[OT]

Posted: 2007-10-31 5:41:00

java-programmer, [OT] Martin Gregorie wrote:
> email***@***.com wrote:
>>
>> In the mainframe days, I'd have said most people's image of a
>> programmer was influenced by those IBM employees in suits -- nerdy,
>> but conservative. When PCs took off, that image changed some,
>> into the current "nerdy, no social skills, poor hygiene, etc."
>> I can believe that young women found the mainframe-programmer
>> image less off-putting than the mad-hacker-PC-programmer image.
>>
> IIRC the "nerdy...." image predates the PC by getting on for 10 years
> and was probably first defined by Richard Stallman and his fellow
> hackers at college.

1966 at the /latest/ at Brown -- but that's in the University world.

In the business world, in the late 60s, programmers still had offices
(perhaps two to an office), and were indistinguishable from other
management-class workers, apart from, perhaps, a greater tendency to
work in shirtsleeves, with the jacket hung up or draped over a chair.
And some of them were women -- typically 30-40, married, with children.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne
of the kingdom of idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts"
-- J. Michael Straczynski. "Babylon 5", "Ceremonies of Light and Dark"

Posted: 2007-10-31 5:41:00

java-programmer >> [OT] Martin Gregorie wrote:
> email***@***.com wrote:
>>
>> In the mainframe days, I'd have said most people's image of a
>> programmer was influenced by those IBM employees in suits -- nerdy,
>> but conservative. When PCs took off, that image changed some,
>> into the current "nerdy, no social skills, poor hygiene, etc."
>> I can believe that young women found the mainframe-programmer
>> image less off-putting than the mad-hacker-PC-programmer image.
>>
> IIRC the "nerdy...." image predates the PC by getting on for 10 years
> and was probably first defined by Richard Stallman and his fellow
> hackers at college.

1966 at the /latest/ at Brown -- but that's in the University world.

In the business world, in the late 60s, programmers still had offices
(perhaps two to an office), and were indistinguishable from other
management-class workers, apart from, perhaps, a greater tendency to
work in shirtsleeves, with the jacket hung up or draped over a chair.
And some of them were women -- typically 30-40, married, with children.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne
of the kingdom of idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts"
-- J. Michael Straczynski. "Babylon 5", "Ceremonies of Light and Dark"

Posted: 2007-10-31 5:59:00

java-programmer >> [OT] Ingo R. Homann wrote:
> When I compare the behaviour of male and female babys, ...

... such as? ...

> ... I cannot believe
> the differences should only be caused by sozialization but somehow seem
> - at least to a certain degree - natural.
>

/W

Posted: 2007-10-31 17:54:00

java-programmer >> [OT] Ingo R. Homann wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Sabine Dinis Blochberger schrieb:
> > My personal theory about this society is something like
> > (overgeneralizations and bias up ahead), men get a job done with the
> > least effort, just good enough, whereas women tend to be more
> > perfectionist (this might be socialization). So, men get things done
> > "faster" and then they announce their feat (and women just say "I
> > finished the task"). So men tend to look better.
>
> I share your experience that men more often announce their feat whereas
> women just say "I finished the task".
>
> But I do not share your experience that women tend to be more
> perfectionist. I experienced the opposite (although I have to say that
> some men tend to be exaggeratedly, *overly* perfectionist.) Perhaps your
> experience is correct when you only compare women and men that are both
> working in programming jobs. But that is of course not a cross-section
> of society. *Perhaps* this is one of the reasons why more men tend to
> choose programming jobs - you have to be overly perfectionist in such a
> job. And - this would explain your experience - a women in a programming
> job (just like a man) is likely to be more perfectionist that people
> (female or male) in other jobs.
>
> Ciao,
> Ingo
>
Heh, I'm actually basing this theory on how household chores get done. I
made the assesment when I found a "washed" item that was actually still
dirty. I pointed out to my husband, that he has to take a look at things
before deeming them "done". His response was "but then it would take me
twice as long!". Explains why *I* take twice as long for the same task
;)

And of course there are examples of both ways, the other way around, and
then some that are just perfect ;)

