About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Post 60

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 12:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Can't blame you though!

Post 61

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 11:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nick, you seem to be basing your points off of an obvious past: sexist patriarchy. Women have not had an equal chance to achieve certain goals or standards, and I wouldn't call them dying in battle in medieval times a milestone.

Post 62

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 12:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nick, you seem to be basing your points off of an obvious past: sexist patriarchy. Women have not had an equal chance to achieve certain goals or standards, and I wouldn't call them dying in battle in medieval times a milestone.

Right. So, am I beng accused of sexism or not?

bis bald,

Nick


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 63

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 1:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon (and Hong):
You said:
I am open to learning that I am failing to follow you, Glenn. Can you explain why you can’t imagine it?
This was my reasoning.  When told that
One has to look around a lot to find something to which women contributed.
Hong said:
Huh?? Just look at yourself. Without women, there will be no men.
I didn't see the relevance of this response to the context in which the original statement was made.  He was talking about all of the things that get done in society (designing and building automobiles, buildings, etc.) by men and observed that he didn't see women contributing.  So, Hong pointing out a contribution that has nothing to do with the context, I took to be a joke.  I didn't believe that Hong couldn't come up with anything else other than that women give birth to men.  I was not trivializing that contribution.  I thought that if Hong wasn't joking, then she was trivializing (or at least overlooking) the other contributions that women make.

It now seems to me that Hong was just giving an example of where women contribute.

Thanks for pursuing this,
Glenn


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 64

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 1:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In just the field of physics, the following women can be listed........


Astrophysics
Burbidge, E. Margaret
Burnell, Jocelyn Bell
Faber, Sandra Moore
Leavitt, Henrietta Swan
Payne-Gaposchkin, Cecilia Helena
Rubin, Vera Cooper
Atomic Molecular and Optical Physics
Bonnelle, Christiane
Bramley, Jenny Rosenthal
Cauchois, Yvette
Connes, Janine
Sponer, Hertha
Condensed Matter Physics
Ancker-Johnson, Betsy
Blodgett, Katharine Burr
Cladis, Patricia Elizabeth
Conwell, Esther Marly
Dresselhaus, Mildred Spiewak
Ericson, Magda Galula
Kaufman, Bruria
Sarachik, Myriam P.
Sengers, Johanna Levelt
Cosmic Rays
Freier, Phyllis S.
Crystallography
Franklin, Rosalind
Hodgkin, Dorothy Crowfoot
Lonsdale, Kathleen Yardley
Megaw, Helen
Distinguished for Public Service
Dowdy, Nancy M. O'Fallon
Education and the Profession
DeWitt-Morette, Cecile
Franz, Judy R.
Jackson, Shirley Ann
Keith, Marcia Anna
Laird, Elizabeth Rebecca
Maltby, Margaret Eliza
Meyer, Kirstine Bjerrum
Phillips, Melba Newell
Stone, Isabelle
Whiting, Sarah Frances
Xie, Xide (Hsieh, Hsi-teh)
Fluid Dynamics
Pockels, Agnes
Polubarinova-Kochina, P. Ya.
Fluid Dynamics and Plasma Physics
Ayrton, Hertha Marks
Geophysics
Lehmann, Inge
Material Physics
Kuhlmann-Wilsdorf, Doris
Neumark, Gertrude Fanny
Mathematical Physics
Cartwright, Mary Lucy
Choquet-Bruhat, Yvonne
Dolan, Louise
Ehrenfest-Afanaseva, Tatiana
Jeffreys, Bertha Swirles
Kallosh, Renata
Kaufman, Bruria
Noether, Amalie Emmy
Nuclear Physics
Ajzenberg Selove,Fay
Brooks, Harriet
Curie, Marie Sklodowska
Ericson, Magda Galula
Gates, Fanny Cook
Gleditsch, Ellen
Goldhaber, Gertrude Scharff
Hayward, Evans
Joliot-Curie, Irene
Karlik, Berta
Koller, Noemie Benczer
Mayer, Maria Goeppert
Meitner, Lise
Meyer-Schutzmeister, Luise
Noddack, Ida Tacke
Perey, Marguerite Catherine
Phillips, Melba Newell
Way, Katharine
Wu, Chien Shiung
Particle and Fields
Baldo-Ceolin, Milla
Blau, Marietta
Byers, Nina
Edwards, Helen T.
Gaillard, Mary Katharine
Goldhaber, Sulamith
Hanson, Gail Gulledge
Lee-Franzini, Juliet
Quinn, Helen R.
Sechi-Zorn, Bice
Wu, Sau Lan
Physicist Distinguished in Other Fields
Quimby, Edith Hinkley
Yalow, Rosalyn Sussman
Physics of Beams
Edwards, Helen T.
Space Physics
Herzenberg, Caroline Littlejohn
Kivelson, Margaret Galland
Neugebauer, Marcia

