earlier. Summers certainly isn't the perfect picture of grace, but he's otherwise proven himself to be a very intelligent and active leader at the university (albeit one to stir controversy in people who don't like to move). I don't think one needs a sweet-talker in every leader; not to overly expose my political sentiments, but I think the Bush administration has at least temporarily jaded our visions of leadership.

Considering that he stated that "I began by saying that the whole issue of gender equality was profoundly important and that we are taking major steps at Harvard to combat passive discrimination," (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/national/18harvard.html?oref=login&oref=login) it's possible that his economics background might have played a role in his statements. This is purely speculative, but having had many discussions with my roommate who is very interested in economic and social theory, I'm under the impression that the development of such theories don't necessarily begin with what we call "scientific rigor" - they look at the end result, sift through what remains of the original state, and then try to develop overarching theories of how things came to be (not all that unlike the painstaking development of evolutionary theory, perhaps, except that it's harder to study these topics visually). Larry Summers's odd example of his daughter's toy trucks was to illustrate that even at an early age (and despite her gender-neutral upbringing), men and women may perceive the world and the relationship between objects and concepts in a different manner. The jump to the statement that these differences may explain why men and women have different levels of achievement/success in science and mathematics-based fields was probably characteristic of the aforementioned habit of economic theorists: it might be a seemingly gross overstatement or oversimplification, but it might also have some intellectual merit if you begin with the assumption that it will take many years to understand how these differences manifest themselves and whether or not they actually constitute a meaningful factor.

If you don't mind reading a Harvard newspaper (that is reasonably unbiased and semi-professional most of the time), here are two links to Q&As with Professors Pinker and Spelke, two Psychology faculty at Harvard. They comment on Larry Summers's statement and also put in a few words of their own on whether or not these assertions are meaningful, and if so, where they might be useful. Spelke, in particular, points out that many women tend to be much more productive in their careers at a later age (much more so than men), so it doesn't make sense for university faculty tenure committees to project merit based solely on the academic productivity of applicants in their thirties (i.e. with respect to career productivity and family life, women may often be much better candidates for tenure).
http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article505366.html
http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article505367.html

As for the scientific nature of my "poll"... well, I think my Statistics professor would cry if he heard that I would need a double-blinded, randomized controlled trial to ask some questions of people who were at or closely related to the conference and acquire "statistically-significant" information. I think the first thing he taught us this past term was: "Not all results that are statistically significant are important, and vice verca." I certainly hope our generation of doctors and scientists quickly learns when the gold-standard RCT and the concept of "scientific rigor" are useful and when it's not particularly feasible or meaningful.

 

[vhawk]

Experiment all you want, but te fact remains that in the world of social psychology, there will never be any ability to establish the necessary sorts of controls, and hence, you can never find causation in social psychology (apart from draconian Nazi-esque experimentation, perhaps). This being the case, you can either throw up your hands and decide it is all unintelligible and will forever remain as such, or you can do your best to observe the world. And I do a damned good job.

Of course, if you want to give me crap for my assertion, then why not provide some sort of counter to the observation? If you don't think anything can be learned or inferred, then I really don't give a rats ass what you think.

But you dont "observe the world." You observe your tiny little portion of it and then assume it is a representative sample. Listen man, this isnt really a personal attack on you. But look at it this way...you live in Cali. Do you really think most of America is like Cali? I am from the Midwest(MN and WI) and I guarantee you there are a lot of things that are much different here(although gender attributes may or may not be one of them). This is akin to all the "blue-staters" thinking that They know what America is like, even though they are only exposed to the small percent that is LIKE THEM.

You want me to give a counter to the observation? Ok, all girls I know or have ever met in my life(probably around 10k, with actually knowing a little over 1k of them) are stupid at math and have lifelong dreams of only raising babies and making a home. Every single one, 100 percent, that is what women are like. Come on! I can give you any counter to your "observation" that you want, and its exactly as valid as yours, which is to say not very.

 

[freaker]

Tests have shown that from a very early age, males are better at spacial manipulation and other traits the prove beneficial in math and science. I don't know why this is such a drastic claim.

Well, I do. And I find it funny the way this guy is getting crucified by the swarms of politically correct pinheads the way he is. They're turning on one of their own at the moment.

Rule of thumb: don't say the wrong thing, even if you think it's right, when it comes to issues that the politically correct have decided are sacred. You will become sexist/racist/evil/conniving/cold-hearted/ignorant/uneducated if you do.

And if you disagree with this guy, do what Vader did and offer counterargumetns. Don't give us the tired old sexist/racist whatever. And if you use the word "hegemony," I will personally beat you with a three-week old flouder.

 

[cammy1313]

The innate problem with the Harvard prez's statement is that it was phrased negatively and referred to a historically oppressed population. Not to mention that he could have easily said, "due to the differences between men and women, MEN are inherently unsuccessful in [fill in the blank] fields" which would have been equally offensive. Bottom line, duh, there ARE obvious differences between men and women but he chose to highlight that in an inappropriate way.

 

[Mr. Seeds]

The innate problem with the Harvard prez's statement is that it was phrased negatively and referred to a historically oppressed population. I mean, he could have easily said, "due to the differences between men and women, MEN are inherently unsuccessful in [fill in the blank] fields". Duh, there ARE obvious differences between men and women but he chose to highlight that in an inappropriate way.

Why would it have been any less offensive to you to have had men been named as the unsuccessful group?

Though I do think the fact that boys and men are falling miserably behind in education from grade school through grad/professional school needs to finally get some attention. Continuing to ignore boys' educational plight isn't going to help anyone, men or women, in the next generation.

 

[stinkycheese]

Respect is earned, not demanded. Maybe you'll learn a little something about that in med school. You know, right along with the lesson that, as an MS1, you're pretty much going to have to "tolerate" whatever the hell is dished up for you.

Funny how when a woman demands respect for female colleagues, she gets a reprimand from a boy. But I'm sure the boys think they are entitled to all the respect and admiration in the world from the women in the class. Hmm.