--
Sabine Dinis Blochberger

Op3racional
www.op3racional.eu

Posted: 2007-10-31 17:56:00

java-programmer >> [OT] Roedy Green wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:02:12 +0100, "Ingo R. Homann"
> <email***@***.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
> said :
>
> >I share your experience that men more often announce their feat whereas
> >women just say "I finished the task".
>
> The main time you get a big raise is by quitting your job and starting
> up somewhere else. To quit your job often requires frustrations to
> boil over into anger. It requires overriding security concerns.
>
> I think women are trained to accommodate. They are less likely to make
> that leap. So employers are freeer to take advantage of them.
>
> It would be interesting to see statistics on how often men and women
> change employers.
>
Good point. Question then is, is it mostly genetics or socialisation?
Can it or should it be changed?

Or rather, even if women prefer to stick with one empoyer, isn't that
loyalty deserving of more compensation rather then less? (I think it
would)
--
Sabine Dinis Blochberger

Op3racional
www.op3racional.eu

Posted: 2007-10-31 18:07:00

java-programmer >> [OT] Ingo Menger wrote:

> On 30 Okt., 11:38, Sabine Dinis Blochberger <email***@***.com>
> wrote:
> > Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
> > > Ingo R. Homann <ihomann email***@***.com> wrote:
>
> > > "An unpopular point, which I (Ingo!) believe is true: for the really
> > > highly paid jobs it takes 60+ working hours a week, and fewer women than
> > > men are willing to spend so much time for work. My own private life is
> > > quite important to me, which (and this is the unpopular part) makes me
> > > a bit feminine"
> >
> > Oh, ouch. The previous generation fought so hard to get workers some
> > rights, like free time. Do you really want to go back to those days? If
> > not, then please don't propagate this assumption.
>
> If it only *were* an assumption. But it's a matter of fact, AFAIK.
>
I mean the assupmtion is that working more hours is actually a sign of
more productivity. The fact is the illusion that a person will
advance/get rich if they sacrifice their time to an employer.
>
> > Besides, what good is a career if you are alone, with an empty house and
> > a big car. Not to mention dead at age 50.
>
> Didn't you proclamate free choice recently? This is not your business
> (nor mine).
>
Here's the thing (and I know it can be conflicting ideas), if you give
up your rights, you also give them up for everyone else. Finicky thing.
>
> > Down with salary slavery! I don't like communism, but I don't have much
> > care for this capitalism either. I used to think there was a good (or
> > good enough) balance of capitalism and social responsibility in the late
> > 1980s (when I still lived in Germany).
>
> Yeah. Fr黨er war alles besser :)
>
LOL :) I used to be idealistic, yes.
> > But the point is that the possibility for choice has to be there,
> > without any hoops or disadvantages (for both genders).
>
> I agree fully. Even if somebody chooses to live alone in a big home
> with a big car.
>
> > True freedom of choice, without peer or social pressure.
>
> This seems very utopian to me, and on second thought not even
> desirable. Social pressure has also an important function. For
> instance, I wished there was more social pressure on violent groups
> and/or individuals, including violent kids and their parents. There's
> something fundamentally wrong when an elementary school in Berlin
> threatens to close down because teachers can't deal with the daily
> violence any more. It should be understood that such event is only the
> tip of the iceberg. Yet the public appears essentially helpless.
>
>
Yes, of course. But it does not have to be one or the other. Since we
depend individually on forming a society, there should be boundaries of
choice. I can't figure out how to get there, maybe someone will
eventually.