 


Post 65

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 4:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Right, compare them to the men in the field. You don't have to list them all. Just give us the ratios.

bis bald,

Nick


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 66

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 5:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Glenn wrote,
I didn't see the relevance of this response to the context in which the original statement was made. He was talking about all of the things that get done in society (designing and building automobiles, buildings, etc.) by men and observed that he didn't see women contributing. So, Hong pointing out a contribution that has nothing to do with the context, I took to be a joke.
Yes, that was my reasoning as well. I couldn't believe she was serious, because a remark like that, if serious, would seem to have missed the point. I appreciate your followups on this, Glenn, and the support that you gave my responses to Jon and Hong.

- Bill

Post 67

Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 8:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
E quando trova alcun che degno sia
di veder lei. quei prova sua vertute,
ché li avvien, ciò che li dona, in salute,
e sì l'umilia ch'ogni offesa oblia.
Ancor l'ha Dio per maggior grazia dato
che non pò mal finir chi l'ha parlato.
[Donne ch'avete intelletto d'amore, 37-42, VN 19.10]
Translation:
And when she finds one who is worthy to behold her, he feels her power, for what she bestows on him is restorative, and humbles him, so that he forgets any injury. Moreover God has made the power of her grace even greater, for no one who has spoken with her can come to a bad end.
Dante Alighieri.


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 68

Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 8:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong pointing out a contribution that has nothing to do with the context,
Because I thought that was an important context that shouldn't be left out. I wasn't only talking about child birth. I was talking about the whole process - from newborn babies to grown men. Women have committed many years of their lives to raise kids until they grown-up. Most grown men need domestic support too especially when they want a family. Comparing contributions from men and women to society while leaving this context out is, I am not sure how to express it, just not a valid comparison.

There is no question that women can do pretty much anything, Prime Ministers, CEOs, professors. Nobel Prize winners, etc., etc. If women and mothers can be any of those, then I don't think there is any profession in the world that's intrinsically "incompatible" with motherhood. It'll all depending on the women and her "supporting system".

There is also no question that the majority of those higher executive and professional positions are held by men. And most high achieving inventors, scientists, and other professionals are men and not women. The reason is very simple. Most women, like most men, do want family and children. And most of them are taking a larger role in domestic duties. For them to achieve the same professional success as men, they would need to overcome a much much higher hurdle.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 8/03, 9:54am)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 69

Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 9:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I thought that if Hong wasn't joking, then she was trivializing (or at least overlooking) the other contributions that women make.
But I do think that giving birth and raising human beings is the more fundamental and important task than designing buildings or computer chips.  


Post 70

Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 9:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong said:
But I do think that giving birth and raising human beings is the more fundamental and important task than designing buildings or computer chips.
Important to whom, Hong?


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 71

Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 9:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


To you, when you weighed eight pounds, Glenn.



Post 72

Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 10:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good one, Jon.  But, when I was eight pounds, I was still in the womb.  And, at that point, all that was important to me was whether my mother thought that "giving birth and raising human beings is the more fundamental and important task"  My question to Hong is: are you saying that this is the most important task for you or do you think this is or should be the most important task for all women?
Thanks,
Glenn


Post 73

Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 10:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It is important to each and everyone of us.

I would not care much at all what my mother thought when she had me. I am just damn grateful that she gave birth to me, did her best to raise me, and I am here now.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 8/03, 10:43am)


Post 74

Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 11:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong said:
I am just damn grateful that she gave birth to me, did her best to raise me, and I am here now.
Believe me when I say that I am grateful to your mother also.  Because, a few years from now, Hong Zhang is going to make a breakthrough in her field that will lead to a cure for breast cancer.  And this will save the life of my wife and all of the other women in my life.  At that point, it won't be important to me at all that Hong gave birth and raised a human being.  I couldn't care less.  Hong's most important task, to me and to a lot of other people, would be that of a scientist, not a mother.

