Conference back40::soapbox

    
    Her other dumb comment....
    
    Asked why women aren't allowed in combat, she responded (paraphrased):
    
      They're afraid to put guns in all those women's hands...
    
    
     Sheeeeeeeesh!! What a loser!!
    
    
    But the NRA is Bad... bad... baaaaaaaaad!!! for
    starting/maintaining/continuing/fostering all those personal protection
    courses for women....

    
    Well I don't know about the rest of you, but I for one am very glad
    men and women are not the same.
    
    As for Gloria, definitely one of the deep thinkers of all time.
    
    Mark

    Well lots of political figures aren't deep thinkers and say dumb
    things. She's one of the genuine American heros and will be so noted in
    history. No amount of petty carping will change that.
    
    Kit

>            She's one of the genuine American heros and will be so noted in
>    history.

Shouldn't that be "heroines?"  Chelsea, what do you think?

I only watched the first 30 minutes of it, but I was amazed at how research
into this subject is being suppressed.  Researchers being told not to do
research on this subject, grants being withdrawn because, "...we shouldn't be
doing this kind of research."  Sounds like PC to the max.

Was it Gloria or the SS lawyer who said that ABC shouldn't even be doing the
show?

No one should be prohibited from engaging in/training for any profession for
which they are qualified.  The qualifications should NOT be gender specific.

Bob

  When ever you have a political movement there is always an extremist
element. The right wing has Jessie Helms, civil rights had Stokley Carmichael,
the colonists of the 18th century had Sam Adams and the women's rights movement
has Gloria Steinman. 

  So what else is new? What she says is pretty extreme but it's hardly main
stream even for people in the feminist movement. 

  George

    
      Anybody notice the (perhaps alarming) statistics on worldwide
     declines in male virility ?  Sperm production in our species is
     on a significant downward trend.  Causation unknown.
    
      bb

RE                      <<< Note 277.7 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

>      Anybody notice the (perhaps alarming) statistics on worldwide
>     declines in male virility ?  Sperm production in our species is
>     on a significant downward trend.  Causation unknown.
    
  A big plus for ZPG.

  Nature always has a way of dealing with problems.

  George

George, you misspelled three out of four names.  I suppose growing up with
a name like yours made you vengeful.

RE   <<< Note 277.9 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

>George, you misspelled three out of four names.  I suppose growing up with
>a name like yours made you vengeful.

  WTFC,
  George

bb, if you're taking about the Paris study on sperm count that's in the NEJM,
it's debunked in an editorial in the same issue.

    re: .7
    
    It's probably from the combination of fast food and couch-potatoism. 
    8^)

    
    RE: .9
    
    Ski's a debater... not a speller.. donchaknow!!!
    

Please, no more sexist spellings of her name, it's not Steinman.

    .14
    Whats that little cr for and how can I get one of those?

Carriage return.  Gloria thinks that parents who buy little girls doll carriages
should return them to the store.

    
    Gloria Steinway?
    

Mighty Wurlitzer.

    
    Mellotron
    

    Korg

    Borg...

    By the way, how's Gloria's brother Franken?

    .7
    
    > Sperm production in our species is
    > on a significant downward trend.  Causation unknown.
    
    i would speculate that it may be related to the same phenomenon in
    other species when they become overcrowded for their habitat.  they
    produce fewer offspring - and it's not that the young die off, births
    actually decline per unit of population.
    
    people who tell us that there's not an overpopulation problem aren't
    grounded in reality - they're looking at the ideal case where we use
    all the land and spread the population evenly across it instead of
    clumping up in cities.

    Re: .0
    
    >"We should concentrate on raising our sons the way we raise our daughters"
    
    If you look at how many men versus how many women commit crimes
    (especially violent crimes), she might be on to something....

    ...talk about screwing up our kids- they are confused enough as it is.
    
    I don't doubt that the next "Dr. Spock" to hit the scene will suggest
    this, however. 
    
    -steve

    Hopefully, the sharpest decline will be in liberals...
    
    -b

    .27
    
    i'd prefer that the sharpest decline be among knee-jerk reactionists of
    whatever stripe.  we need a good mixing of libs and cons in the pool to
    maintain an even keel.

	I don't need a television show to tell me men and women
are different.  Also, I for one am glad about it.

	I love the womens movement, especially when I'm behind 
it. :-)

ME

    
    
>>"We should concentrate on raising our sons the way we raise our daughters"
>    If you look at how many men versus how many women commit crimes
>    (especially violent crimes), she might be on to something....
    	
    	I think it has more to do with getting family values back than the
    difference between raising a daughter and a son. Sure, more violent
    crimes are committed by men, but women have a higher depression rate.
    Two sides to every coin....
    
    
    jim
       

Aargh!  All this talk about declining sperm counts!

Summarized from today's Globe:

In the aforementioned NEJM editorial, Dr. Richard J. Sherins, director of male
reproduction at the Genetics and IVF Institute in Fairfax, VA questions whether
sperm counts are really declining.  He points out flaws in various studies.
He says when they're reanalyzed with better statistical methods, they show
an increase in sperm counts over 20 years.

    
    It's the women who are the slackers.  They should arouse us more.
    
      bb

    re: sperm
    
    i'd heard fertility rates were relatively unaffected anyway even if it
    is a real phenomenon
    
    ric

      I saw the first half hour.
    