Women do not have to tolerate sexism, no matter what year of school we are in. Nice try, though.

I'm glad we're not going to be classmates.

 

[Mr. Seeds]

Funny how when a woman demands respect for female colleagues, she gets a reprimand from a boy. But I'm sure the boys think they are entitled to all the respect and admiration in the world from the women in the class. Hmm.

Women do not have to tolerate sexism, no matter what year of school we are in. Nice try, though.

I'm glad we're not going to be classmates.

It doesn't matter a damn bit who is demanding respect. Whether it's a woman or a man, respect doesn't work like that. You can't make anyone respect you. The more you try, the more you'll make yourself look like an ass. As a doctor, you'll be able to tell nurses what to do. You can bitch and moan and be a pompous ass, and no matter what you do, you can't force them to respect you. They'll talk about you behind your back, do a half-assed job, and then they'll find someone else to work for. You can stomp your little foot and cry that it's just not fair, but no one owes you respect. As a leader, you'll have to earn every bit of respect you receive. Woman or man. No one respects a poor leader, no matter how much demanding they do. But by all means, try it in a few years when you have that M.D. and see if it works for ya.

And I never said women had to tolerate sexism. That comment about tolerating whatever is dished up was in the context of respect. Quit taking things out of context to make it look like you actually have a point.

Moreover, contrary to your wildly childish assumptions about me, I don't think I'm entitled to much, and I certainly don't think that I or anyone else is entitled to respect. Neither you or RunMimi owe me that. I haven't done anything that you know of that is worthy of respect. RunMimi is confusing the difference between action and the motivation thereof. If I don't run up and hit you (using her example), it may or may not have anything to do with respect. It might be that I completely disrespect you, but don't want to get arrested. My action of not hitting you has nothing to do with my respecting you. RunMimi can demand that I not hit her, but she can't demand that I not hit her because I respect her. Is the concept really this difficult to grasp?

One last thing, stinky. Before you start accusing me of being sexist, I challenge you to find a single post of mine that is blatantly sexist. Because I can dig up a whole slew of quotes from you about how men can't change diapers and other such nonsense.

 

[stinkycheese]

One last thing, stinky. Before you start accusing me of being sexist, I challenge you to find a single post of mine that is blatantly sexist. Because I can dig up a whole slew of quotes from you about how men can't change diapers and other such nonsense.

That is a perfect example of reading with blinders on. You have such a strong belief that anytime a woman stands up for her gender, she hates men. I have never said any of that diaper changing stuff, but go ahead and try to dig up these posts you've created in your head. And, I never called you sexist. So since you're working with such BS, I can't really continue this debate.

 

[Mr. Seeds]

That is a perfect example of reading with blinders on. You have such a strong belief that anytime a woman stands up for her gender, she hates men. I have never said any of that diaper changing stuff, but go ahead and try to dig up these posts you've created in your head. And, I never called you sexist. So since you're working with such BS, I can't really continue this debate.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?p=2149612#post2149612

Your original post is #174 (about half way down the page).

Specifically you said:

"It's too bad a grown man can't wash his own dishes or change a diaper."

You never said any of that diaper changing stuff, huh?

 

[MoosePilot]

That is a perfect example of reading with blinders on. You have such a strong belief that anytime a woman stands up for her gender, she hates men. I have never said any of that diaper changing stuff, but go ahead and try to dig up these posts you've created in your head. And, I never called you sexist. So since you're working with such BS, I can't really continue this debate.

Huh?

Funny how when a woman demands respect for female colleagues, she gets a reprimand from a boy. But I'm sure the boys think they are entitled to all the respect and admiration in the world from the women in the class. Hmm.

Women do not have to tolerate sexism, no matter what year of school we are in. Nice try, though.

I'm glad we're not going to be classmates.

Emphasis added.

Is that not pretty much the definition of sexism? He's the "boy" that gave the "reprimand" and you're sure "the boys" think we're entitled to more. That's sexism and that's what you accused him of.

 

[stinkycheese]

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?p=2149612#post2149612

Your original post is #174 (about half way down the page).

Specifically you said:

"It's too bad a grown man can't wash his own dishes or change a diaper."

You never said any of that diaper changing stuff, huh?

If you'll recall, medstyle said that I was "mad because he didn't change diapers". I responded by saying it was too bad that he, as a grown man, couldn't change a diaper. I am sorry you don't understand the difference between that response and a blanket statement about men and diapers.

I really hate the fact that you're so obsessed with my posting history, so I'm just going to ignore you from now on. This back and forth is stupid.

 

[Vader]

Tests have shown that from a very early age, males are better at spacial manipulation and other traits the prove beneficial in math and science. I don't know why this is such a drastic claim.

At what age were the males and females tested for spatial manipulation?

There are also a number of studies that suggest that males and females are treated much differently by their parents and others starting from birth. For example, girls are handled more gently, treated more affectionately when they cry, and given toys and clothes that are different from boys. There is also accumulating evidence that early childhood experiences can dramatically and differentially affect they way boys and girls perceive and interact with the world.

Notably, it is extremely difficult to tease apart the genetic, "hard-wired" influences from social ones. Hence the difficulty people have in discussing these topics. That we interact with our environment in such an intimate way, demonstrates how adapatable we are as humans. Biologists, especially those in the field of behavioral genetics, are just beginning to appreciate how subtle these types of interactions can be.

Given the sensitive nature of these issues, it is important that they be discussed without overhyping or overextending assertions not well supported by the available data. It is sometimes better to just say "we don't know" but that eventually, with more studies, we will get to the answers.

 

[Nutmeg]

But you dont "observe the world." You observe your tiny little portion of it and then assume it is a representative sample. Listen man, this isnt really a personal attack on you. But look at it this way...you live in Cali. Do you really think most of America is like Cali? I am from the Midwest(MN and WI) and I guarantee you there are a lot of things that are much different here(although gender attributes may or may not be one of them). This is akin to all the "blue-staters" thinking that They know what America is like, even though they are only exposed to the small percent that is LIKE THEM.