Each one of us is grateful to one woman for giving birth to us and (possibly) raising us.  That's a truism.  But that has nothing to do with whether we think that is the most important task for other women.  I don't think Ayn Rand's most important task was giving birth.  Do you?

Thanks,
Glenn


Post 75

Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 2:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Glenn,
Thanks you for your very kind post. You've painted a very idealized and rosy picture. Of course, some women prefer not to have children in their life, just like some men. It's perfectly normal.

I did not think that I needed to list women's contributions to society outside homes. Robert gave a quite impressive list of women physicists. (BTW, my own academic lineage can be traced back to Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin. So in a sense, I am somewhat related to Margaret Thatcher!). Those are obvious and out there for everyone to see and to judge objectively.  It is absolutely true though that the number of prominent male physicists far exceeds the women, as stated in the original posts. The reasons for this is very complex, not at all as simple as I said before. ;-)  It's not just a matter of women's lib, equal rights, or more opportunities and choices for women (no doubt there are more than before). 

What needs pondering is that with the typical expectations for women's roles in family (in most cases, they are not equal to men's roles), taking into account of the physical, emotional, and psychological demands that's associated with those roles, really, what would be reasonable expectations for women's outside commitment and achievements?


Post 76

Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 8:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I love playing God. Or King for the day, or whatnot. It is entirely inappropriate, of course, because we only control ourselves and a desire to control others is unhealthy. But if we keep that in mind, the game can be fun.

I didn’t know that Hong’s scientific field was breast cancer. Like Glenn, I have a wife and also two girls, (and also a mother, etc…) So I agree with Glenn about Hong: Sorry, no more posting on RoR, Hong! You can start up again after the breakthrough.

I also agree with Glenn about Ayn. “Yes, of course you enjoy stamp collecting, who doesn’t? Now put them down and write more.”

It gets more complicated as we consider what we know thanks to historical outcome and what we don’t know yet. Consider Ayn’s mother. She didn’t know how motherhood would turn out when she started. We would have her do it, knowing what we now know. But what if she had other potentials as well? We don’t know what she could have done if she hadn’t been rearing Alice full time. (Can you imagine raising Ayn Rand, though? I’d thrill to give her a time-out.)

And we don’t know how well Ayn could have done with her kids—she was pretty good at everything else she did, no? Perhaps Ayn’s child would have already made Hong’s breakthrough by now.

Perhaps Hong won’t make her breakthrough—but her child, inspired by mother, will. Then we would have to say that Hong’s greatest was mothering, not science.


Post 77

Friday, August 4, 2006 - 7:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I just want to clarify an unimportant point - I don't really work in the field of breast cancer. Glenn was speaking figuratively to make his point, which I think I understand.

I've known so many women, from mothers in my son's school - most of them stay-at-home-moms, to some rather high achieving career women, to believe that there is no simple formulas and simple answer to the equality issue here. Or perhaps it is simply a non-issue?


Post 78

Friday, August 25, 2006 - 3:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Is the role of the matriarch a happy one? It seems that in any family, in a time of crises, the children look to the mother for stability, consistency, and reliability. It's a long established gender myth in American consciousness that the woman's function is primarily motherhood and mothering, whereas men tend toward independence and autonomy. In this framework, a woman like Ma Joad, has the opportunity to assert herself as a leader but still maintain her role as self-less nurturer of the group. She can be a woman for all seasons, the non-intrusive, indestructable "citadel" on whom everyone else depends.

In "The Grapes of Wrath," without the unshakable strength and wisdom of the mother, who must at time assert her will to fill the vacuum of her husbands incapability, nothing of the family, as they define it, would survive. She doesn't seem to acheive an identity of her own or reach the awareness reached by Tom, but she does fill the space of the invincible woman/wife/mother.

The roles of many women in Steinbeck's other stories and novels are those of whores, hustlers, tramps, madams. Some critics say they "seem compelled to choose between homemaking and whoredom." Steinbeck's "positive" women seem to be impressively "enduring" but never in their own self-interest. Their value is in their nurturing capabilities for the benefit of the group.