Why is there not more pressure against violence? I think because it's
still somehow thought to be "manly" to be a brute. And increasing
anonymosity in society, "let the others deal with it". We need to get
some caring back, not get hung up on "small" things. The government has
the power to introduce some of it, but they have to want to. Nowadays it
seems they prefer their people to be a flock of sheep. Coincidence that
those sheep work in companies the politicians get profits from? ;)
--
Sabine Dinis Blochberger

Op3racional
www.op3racional.eu

Posted: 2007-10-31 18:16:00

java-programmer >> [OT] Ingo R. Homann wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Sabine Dinis Blochberger schrieb:

> > Down with salary slavery! I don't like communism, but I don't have much
> > care for this capitalism either. I used to think there was a good (or
> > good enough) balance of capitalism and social responsibility in the late
> > 1980s (when I still lived in Germany).
>
> Well, nowadays, in Germany (and elsewhere), workers stand in competition
> to coutries where the salary is much lower (China, India, ...). That was
> not the case in the 1980es - so you cannot compare today with 1980!
>
But they teach that the "law" of economics is "production follows
demand", meaning, you would produce the stuff in the place where it sold
most.

> >>He points out that the unequilibrium is not only at work, but even
> >>among his colleagues (at university and back at school) he notices(-ed)
> >>gender specific patterns of interest.
> >
> > But the point is that the possibility for choice has to be there,
> > without any hoops or disadvantages (for both genders).
>
> Agreed!
>
> > True freedom of choice, without peer or social pressure. I have no issue
> > with women who choose to be mothers full-time.
>
> I do not have either (although I *personally* think, I could not live
> with a woman like that). If they have enough money to stay at home and
> not go to work...
> But I think it gets a problem when the government wants to pay them a
> 'salary' for parenting their own children (at least not until
> kindergardens are for free).
>
> >>"Another unpopular theory: (url see above) I assume men and women are
> >>equally intelligent on average. According to that wikipedia-article, but
> >>I(Ingo!)'ve also heard that from other sources, the deviation is higher
> >>with men. That would mean that both the smartest and the dullest are
> >>mostly men. Surely, the dullest are likely to not have any high jobs,
> >>but feel free to ignore this, if you don't agree to the
> >>different-deviation-theory."
> >
> > Intelligence is overrated[1] IMO. Just look at the bias to the indian
> > population, it is believed they are very good at maths and programming.
> > But it seems the quality of products isn't up to par.
> >
> > [1]Intelligence measured by western society as a capacity of logical
> > reasoning, "IQ".
>
> Unfortunately, "cleverness" (or how you might call it) cannot be
> measured very good. But I think, the IQ is a good approximation to that
> (and does not change my argument above at all).
>
> > And I can challenge that theory with an actual expample (someone brought
> > it up somewhere already), but it could be seen as flame bait (please
> > don't). Lets look at China. How smart are the males that they prefer
> > male children, so much that now they have three times the men than
> > women?
>
> Perhaps I have a language problem again. But what does the (unjustified)
> 'higher social status' of men in China have to do with 'smartness'? I do
> not get your point.
>
I mean to contest the idea that men are in general smarter than women.
Breeding only men and now they can't get laid, doesn't sound so smart to
me. (sorry for being blunt) ;)

> > Also, I notice males are allowed as kids to only concentrate on one
> > thing at a time (playing with cars for example), and girls have to do
> > several things (take care of the baby doll at the same time while using
> > the play kitchen). Again, generalization. My point to this is that I
> > think boys aren't actually taught to use their potential, and grow up to
> > be very single task oriented.
>
> I do not get that point either. What do you mean with "boys are allowed
> to concentrate on one think at a time"? No one (*) forces (or even
> 'encourages') girls to "take care of the baby doll at the same time
> while using the play kitchen" (with emphasis on "at the same time").
>
> (*) To Lew: add a "generally" here.
>
Well, not forced, but encouraged. I find it disturbing in the first
place, that little girls are supposed* to pretend they are mothers!

*looking at how many girls toys are (realistic) baby dolls.

> > Maybe then men wouldn't feel so threatened either.
>
> Now, I totally lost your point: Where do men feel threatened?
>
Some rambling there. The whole cause of discrimination could be that men
feel threatened by women - if women do a job very well, a man might
think he'll be unemployed soon...