That doesn't even address my point. All science always just looks at a small portion of reality and seeks to make inferences. You don't get away from that problem by blowing me off. And I am more objective than a great many sociologists who seek the data to fit their predetermined conclusions. That why I change my opinion so often--it comes with objectivity. Bitch all you want, but you can't expect me to think that my opinion is worthless while some BS finding in some pissant journal somewhere, taken out of the context of its specific data and experimental design, means jack-diddly.

You want me to give a counter to the observation? Ok, all girls I know or have ever met in my life(probably around 10k, with actually knowing a little over 1k of them) are stupid at math and have lifelong dreams of only raising babies and making a home. Every single one, 100 percent, that is what women are like. Come on! I can give you any counter to your "observation" that you want, and its exactly as valid as yours, which is to say not very.

If you're just going to make stuff up, then no, that's not as valid as my opinion. Sorry. Do you have a specific complaint with the particular point that I made (that a percieved difference in aptitude is likely just due to differences in interest, but this may not rule out biological contirbutors to differences observed), or do you just like to whine? Your complaint is far more BS than my point is. You're just inferring, from the limited group of people you've known that express opinions based in part on their experience, that my point is similar in merit to the average such opinion. That makes you a bloody hypocrite in my book.

 

[dopaminophile]

At what age were the males and females tested for spatial manipulation?

There are also a number of studies that suggest that males and females are treated much differently by their parents and others starting from birth. For example, girls are handled more gently, treated more affectionately when they cry, and given toys and clothes that are different from boys. There is also accumulating evidence that early childhood experiences can dramatically and differentially affect they way boys and girls perceive and interact with the world.

Notably, it is extremely difficult to tease apart the genetic, "hard-wired" influences from social ones. Hence the difficulty people have in discussing these topics. That we interact with our environment in such an intimate way, demonstrates how adapatable we are as humans. Biologists, especially those in the field of behavioral genetics, are just beginning to appreciate how subtle these types of interactions can be.

Given the sensitive nature of these issues, it is important that they be discussed without overhyping or overextending assertions not well supported by the available data. It is sometimes better to just say "we don't know" but that eventually, with more studies, we will get to the answers.

Very well put. I think that really the focus ought to be on figuring out how to make the materials more accesible to everyone of different learning styles, be they associated with gender or not, regardless of the origin of the different learning styles.

It's really senseless to me to say that women are naturally disinclined to learn science and math. If, by some stretch of the imagination that were true, then what would women do, resign themselves to raising children? Of course they wouldn't and shouldn't.

Whether learning styles are dependent on gender or not is meaningless. Teachers need to begin focusing on teaching to a variety of learning styles. I am pretty sure that's exactly what younger teachers are being trained to do.

-dope-

 

[reLAXgirl]

I think these topics are so hard to resolve because everyone has a different reality.

For me, it is easy to see why women are not as involved in the sciences whatever the reason. I do believe there are biological precursors but they are affected by society (not all men are biologically prepared for such interests or fields, either).

As a woman, I HAVE felt discrimination and negative feelings for my career and educational goals. However, there are many who have not experienced such things, men or women, and are unable to believe that this is the case. For the same reason it is hard for a white person to recognize the discrimination (or perceived) or a black person, it is hard for some men to understand the discrimination women feel or experience. However, numbers continue to show the discrepencies in pay, etc, even within the same field.

Anyway, my point is: for those who have never been discriminated against or do not feel feelings of prejudice towards others, it can be hard to imagine that the experiences of others who have been discriminated against are legitimate (and that they aren't super sensitive or otherwise); likewise, those who feel they are a "victim" of such feeling may have a hard time believing others cannot see it. I think we need to be open to the fact that everyone experiences different things and not criticize or humiliate someone because their reality is different from our own.

So please don't label anyone fighting for equality for women as a feminist or lesbian or someone who needs to "shave her legs." It isn't necessarily about being politically correct but about understanding and appreciating the experiences of others. I think we all need to keep an open mind--it is easy for me to see not only how the harvard pres' words meant no ill as well as the fact it could be highly offensive to others. Maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt while also learning from this experience.

 

[gujuDoc]

I'm not sure if this has already been posted, but I was curious to see how some of you felt about Lawrence Summers' comment that "innate differences between the sexes could help explain why fewer women succeed in science and math careers." I know that some of you may attend Harvard or wish to go there, and I was curious about your reactions.

You know my Microbial physiology professor whom is a female was telling me about this cuz it angered her too.

I think this a ridiculous generalization made by a sexist idiot. I mean people like my friend on this board that got a 43s whom also happens to be a female with good cancer research and close to getting her phd in science is one true living proof of why the harvard president can go shove that comment up his butt.

I also noticed that many of my friends that were getting acceptances were more female than males, so I think that is false.

 

[Mr. Seeds]

I think these topics are so hard to resolve because everyone has a different reality.

For me, it is easy to see why women are not as involved in the sciences whatever the reason. I do believe there are biological precursors but they are affected by society (not all men are biologically prepared for such interests or fields, either).

As a woman, I HAVE felt discrimination and negative feelings for my career and educational goals. However, there are many who have not experienced such things, men or women, and are unable to believe that this is the case. For the same reason it is hard for a white person to recognize the discrimination (or perceived) or a black person, it is hard for some men to understand the discrimination women feel or experience. However, numbers continue to show the discrepencies in pay, etc, even within the same field.

Anyway, my point is: for those who have never been discriminated against or do not feel feelings of prejudice towards others, it can be hard to imagine that the experiences of others who have been discriminated against are legitimate (and that they aren't super sensitive or otherwise); likewise, those who feel they are a "victim" of such feeling may have a hard time believing others cannot see it. I think we need to be open to the fact that everyone experiences different things and not criticize or humiliate someone because their reality is different from our own.

So please don't label anyone fighting for equality for women as a feminist or lesbian or someone who needs to "shave her legs." It isn't necessarily about being politically correct but about understanding and appreciating the experiences of others. I think we all need to keep an open mind--it is easy for me to see not only how the harvard pres' words meant no ill as well as the fact it could be highly offensive to others. Maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt while also learning from this experience.