They may also carry knowledge of their husbands and of men generally.

In "The Grapes of Wrath," the men lost their abilty to deal with things in the traditional way. They couldn't fight. Agressiveness wouldn't work. They were helpless, impotent.

The women, in this situation, were careful around their men. They knew not to bother them and make things worse. When the men became determined, the children and women felt more safe. "no misfortune was too great to bear if their men were whole."

For women, according to some critics, relationships are based on cooperation rather than power. Steinbeck, however, believed that matriarchy didn't have to be regressive. It suited the purpose of his novel.

The three main characters in "The Grapes of Wrath" were Jim Casy, Tom Joad, and Ma Joad. And, at times, she took center stage.

The first thing Tom thought when he came home and saw his home in a condition he knew his mother would never allow was that she was dead. He associated the physical deteriation of his home with a missing mother.

The grandmother sent Tom a childish sort of Christmas card while he was in prison, but Ma Joad's card was, apparently more appropriate. Perhaps the older lady couldn't see well and didn't know what was in the card. Tom would not hold it against her. However, Ma Joad is the woman of wisdom.

There were times when she was willing to share food to feed hungry children in California when there was not sufficient food to feed her own family.

In the decision to bring Casy along on the California trip was the first time Ma Joad stood up against her husband. This seemed to give her a little authority, but she accepted it unpretentiously, without arrogance. Later, when the car breaks down, she refuses to agree to split up the family in order to hasten the arrival of some of the family in California. She also chatises the group when they get discouraged about not finding work. She tells them to keep at it.

Each time she asserts herself, however, she immediately goes back to her domestic role. She doesn't gloat over her husband. In fact, she comments that getting him mad lioke this is good for him. It keeps him from being too depressed.

When Casy wanted to help her with salting down something, she said that it was womans work. Casy, nevertheless, helped her and understood the oppressiveness of women, the only character in the book who seemed to understand that.

One of the greatest examples of Ma Joad's selflessness was when she hid the fact that the grandmother died until they got across the desert. They had to get across.

Then, the last thing she did in the novel was to have her daughter, who just lost a baby, breast feed a starving old man.

She seems to fulfill a high calling in the realm of wife and motherdom. Is this something with which women can be happy?

bis bald,

Nick



Post 79

Friday, August 25, 2006 - 3:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dorothy Parker was born on August 22, 1893, at West End, New Jersey. Her name was Dorothy Rothschild, but she took the surname of her first husband, Edwin Pond Parker II. Her mother died when she was four, and her father remarried shortly afterward. She was educated at Miss Dana's School and the Blessed Sacrament Academy, but she never received a high school diploma. She began work at an early age, hoping to help her father, but he died in 1913. She supported herself as a dance instructor until her literary career began in 1914.

She sold a poem to "Vanity Fair," and the editor helped her get a job with the editorial staff of "Vogue." She later joined the editorial staff of "Vanity Fair." In 1917, she married Parker, a successful Wall Street broker, and then her literary career took off. she became friends with many other literary types and wrote reviews for other magazines. Her husband was left out of this circle, and they divorced in 1928.

In 1933, Parker married again, Alan Campbell, and, in 1937, the couple wrote "A Star is Born."

Her poetry became political and supported radical causes, including communism. She was also active, until her death in 1967, in Civil Rights and feminist movements.

One poem of hers I really like is "The Lady's Reward."

Quote:
Lady, lady, never start
Conversation toward your heart;
Keep your pretty words serene;
Never murmur what you mean.
Show yourself, by word and look,
Swift and shallow as a brook.
Be as cool and quick to go
As a drop of April snow;
Be as delicate and gay
As a cherry flower in May.
Lady, lady, never speak
Of the tears that burn your cheek--
She will never win him, whose
Words had shown she feared to lose.
Be you wise and never sad,
You will get your lovely lad.
Never serious be, nor true,
And your wish will come to you--
And if that makes you happy, kid,
You'll be the first it ever did.


--Dorthy Parker 1931

This is very sweet but bitter. Perhaps a lot of women feel this way, that society expects them to be shallow, not serious and meaningful. Is it that way, girls?

bis bald,

Nick


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.