Although this is the general problem of a lack of self-worthiness in
many people. This is another (off-topic) discussion. :)
--
Sabine Dinis Blochberger

Op3racional
www.op3racional.eu

Posted: 2007-10-31 19:13:00

java-programmer >> [OT] On 31 Okt., 11:16, Sabine Dinis Blochberger <email***@***.com>
wrote:
> Ingo R. Homann wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> > Sabine Dinis Blochberger schrieb:
> > > Down with salary slavery! I don't like communism, but I don't have much
> > > care for this capitalism either. I used to think there was a good (or
> > > good enough) balance of capitalism and social responsibility in the late
> > > 1980s (when I still lived in Germany).
>
> > Well, nowadays, in Germany (and elsewhere), workers stand in competition
> > to coutries where the salary is much lower (China, India, ...). That was
> > not the case in the 1980es - so you cannot compare today with 1980!
>
> But they teach that the "law" of economics is "production follows
> demand", meaning, you would produce the stuff in the place where it sold
> most.

Who teaches such "bovine excrements"?
It's just the other way around. You might want to look up Say's Law.
BTW, in a world with high speed telecommunication and high speed air
transportation, the concept of "place" is not clearly defined anymore.
One could maintain, that the stuff is indeed produced in the place
(the earth) where it is sold.

> I mean to contest the idea that men are in general smarter than women.
> Breeding only men and now they can't get laid, doesn't sound so smart to
> me. (sorry for being blunt) ;)

You dismiss that they who breeded and they that can't get laid are
different persons. You dismiss also that breeding still involves women
by nessecity.

But, of course, you are right in that men are not generally smarter. I
hold the view that they are smarter in some fields and women are
smarter in others.

> > Now, I totally lost your point: Where do men feel threatened?
>
> Some rambling there. The whole cause of discrimination could be that men
> feel threatened by women - if women do a job very well, a man might
> think he'll be unemployed soon...

And if another man does a better job, he may not fear the same? How
dumb, do you think, are men? And how does that explain employers that
don't want to hire women - they don't have a job to loose, they have a
business that they can loose, but certainly not to one of its own
employess.

Posted: 2007-10-31 19:51:00

java-programmer >> [OT] On 30 Okt., 16:38, email***@***.com <email***@***.com> wrote:
> In article <email***@***.com>,
> Ingo Menger <email***@***.com> wrote:

> The point I was trying to make is that it doesn't seem quite right
> to me for dangerous and unpleasant jobs to be done mostly by men --
> the burden of doing them should be shared by all groups,

I symphatize with this romantic sentiment that shows me that you must
be a good soul.
However, I think that we commit a fatal error when we transfer
standards of what is fair that we have learned in small groups (like
family, peer group, etc.) to huge groups that consist of millions,
like nations or even the world.
The problem is that our brains have been trained through thousands of
generations on solving social problems in small groups (hunters and
gatherers), where everbody knows everybody else by face. But the best
solution in small groups is not automatically the best solution or
even a solution at all in greater groups.

The garbageman problem above is a good illustration. And I try to
explain why the small group solution "everybody gets his fair share of
the dirty work to do" would be extremely bad in our mega society.

Think of a woman, lets call her Dr. Filigran, that learned
neurosurgery. Every minute of her time in the operation room is
extremely precious. Human lifes and well being are at stake. Suppose
that the life of one of your loved ones depends on getting
neurosurgery on time. But Dr. Filigran just exits the operation room
and tells you: Sorry, I could help you, but, unfortunately, for the
sake of equality I am now ordered to do my share in the garbage
removal industry.

Of course, this is extremely made up. But the same argument holds for
other branches in an anlogue way and the conlusion is that we all are
better off if everybody does what he can best. For example, a good
cook in a restaurant can make 20 delicious meals per hour, and the
garbageman can remove 20 garbage bins per hour. But the cook may only
do 15 garbage cans and the garbageman only 10 meals that, in addition,
are not that delicious. So, society has to decide: do we want to
accept fewer removed garbage and fewer meals that in addition taste
bad?

It turns out that if everybody is free in the sense that nobody is
forced to do some specific work through violenece (as in slavery),
division of labor will emerge. I can't but think that this is also
just and fair. The more so, when one realizes that the "fair share of
dirty work" can be easily managed in a family household, but would
require extreme measures of a super-powerful state on a nationwide
scale.