Which is exactly why I don't expect you to understand why being forced to register for selective service is so upsetting to me as a man. You're right, it is easy to be blind to the sorts of discrimination that don't affect us personally.

 

[Nutmeg]

Which is exactly why I don't expect you to understand why being forced to register for selective service is so upsetting to me as a man. You're right, it is easy to be blind to the sorts of discrimination that don't affect us personally.

Are you seriously whining that women don't have to register? God, grow some damned testacles.

 

[Mr. Seeds]

Are you seriously whining that women don't have to register? God, grow some damned testacles.

I'm sure your shaming language actually works on some people. If you have an argument on the issue, then state it. If all you have is "be a man," then you're going to have to try a little harder, you circus freak.

Unfortunately for you, I'm not so insecure with my masculinity that I'll let some anonymous loser on sdn shame me into accepting their position out of fear that they'll call me less of a man. "oh no! Nutmeg doesn't think I'm a real man! God forbid he criticize my masculinity!" What's pathetic is how many men that actually works on. And since you were trying it on me Nutmeg, am I wrong to assume that you are one of those men?

BTW, I did four years in the Marine Corps, went overseas and got an honorable discharge. My problem w/ selective service lies not in a fear of enlistment, but in the fact that some people's civil rights and responsibilities are different than others'.

 

[rayofdiana]

You know, I definitely call myself a feminist. I think that what Harvard's pres said was inappropriate and scientifically unfounded (see earlier post). However, I think that feminism is about breaking down gender barriers, and thus, women should definitely have to sign of for selective service.

 

[Nutmeg]

I'm sure your shaming language actually works on some people. If you have an argument on the issue, then state it. If all you have is "be a man," then you're going to have to try a little harder, you circus freak.

Unfortunately for you, I'm not so insecure with my masculinity that I'll let some anonymous loser on sdn shame me into accepting their position out of fear that they'll call me less of a man. "oh no! Nutmeg doesn't think I'm a real man! God forbid he criticize my masculinity!" What's pathetic is how many men that actually works on. And since you were trying it on me Nutmeg, am I wrong to assume that you are one of those men?

BTW, I did four years in the Marine Corps, went overseas and got an honorable discharge. My problem w/ selective service lies not in a fear of enlistment, but in the fact that some people's civil rights and responsibilities are different than others'.

I did not mean that I thought that you were afraid of being drafted. I am saying that part of being a man is realizing that due to innate differences between the sexes, men are responsible for protecting women. Likewise, women are responsible for raising children. Granted, women should not be forced into bearing children--neither should men be forced to be fathers. I, too, am opposed to issuing a draft for for any foreign wars, but if the US were ever invaded, it would be necessary to issue such a draft, and as a man, I don't think women should be required to register due to the fact that such registry would interfere with their ability to raise children (for those who do choose to raise children). And no, I don't think that it would work to make the draft specific only to those who choose not to be mothers, for that would create an artificial drive for women who didn't want to be mothers to become mothers.

And you're going to give me crap for saying "be a man," and then follow it up by calling me a circus freak? Good lord, that's hypocritical. Unfortunately for you, I'm not so insecure with my intellect that I'll let some anonymous loser on sdn shame me into accepting their position out of fear that they'll call me a circus freak. And yes, I am secure with my masculinity, but that is in part because I know I'm not some bitch trying to defer the responsibilities of being a man onto women. I don't think that having a Y-chromosome and being over the age of 18 makes anyone a man, and I take pride in my belief that character is a prerequisite to true manhood.

 

[swifteagle43]

No matter what you say it has been my experience:
Men discover. Women perfect(the knowledge).

There are exceptions(none that I know of...wow me with your stories(sarcasm)).

Women don't make great front line researchers but are some of the best thinkers when it comes to refinement of materials, ideas, concepts and theories in general.

There have been some famous women chemistry/physicist(one in particular won the nobel prize for chem and physics). I am sure they are amongst us researchers.

Women would also make better doctors than men-and not for the nurturing aspect of things. Women have a keen ability to memorize and retain high amounts of information and present it in a sorted manner which leaves some males confused as hell.

 

[Nutmeg]

Are "male brains" different from "female brains" because of a strict genetic code, or do social interactions contribute to a molding of gendered brains?

All in all, it seems irresponsible to use this research to suport social norms (which are unique to our time and place in the world), when the research itself (methods, statistical analysis) is contentious.

Particular social norms may be unique to our time and place in the world (though many aren't), but it is also true that the existence of social norms that differentiate men from women are not at all unique. that is, humans seem to naturally establish different gender roles. This being the case, one must wonder whether the differences in social norms are in fact the result of biological differences, rather than just assuming that they all exist as a broad conspiracy bent on domination and subjugation. Hypothetically, if you were to create an environment devoid of social norms for the purposes of studying differences between the sexes, wouldn't that be unnatural and contrived? Does one necessarily need to assume that the differences in social norms exist independent of genetic programming?

 

[Nutmeg]

No matter what you say it has been my experience:
Men discover. Women perfect(the knowledge).

There are exceptions(none that I know of...wow me with your stories(sarcasm)).

Women don't make great front line researchers but are some of the best thinkers when it comes to refinement of materials, ideas, concepts and theories in general.

There have been some famous women chemistry/physicist(one in particular won the nobel prize for chem and physics). I am sure they are amongst us researchers.

Women would also make better doctors than men-and not for the nurturing aspect of things. Women have a keen ability to memorize and retain high amounts of information and present it in a sorted manner which leaves some males confused as hell.

If I think of the three greatest/most significant female scientists, they are Marie Curie, Rosalind Franklin, and Barbara McClintock. All three of them were exceptional for their work as front-line researchers, and all of them detailed phenomena that were ultimately primarily explained by male theorists. I think you have it bass ackwards.

And I honestly have no clue where this stereotype comes from that women are better with memorization. Care to elaborate at all?

 

[leechy]

I think that feminism is about breaking down gender barriers, and thus, women should definitely have to sign of for selective service.

Yeah, I'm female, and I agree here. Women should have the same obligation to serve... whether they should have to serve specifically in combat situations is another debate, though if physical strength doesn't really matter in certain combat situations (operation of equipment etc), I don't see why they shouldn't be placed in them. [I should add I know next to nothing about military equipment and combat, so I don't know if there are really combat situations in which strength doesn't matter... this is hypothetical.] Nutmeg has a point in saying that the biological facts of maternity would make it difficult for women to serve in the military if they were mothers. Theoretically speaking though, a draft would probably be aimed at people in their late teens and early twenties, and mothers would probably be a small minority in this cohort of women (of course, as Nutmeg said, neither do we want to encourage women to have children to skip a draft). I heard the Israeli army required military service for both men and women.

 

[Nutmeg]

Yeah, I'm female, and I agree here. Women should have the same obligation to serve... whether they should have to serve specifically in combat situations is another debate, though if physical strength doesn't really matter in certain combat situations (operation of equipment etc), I don't see why they shouldn't be placed in them. [I should add I know next to nothing about military equipment and combat, so I don't know if there are really combat situations in which strength doesn't matter... this is hypothetical.] Nutmeg has a point in saying that the biological facts of maternity would make it difficult for women to serve in the military if they were mothers. Theoretically speaking though, a draft would probably be aimed at people in their late teens and early twenties, and mothers would probably be a small minority in this cohort of women (of course, as Nutmeg said, neither do we want to encourage women to have children to skip a draft). I heard the Israeli army required military service for both men and women.

So do you really think that your ideological devotion to feminism justifies denying children of both parents in a war that requires a draft? Small minority or otherwise, isn't it important that at least one of a child's parents is completely protected from being drafted into a war?

And what on God's Green Earth is your agenda as a feminist, exactly? If you are devoted toward the betterment of women, why do you think their situation would be imporved by making it compulsory for them to serve in combat?

It reminds me of an Onion joke: "First the military, now marriage... why do gays always want in on our worst institutions?"

Why is feminism so devoted to denying women the right to be women?

 

[leechy]

No matter what you say it has been my experience:
Men discover. Women perfect(the knowledge).

There are exceptions(none that I know of...wow me with your stories(sarcasm)).

Women don't make great front line researchers but are some of the best thinkers when it comes to refinement of materials, ideas, concepts and theories in general.

There have been some famous women chemistry/physicist(one in particular won the nobel prize for chem and physics). I am sure they are amongst us researchers.

Women would also make better doctors than men-and not for the nurturing aspect of things. Women have a keen ability to memorize and retain high amounts of information and present it in a sorted manner which leaves some males confused as hell.

It's the persistence of stereotypes like these - that women can't create anything original, that they "don't make great frontline researchers" - that is so troubling. Larry Summers' comments wouldn't have been so incendiary if it weren't for the fact that they provide "authoritative affirmation" for the plenty of people who really do believe stuff like the above.
The fear for many of us is that the research into subtle differences in spatial talents (such as ScarletBegonias described) will be seized upon to prematurely justify and excuse the low percentage of women among tenured science / math faculty, as though no other factors could be at work. Let's recall, women tend to do better on tests of particular verbal skills, but I doubt they make up the majority of humanities faculty. I don't think it's a matter of "subjugation", but partly the persistence of stereotypes like the above - which people rarely express, but may internally feel - and which do affect hiring decisions, promotions, etc.

 

[leechy]

So do you really think that your ideological devotion to feminism justifies denying children of both parents in a war that requires a draft? Small minority or otherwise, isn't it important that at least one of a child's parents is completely protected from being drafted into a war?

And what on God's Green Earth is your agenda as a feminist, exactly? If you are devoted toward the betterment of women, why do you think their situation would be imporved by making it compulsory for them to serve in combat?

It reminds me of an Onion joke: "First the military, now marriage... why do gays always want in on our worst institutions?"

Why is feminism so devoted to denying women the right to be women?

Relax, I was mostly agreeing with you, if you look at the latter part of the post. We could make exceptions for mothers (or fathers), but as you said, we don't want to encourage people to become parents for that reason alone. Mr. Seeds said he felt it was discriminatory to exempt women from selective service, and while I agree that there are some biological differences that may preclude women from serving in some military situations, I don't think they are large enough to justify entirely exempting women from any obligatory military service whatsoever, should the need for a draft arise.

I wouldn't call the military one of our "worst institutions" - I see a need for it, though I certainly regret that need, and I wouldn't voluntarily serve (though I admire those who do). Why do we want "in" on the "worst institutions"? Actually, I was promoting inclusion precisely because a draft is so unlikeable - we should at least consider sharing the burden among both genders - perhaps not equitably, but more so than is happening now. I really thought I was being pro-man here It was certainly not the product of knee-jerk feminism. Pretty much the opposite.

 

[Nutmeg]

Relax, I was mostly agreeing with you, if you look at the latter part of the post. We could make exceptions for mothers (or fathers), but as you said, we don't want to encourage people to become parents for that reason alone. Mr. Seeds said he felt it was discriminatory to exempt women from selective service, and while I agree that there are some biological differences that may preclude women from serving in some military situations, I don't think they are large enough to justify entirely exempting women from any obligatory military service whatsoever, should the need for a draft arise.

I wouldn't call the military one of our "worst institutions" - I see a need for it, though I certainly regret that need, and I wouldn't voluntarily serve (though I admire those who do). Why do we want "in" on the "worst institutions"? Actually, I was promoting inclusion precisely because a draft is so unlikeable - we should at least consider sharing the burden among both genders - perhaps not equitably, but more so than is happening now. I really thought I was being pro-man here It was certainly not the product of knee-jerk feminism. Pretty much the opposite.