Posted: 2007-10-31 20:00:00

java-programmer >> [OT] Ingo Menger <email***@***.com> wrote:
>> Breeding only men and now they can't get laid, doesn't sound so smart to
>> me. (sorry for being blunt) ;)
> You dismiss that they who breeded and they that can't get laid are
> different persons. You dismiss also that breeding still involves women
> by nessecity.

By limiting number of childs to one, the chinese government
intended to slower/stop/reverse population growth.

Due to grossly gender-asymmetric customs (also of economic type),
the effect is multiplied.

Next generation, when there will be lots more men than women, I
expect that these customs will probably see some big changes.

Having to pay to offer a "scarce ressource" doesn't appear to
be longterm-sustainable.

Posted: 2007-10-31 20:31:00

java-programmer >> [OT] Hi,

Sabine Dinis Blochberger schrieb:
>>>>"Another unpopular theory: (url see above) I assume men and women are
>>>>equally intelligent on average. According to that wikipedia-article, but
>>>>I(Ingo!)'ve also heard that from other sources, the deviation is higher
>>>>with men. That would mean that both the smartest and the dullest are
>>>>mostly men. Surely, the dullest are likely to not have any high jobs,
>>>>but feel free to ignore this, if you don't agree to the
>>>>different-deviation-theory."
>>>
>>>Intelligence is overrated[1] IMO. Just look at the bias to the indian
>>>population, it is believed they are very good at maths and programming.
>>>But it seems the quality of products isn't up to par.
>>>
>>>[1]Intelligence measured by western society as a capacity of logical
>>>reasoning, "IQ".
>>
>>Unfortunately, "cleverness" (or how you might call it) cannot be
>>measured very good. But I think, the IQ is a good approximation to that
>>(and does not change my argument above at all).
>>
>>>And I can challenge that theory with an actual expample (someone brought
>>>it up somewhere already), but it could be seen as flame bait (please
>>>don't). Lets look at China. How smart are the males that they prefer
>>>male children, so much that now they have three times the men than
>>>women?
>>
>>Perhaps I have a language problem again. But what does the (unjustified)
>>'higher social status' of men in China have to do with 'smartness'? I do
>>not get your point.
>
> I mean to contest the idea that men are in general smarter than women.

No one said that. (Espezially not me. I quoted the whole passage above
so you can carefully read it again.)

>>I do not get that point either. What do you mean with "boys are allowed
>>to concentrate on one think at a time"? No one (*) forces (or even
>>'encourages') girls to "take care of the baby doll at the same time
>>while using the play kitchen" (with emphasis on "at the same time").
>
> Well, not forced, but encouraged.

Emm.. did not get it yet. "Girls are encouraged to do multitasking" or
"Girls are encouraged to play with dolls"?

>>>Maybe then men wouldn't feel so threatened either.
>>
>>Now, I totally lost your point: Where do men feel threatened?
>
> Some rambling there. The whole cause of discrimination could be that men
> feel threatened by women - if women do a job very well, a man might
> think he'll be unemployed soon...

Then, every man would have to discriminate *everybody* else but himself,
including other men.

Ciao,
Ingo

Posted: 2007-10-31 20:35:00

java-programmer >> [OT] Hi,

Sabine Dinis Blochberger schrieb:
> I mean the assupmtion is that working more hours is actually a sign of
> more productivity....

Maybe, but that is not the question. The question is, what the employer
thinks about it.

Ciao,
Ingo

Posted: 2007-10-31 20:39:00

java-programmer >> [OT] Hi,

Sabine Dinis Blochberger schrieb:
> Heh, I'm actually basing this theory on how household chores get done. I
> made the assesment when I found a "washed" item that was actually still
> dirty. I pointed out to my husband, that he has to take a look at things
> before deeming them "done". His response was "but then it would take me
> twice as long!". Explains why *I* take twice as long for the same task

Ah, OK. I share *this* experience.