Personally, I think war widows are people who have done their duty for their country. You agree that we shouldn't make an incentive to get pregnant, but I contend that there is absolutely no way to avoid doing that if you make any considerations for motherhood. It isn't as though the women in WWII, working in the factories and rasing children on their own, were having an easy time and not doing an important duty to their countries. Men can raise children, but women are better at it. Women can do most things required in combat, but men are better at it. Women can choose not to have kids and avoid motherhood, but likewise, men who aren't in proper physical shape, or who have a criminal record, or who have moral character deemed unsuitable for the military gets exemptions.

What is so awful about genders roles? Why do you feel compelled to break down gender barriers? Women can enlist if they want to, and far fewer do than males do. Why does this require change?

 

[leechy]

Personally, I think war widows are people who have done their duty for their country. You agree that we shouldn't make an incentive to get pregnant, but I contend that there is absolutely no way to avoid doing that if you make any considerations for motherhood. It isn't as though the women in WWII, working in the factories and rasing children on their own, were having an easy time and not doing an important duty to their countries. Men can raise children, but women are better at it. Women can do most things required in combat, but men are better at it. Women can choose not to have kids and avoid motherhood, but likewise, men who aren't in proper physical shape, or who have a criminal record, or who have moral character deemed unsuitable for the military gets exemptions.

What is so awful about genders roles? Why do you feel compelled to break down gender barriers? Women can enlist if they want to, and far fewer do than males do. Why does this require change?

As I said in my last post, a feminist desire to "break down gender barriers" was not motivating my agreement with Mr. Seeds - it was rather a sympathetic feeling that young women could and perhaps should share the burden of obligatory military service with young men in the ways in which they are able. Mr. Seeds is hardly a die-hard feminist agitating for equity, if you'll look at his earlier posts, but he finds the fact that only men are forced to sign up for the draft "deeply upsetting". I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I would guess he finds it unfair that one gender is automatically exempt from enlistment. I don't think it would be unreasonable to require some forms of military service from young women during times of war. As for your analogy between motherhood and military service, and the exemptions made for each, the main issue is that exemption from motherhood is voluntary, and exemption from military service is not.

I think the real obstacle is not theoretical, but the practical one you brought up - the question of whether instituting exemptions for motherhood would create an incentive to have children. If drafted women were restricted to non-combat roles, I'm not as certain that we'd have a rush of 18 year old women getting pregnant, as the risk to their lives would be diminished (assuming that fear is the biggest reason people dislike drafts). But, I think you have a real point there, and I don't have any good response

It's interesting, I didn't think my support for the inclusion of women in the draft meant I regarded gender roles as "awful". I agree that there are some biological differences between the sexes, but I'm just a lot more "conservative" about how I extrapolate those differences into policy. A gender may exhibit a tendency to do better or be better at certain kinds of tasks (parenthood, mathematics, etc) but I am highly skeptical of leaping from those tendencies (generally of debatable etiology) into acceptance of the status quo. For example, even if we accept that women make better parents than men, there are still swathes of men that are better parents than swathes of women, and it doesn't seem right to dismiss a company's choice to offer paternity leave as an absurd attempt at gender equity.

 

[vhawk]

Personally, I think war widows are people who have done their duty for their country. You agree that we shouldn't make an incentive to get pregnant, but I contend that there is absolutely no way to avoid doing that if you make any considerations for motherhood. It isn't as though the women in WWII, working in the factories and rasing children on their own, were having an easy time and not doing an important duty to their countries. Men can raise children, but women are better at it. Women can do most things required in combat, but men are better at it. Women can choose not to have kids and avoid motherhood, but likewise, men who aren't in proper physical shape, or who have a criminal record, or who have moral character deemed unsuitable for the military gets exemptions.

What is so awful about genders roles? Why do you feel compelled to break down gender barriers? Women can enlist if they want to, and far fewer do than males do. Why does this require change?

This post misses the point entirely. The previous poster mentioned nothing about CAPACITY to serve in the armed forces, or whether women were superior, inferior or absolutely identical to me in that respect. The argument over registering for selective service has absolutely nothing to do with fitness. Fat men have to do it, as do skinny little twerps who couldn't do a pushup if their life depended on it. The issue is about who has the obligation to serve the country, and that it is somehow men and men only who have been deemed to bear this responsibility. Certainly, you can make the argument(and it isnt even wrong, you have made this argument and I totally agree) that women during times of war also serve their country dutifully and in many capacities which are just as important. Again, thats not the point. As a man, I could also contribute in many ways outside of military service, but if I want to be a fully endowed member of American society I am FORCED to register. The point the previous poster was trying to make is that, unless there is some sort of inherent flaw or difference in all women that precludes them from even being able to be CONSIDERED for military service, they should also be forced to register.

 

[swifteagle43]

Let's recall, women tend to do better on tests of particular verbal skills, but I doubt they make up the majority of humanities faculty.


I don't think it's a matter of "subjugation", but partly the persistence of stereotypes like the above...do affect hiring decisions, promotions, etc.

Well thank you for clarifying my first point about women doing better on tests(especially bio, verbal and other memorization ones). Women have BETTER memories and are better able to grasp concepts. They are "sharper" in picking things up and crafting them.

Leechy, wtf are you talking about?! I clearly said females make better doctors and I would prefer a female physician(if i just had the choice male vs female doctor at hand).

I would hire women as advisors once I will hopefully open my own company. Any task that requires multi-tasking from holding conferences, to secretaries, to coordinating complicated events(whether they be social or company mergers etc) and public relations(once again the multi-tasking...men are bad at this cause if throw them off track its like holy ****...u can tell that they are lying). I would NOT hire a woman for anyting that is simple and single minded like research or accounting(again if i only had the choice male vs female and not knowing anything else). Women have multi tasking brains which are better at doing many things at once. But they are not good when focused on one task.

There was a research done in which men and womens brains were taken scans of during sex. Even during sex women were multi-tasking while men focused on one thing. Its the power of a focused brain vs a multi-tasked one. Something you can't deny no matter how much femanazi literature you throw at me(not that you are a femenazi).

And as to the girl who asked me to elaborate I ask "did you ever think that you could be the exception to the rule?" That most other girls are NOT like you in thinking?

 

[Nutmeg]

This post misses the point entirely. The previous poster mentioned nothing about CAPACITY to serve in the armed forces, or whether women were superior, inferior or absolutely identical to me in that respect. The argument over registering for selective service has absolutely nothing to do with fitness. Fat men have to do it, as do skinny little twerps who couldn't do a pushup if their life depended on it. The issue is about who has the obligation to serve the country, and that it is somehow men and men only who have been deemed to bear this responsibility. Certainly, you can make the argument(and it isnt even wrong, you have made this argument and I totally agree) that women during times of war also serve their country dutifully and in many capacities which are just as important. Again, thats not the point. As a man, I could also contribute in many ways outside of military service, but if I want to be a fully endowed member of American society I am FORCED to register. The point the previous poster was trying to make is that, unless there is some sort of inherent flaw or difference in all women that precludes them from even being able to be CONSIDERED for military service, they should also be forced to register.

This post misses my point entirely. It is not my suggestion that there are not s-loads of women who are better qualified than s-loads of men for military service. The problem is a matter of pragmatics, and for pragmatics, it does not do to have the whole country uprooted in taimes of war. It remains that the country wa founded with most children coming from legitimate FAMILIES, and I for one maintain that there is no superior way to raise children than by FAMILIES, and as such, this should be facilitated. It is bad to dismantle families, particularly in times of war. One manner of preventing a problem is to define both the draft and the constitution of the family with delineated gender roles. The vast majority of the voting body in this nation agrees with me on this, and even moreso if we look to other nations and other eras.

Selective service is a necessary evil. Total destruction of social institutions that predate this country by several millenia is an unnecessary evil.

 

[Scarletbegonias]

Don't rely on anecdotal evidence so heavily. There are some cited differences between men and women's cognitive abilities. The following text may shed some light on sex differences in the sciences and other academic areas as spatial ability is utililized in many of the disciplines. According to the text in Buss, David. M. (2004). Evoluntionary Psychology:the new science of the mind. :

"The results of many studies now confirm that women these sex differences in spatial abilities. Women outperform men on spatial tasks involving location memory and object arrays such as those shown in Figure 3.1. Women's superiority in this ability has also been extended to memory for uncommon and unfamiliar objects that have no verbal labels (Eals &Silverman, 1994). Men, in contrast, exceed women in spatial tasks that require mental rotation of objects and navigation through unfamiliar terrain.
Taken together, all these findings support the conclusion that men and women have evolved somewhat different spatial specializations, one that facilitates effective gathering and one that favors effective hunting."

Seems like there are some underlying differences, but in no way do they prevent men or women from excelling in any area where the other sex is (or seems) dominately successful. Watson and Crick would have not have been able to discover the structure of DNA without the work of Rosalind Franklin in X ray crystallography. There are still a lot of social forces and causes as to why women are less represented in traditionally male fields academic and professional besides inherent cognitive ability. To prove my point further, here's a riddle (I'll respond with the answer later):

A man and his son are involved in a high speed car wreck. The man dies at the scene and the son is rushed to the hospital via ambulance. Upon examination it becomes apparent that the boy needs immediate surgery to save his life. He is taken to surgery, and when the surgen finds out who the patient is, says, "I cannot operate on this boy. He is my son."
How is this possible?

Answer: The surgeon is the boy's mother.
A University of Tulsa Psychology student posed this question to several subject groups including a feminist organization. Many people were unable to come up with the correct response. It seems that most people assume that the surgeon is probably a man, and overlook the fact that it could just as well be a female surgeon. For example, some people were reported as saying that the boy had two gay dads. She concluded that whether people are conciously aware of it or not, some still hold gender biases.

 

[leechy]

The point the previous poster was trying to make is that, unless there is some sort of inherent flaw or difference in all women that precludes them from even being able to be CONSIDERED for military service, they should also be forced to register.

Exactly. It should also be noted that there is a country that does require mandatory military service from women. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Israel
I don't know enough about the subject to know if families are being dismantled because of the inclusion of women in the draft, but I doubt that "total destruction of social institutions" is occurring. Of course, I'm not knowledgeable on this subject, so I could be wrong.

 

[leechy]

Well thank you for clarifying my first point about women doing better on tests(especially bio, verbal and other memorization ones). Women have BETTER memories and are better able to grasp concepts. They are "sharper" in picking things up and crafting them.

Leechy, wtf are you talking about?! I clearly said females make better doctors and I would prefer a female physician(if i just had the choice male vs female doctor at hand).

Women tend to outperform men on tests of verbal fluency (tasks such as, "name as many words beginning with the letter 'D' as you can in a minute). I'm not sure what this has to do with memorization or biology. As flattering as your words are to the female psyche, I think what I'm trying to say is that ultimately, everyone wants is to be judged as individuals, especially when it comes to things like hiring decisions. Who knows, you may be right - women may, on average, be better at multi-tasking. All I'm saying is that I hope that people judge each other as individuals, and that they don't come to hiring or promotional decisions based on preconceived notions of what that gender tends to be like (regardless of whether those preconceived notions have grains of truth in them or not). That's partly why I objected to your statement that women don't make good frontline researchers - that's the sort of stereotype that prevents people from evaluating women in an unbiased manner. And that's why your "hiring agenda", though flattering, is also a little troubling.

 

[vhawk]

Exactly. It should also be noted that there is a country that does require mandatory military service from women. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Israel
I don't know enough about the subject to know if families are being dismantled because of the inclusion of women in the draft, but I doubt that "total destruction of social institutions" is occurring. Of course, I'm not knowledgeable on this subject, so I could be wrong.

Emphasis added:

First rule of SDN....never admit you could be wrong!

 

[alexPDX]

The dean's comment "earned" him a one page artilcle in this week's Time magazine.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1019829,00.html

 

[Nutmeg]

Exactly. It should also be noted that there is a country that does require mandatory military service from women. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Israel
I don't know enough about the subject to know if families are being dismantled because of the inclusion of women in the draft, but I doubt that "total destruction of social institutions" is occurring. Of course, I'm not knowledgeable on this subject, so I could be wrong.