My theory is that men are somehow more "dirt-blind" than women! ;-)

Ciao,
Ingo

Posted: 2007-10-31 22:02:00

java-programmer >> [OT] On 31 Okt., 13:38, "Ingo R. Homann" <email***@***.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sabine Dinis Blochberger schrieb:
>
> > Heh, I'm actually basing this theory on how household chores get done. I
> > made the assesment when I found a "washed" item that was actually still
> > dirty. I pointed out to my husband, that he has to take a look at things
> > before deeming them "done". His response was "but then it would take me
> > twice as long!". Explains why *I* take twice as long for the same task
>
> Ah, OK. I share *this* experience.
>
> My theory is that men are somehow more "dirt-blind" than women! ;-)

Not so. Women have some sort of sixth sense that lets them see dirt
where either there is none at all, or such a small amount of it, that
the amount of time needed to remove it up to the last trace is greater
than the time that will go by from the state of perfect cleanliness to
the state it is in now.

They don't have a concept of the (sub)marginal dirt, so to speak. The
story of Sabine illustrates this nicely. I bet the kids need only half
the time to make the T shirt dirtier than before as it took to make it
"nicht nur sauber, sondern rein".

On the other side, once the state of perfect cleanliness is achieved,
they hesitate to accept that this will inevitably change. So anything
(eating, drinking, playing with the dog, even going through the room)
is forbidden. I firmly believe that my girl thinks that dirt reemerges
*only* because I am present and alive. Which scares me sometimes ...

(If your irony detector didn't ring, you need to check it.)

Posted: 2007-10-31 23:54:00

java-programmer >> [OT] In article <email***@***.com>,
Ingo Menger <email***@***.com> wrote:
> On 30 Okt., 16:38, email***@***.com <email***@***.com> wrote:
> > In article <email***@***.com>,
> > Ingo Menger <email***@***.com> wrote:
>
> > The point I was trying to make is that it doesn't seem quite right
> > to me for dangerous and unpleasant jobs to be done mostly by men --
> > the burden of doing them should be shared by all groups,
>
> I symphatize with this romantic sentiment that shows me that you must
> be a good soul.
> However, I think that we commit a fatal error when we transfer
> standards of what is fair that we have learned in small groups (like
> family, peer group, etc.) to huge groups that consist of millions,
> like nations or even the world.
> The problem is that our brains have been trained through thousands of
> generations on solving social problems in small groups (hunters and
> gatherers), where everbody knows everybody else by face. But the best
> solution in small groups is not automatically the best solution or
> even a solution at all in greater groups.
>
> The garbageman problem above is a good illustration. And I try to
> explain why the small group solution "everybody gets his fair share of
> the dirty work to do" would be extremely bad in our mega society.

Well .... I didn't actually mean that every individual should do
his/her share of the dirty work, only that it should be distributed
a little more evenly among groups.

> Think of a woman, lets call her Dr. Filigran, that learned
> neurosurgery. Every minute of her time in the operation room is
> extremely precious. Human lifes and well being are at stake. Suppose
> that the life of one of your loved ones depends on getting
> neurosurgery on time. But Dr. Filigran just exits the operation room
> and tells you: Sorry, I could help you, but, unfortunately, for the
> sake of equality I am now ordered to do my share in the garbage
> removal industry.

Well, yes, that makes sense to me as well ....

Making the doctor do a share of the garbage-collecting -- that
wasn't really what I had in mind. (I do think that maybe she
should, at least occasionally, do some of her own domestic chores,
as a way of, hm, not losing touch entirely with the reality of
other people's lives.)

[ snip ]

> It turns out that if everybody is free in the sense that nobody is
> forced to do some specific work through violenece (as in slavery),
> division of labor will emerge. I can't but think that this is also
> just and fair. The more so, when one realizes that the "fair share of
> dirty work" can be easily managed in a family household, but would
> require extreme measures of a super-powerful state on a nationwide
> scale.