You are comparing a system of compulsory service--meaning all enter the military--to a system of registration that may result in military service only in the infrequent occurance of a draft being required. This is an important difference, as women in Israel all know that they will be required to enter the military, and as such, they can plan their lives accordingly. Moreover, the birth rate for women between the ages of 15-19 is about 3 times higher in the US than in Israel.

Israel does what Israel does because Israel is highly hated by its neighbor states, and it is basically under constant threat. As such, there is an understanding that the service requirements are necessary for the state to survive, and the certainty of military service changes the way that women plan their lives. By contrast, when the US entered WWII, the draft age range was from (correct me if anyone disagrees) 18-45, and the service commitment was for the duration of the war. Now I'll also go on record as saying that I think that in any situation where a draft is enacted, the service committment should be for the duration, as it creates a better incentive to meeting the war effort will full committment (unlike Vietnam, where people were shifted out as soon as they really got good experience, creating a dearth of experienced combat leaders and a "I'm going to do my time and get the f out of here" menatlity that undermines morale). Selective service, as such, needs to make exceptions for those who must stay behind to keep the country running.

 

[leechy]

You are comparing a system of compulsory service--meaning all enter the military--to a system of registration that may result in military service only in the infrequent occurance of a draft being required. This is an important difference, as women in Israel all know that they will be required to enter the military, and as such, they can plan their lives accordingly. Moreover, the birth rate for women between the ages of 15-19 is about 3 times higher in the US than in Israel.

Ok, fair enough, though I think a nulliparous woman could still plan her life differently in the event of an unanticipated draft. Your argument basically rests on the idea that exempting mothers would create an incentive to pregnancy. You may be entirely right about this, but if you aren't, I see no other reason to exempt women from the draft. Potential to become pregnant is not a relevant difference in the case of a draft anymore than it is in the case of voluntary military service. But, I concur that the "incentive to pregnancy" argument could be true. I wonder what the origin of Israel's higher teenage birth rate is, and whether it has more to do with particular ethnic/religious communities who marry early, or with illegitimacy.

That's an interesting fact about the draft age range in WWII. It even lends credence to the notion that women should be included in the draft, as it would be less disruptive to social and family institutions to draft single, childless women than to draft 40 year old men with wives and children.

 

[Nutmeg]

I wonder what the origin of Israel's higher teenage birth rate is, and whether it has more to do with particular ethnic/religious communities who marry early, or with illegitimacy.

You misread the post--the birthrate for teens is higher in the US.

 

[Mr. Seeds]

As I said in my last post, a feminist desire to "break down gender barriers" was not motivating my agreement with Mr. Seeds - it was rather a sympathetic feeling that young women could and perhaps should share the burden of obligatory military service with young men in the ways in which they are able. Mr. Seeds is hardly a die-hard feminist agitating for equity, if you'll look at his earlier posts, but he finds the fact that only men are forced to sign up for the draft "deeply upsetting". I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I would guess he finds it unfair that one gender is automatically exempt from enlistment. I don't think it would be unreasonable to require some forms of military service from young women during times of war. As for your analogy between motherhood and military service, and the exemptions made for each, the main issue is that exemption from motherhood is voluntary, and exemption from military service is not.

I think the real obstacle is not theoretical, but the practical one you brought up - the question of whether instituting exemptions for motherhood would create an incentive to have children. If drafted women were restricted to non-combat roles, I'm not as certain that we'd have a rush of 18 year old women getting pregnant, as the risk to their lives would be diminished (assuming that fear is the biggest reason people dislike drafts). But, I think you have a real point there, and I don't have any good response

It's interesting, I didn't think my support for the inclusion of women in the draft meant I regarded gender roles as "awful". I agree that there are some biological differences between the sexes, but I'm just a lot more "conservative" about how I extrapolate those differences into policy. A gender may exhibit a tendency to do better or be better at certain kinds of tasks (parenthood, mathematics, etc) but I am highly skeptical of leaping from those tendencies (generally of debatable etiology) into acceptance of the status quo. For example, even if we accept that women make better parents than men, there are still swathes of men that are better parents than swathes of women, and it doesn't seem right to dismiss a company's choice to offer paternity leave as an absurd attempt at gender equity.

Leechy, great post.

And you are right, I would hardly consider myself a die-hard feminist Though I do believe that I am far more egalitarian than most people - feminist or otherwise - that I run into.

It is rather heartening for me to see a woman take your position. Indeed, I frequently find that it is men, usually engrossed in some sense of misguided chivalry, who believe that only men should be required to register for the S.S. (as I refer to it) - but that is neither here nor there.

As a pseudo-libertarian of sorts, I frankly am opposed to the SS and the draft in ALL circumstances. But given that my ideal of doing away with it altogether amounts, I believe, to little more than wishful thinking, I'd simply settle with making it consistent with the 14th amendment.

Nutmeg, I intend to respond to your points soon, but have been rather busy the last few days. Sorry.

 

[leechy]

You misread the post--the birthrate for teens is higher in the US.

Thanks for the correction.

Backtracking a little, I don't see how the fact that Israeli women can plan their lives around their mandatory military service, and drafted American women wouldn't be able to, is a relevant difference. Drafted American men must postpone their plans for career and family, and I don't see why drafted American women shouldn't be expected to do the same.

We could probably discuss this forever, so I'll let this be my last post on the issue.

Whatever the case may be, it's interesting to note that the SSS's website indicates that about 50% of Americans support inclusion. Some of the draft bills floating around Congress planned on incorporating women aged 18-26 (though the bills themselves were probably just anti-war protests). One bill could have been instituted as early as Spring 2005 - which would have left me only two months to get pregnant!

 

[leechy]

As a pseudo-libertarian of sorts

Pretty much what I am.

Emphasis added:

First rule of SDN....never admit you could be wrong!

Thanks for the tip