Yes .... I think my point was that it's a bad idea to exempt
whole groups of people from disagreeable work on the basis of
stereotypes that might or might not make sense nowadays. So,
women shouldn't be able to say "oh, I'm a girl, I shouldn't have
to do anything *dangerous*!" Not that I personally will be first
in line to sign up for garbage-collecting duties, which may make
me something of a hypocrite. But I don't *think* I'd be trying
to weasel out of it on the basis of gender. It's all kind of
utopian thinking, maybe not very realistic .... <shrug>

--
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.

java-programmer >> [OT] On 31 Okt., 16:53, email***@***.com <email***@***.com> wrote:
> In article <email***@***.com>,
> Ingo Menger <email***@***.com> wrote:

> Well .... I didn't actually mean that every individual should do
> his/her share of the dirty work, only that it should be distributed
> a little more evenly among groups.

Now I understand.
But then, this groups (the women, the men) are entirely fictional as
far as work is concerned. They exist merely in our heads. Or, to put
it differently: a "social group" has never ever done any work.
Individuals did.

java-programmer >> [OT] Ingo Menger wrote:
> [snip example of someone doing what she can do best]
>
> Of course, this is extremely made up. But the same argument holds for
> other branches in an anlogue way and the conlusion is that we all are
> better off if everybody does what he can best. For example, a good
> cook in a restaurant can make 20 delicious meals per hour, and the
> garbageman can remove 20 garbage bins per hour. But the cook may only
> do 15 garbage cans and the garbageman only 10 meals that, in addition,
> are not that delicious. So, society has to decide: do we want to
> accept fewer removed garbage and fewer meals that in addition taste
> bad?
>
Everybody does what they do best. OK, I'm with you. And that's why it is
OK that fewer women are garbagepersons (garbagepeople? ;))?

I don't see how the talent-argument carries over to the gender problem?

/W

java-programmer >> [OT] Ingo Menger wrote:
> But, of course, you are right in that men are not generally smarter. I
> hold the view that they are smarter in some fields and women are
> smarter in others.
>
Nice try :)
But now please, "Butter bei die Fische"!
In what fields is any of the genders generally smarter?

/W

java-programmer >> [OT] On 31 Okt., 17:56, Wildemar Wildenburger
<email***@***.com> wrote:
> Ingo Menger wrote:
> > But, of course, you are right in that men are not generally smarter. I
> > hold the view that they are smarter in some fields and women are
> > smarter in others.
>
> Nice try :)
> But now please, "Butter bei die Fische"!
> In what fields is any of the genders generally smarter?

I understand "generally" like so: When the sentence "As are generally
better in X than Bs" is true it does not follow, that no B is better
in X than the best A. Or, to put it differently, the sentence "There
are some Bs that are better in X than any A" can still be true.

For example, both of the following may be true: "Italiens eat more
spaghetti than other nations." and "Ingo, being german, eats more
spagehtti than any Italian."

Ok, so far?

Then I'd dare to claim that women in general are not that good in
abstract thinking as required for math, programming and chess. I have
stated that before.

I say further, that, from my own experience, I think women are
excellent as team leaders, especially where a good "climate" is
essential for success of the team. Men often do not have the
sensitivity for upcomimg problems in the social relationships and thus
may overlook important developments, until it is too late. (Sadly, I
seldom find someone that shares this opinion with me.)

java-programmer >> [OT] On 31 Okt., 17:50, Wildemar Wildenburger
<email***@***.com> wrote:

> Everybody does what they do best. OK, I'm with you. And that's why it is
> OK that fewer women are garbagepersons (garbagepeople? ;))?

I think so. I go further and say that almost nothing could be more
irrelevant than the gender distribution among garbagepersons.

> I don't see how the talent-argument carries over to the gender problem?

What is the "gender problem"?

java-programmer >> [OT] Wildemar Wildenburger wrote:
> Ingo Menger wrote:
>> But, of course, you are right in that men are not generally smarter. I
>> hold the view that they are smarter in some fields and women are
>> smarter in others.
>>
> Nice try :)
> But now please, "Butter bei die Fische"!
> In what fields is any of the genders generally smarter?

They seem to be roughly equal as novelists.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The bright critics assembled in this volume will doubtless show, in
their sophisticated and ingenious new ways, that, just as /Pooh/ is
suffused with humanism, our humanism itself, at this late date, has
become full of /Pooh./"
-- Frederick Crews. "Postmodern Pooh", Preface