      My main impression was of Gloria Steinem.  A classic case of having
      an agenda, a personal conception of 'utopia' if you will.  And if
      here version of utopia is contradicted by reality as seems to be
      established by the scientific method...
    
      well to hell with rational thought!!!
    
      She came off as one pathetic creature I thought.  To dismiss what
      seems to be rather basic and easy to understand scientific conclu-
      sions.  What a crock!!

RE            <<< Note 277.30 by SUBPAC::SADIN "caught in the 'net" >>>

>Sure, more violent
>    crimes are committed by men, but women have a higher depression rate.
>    Two sides to every coin....
    

  I was reading some literature given out by McClain's Hospital (a psychiatric
hospital near Boston) which said that more women are treated for depression but
it's not clear that more women suffer from depression. 

  They felt that women who were depressed were more likely to seek help where
as men were more likely to drink to numb the pain.

  At least that was one opinion,
  George

    If, as GS suggested last night, the admissions tests for public service
    jobs were changed to accomodate woman (assuming that it's true that
    woman are not as strong as men, which is a theory that I don't necessarily 
    support) and then woman (or whomever the test standards were lowered
    for) could not do the job when it came down to it, i.e., carrying a 200
    lb person from a burning building, whose fault is it?  Who owns
    responsibility?

	since when is women not being as strong as men a theory?

    
    Well, a fact with the exception that it's some women/some men, not all
    women/all men, yes?

    
>>    Well, a fact with the exception that it's some women/some men, not all
>>    women/all men, yes?

	Yes, I would have thought that was as obvious as the Campbell's
	soup kids thing.  ;>

So who was stronger, the Campbell's boy or the Campbell's girl?  Did they
have names?

    
    
re:                     <<< Note 277.35 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>
    
>  They felt that women who were depressed were more likely to seek help where
>as men were more likely to drink to numb the pain.
>  At least that was one opinion,
    
    	sounds like a rather sexist view to me! :*)
    
    	Seriously, that's nothing more than conjecture. No facts like you
    said...just opinion.
    
    
    jim

RE            <<< Note 277.42 by SUBPAC::SADIN "caught in the 'net" >>>

>    	Seriously, that's nothing more than conjecture. No facts like you
>    said...just opinion.
    
  Well yes, they didn't back it up with facts but then McClains has a really
good reputation as the top psychiatric hospital in the greater Boston area and
it's not uncommon for hospitals to simply put advice without lots of research
on those brochures they put in the waiting rooms.

  And no it wasn't sexist, it was just their observation based on clinical
experience and educated opinions.

  George

    
    Suppose you ranked mammals (or just primates) by how "sexually
    dimorphic" they were.  Clearly, humans would be a middle case.
    
    A male gorilla is three times the size of a female.  But chimps
    are the same size in both sexes.
    
    Male humans are not distinguished by antlers or manes or different
    coloration.  Our behavior differs by gender, but not by an extreme
    amount for the class of mammals.
    
    While weshould take gender differences into account, we should not
    claim our differences are greater than they are.
    
      bb

    RE: .3
    
    Her a hero???
    
    If a man said half of the sexist remarks she has throughout the years,
    they'da strung him up by his nads!!!
    
    The scarey part about your hero(ine)??? She believes most of what she
    spouts out of her mouth!!

    Gloria baaaaby!! I am sooo confused! Yha now saying that women and men
    are differnt?? Wow! What news! My goodness what will she think of next?
    
    I am not going to take my daughters dolly stroller back to the freeking
    store. She will have a tantrum and cry over it. Tell her if she comes
    and takes it at night. I will call the cops on her rad-ass!:)
    
    Perhaps she and the Nute/nit should get together and discuss this in
    length!:)

    
>>    If a man said half of the sexist remarks she has throughout the years,
>>    they'da strung him up by his nads!!!

	if that were true, there'd be a man hanging from every available
	limb.

    In deference to those that didn't see the show...
    
    The conclusion, if you can call it that, was that if there are
    differences, and there likely are, we should exploit our knowledge of
    them to help everyone reach their highest levels of achievement, rather
    than reduce our standards to the least common denominator.
    
    The example was a school experimenting with all-female math classes. 
    The findings seem to be that men and women are equally good at math,
    but that the teaching techniques need to be different because male and
    female brains operate differently.  One female math honors student
    stated that lowering the honors standards would only hurt everyone.
    
    Of course, one of the other interviewee's variation of this was to use
    technology to achieve equality.  Regarding fire fighters, the
    suggestion was to arm the <women/weaker> with "electric axes".
    
    Jim
    

    -1 ouch! sounds awfully painful...
    
       Chip

    .48
    How does and electric axe work?

>    If a man said half of the sexist remarks she has throughout the years,
>    they'da strung him up by his nads!!!

There's the difference: you can't string a woman up by her 'nads.

    pads

    Re: .30
    
    >but women have a higher depression rate.
    
    That's only because men are so disappointing....

    generalization alert!

    I don't think women's and men's brains work differently, I think the
    difference is in the way and the rate at which they go on the blink!
    :-)
    
    -b

    -1 kaboom!

    
    
    re: .53
    
    	ouch! :)
    
    

    
    
    Wellll......all us real men know what Gloria needs, right guys <wink,
    wink>
    
    

    
    
    	re .58
    
    	a new dishwasher? a foot massage? a new mixer?
    
    
    

	Give her some cash to "go buy something pretty."

	That should do it.		;^)

    She'd probably come back with the Campbell Soup girl...
    
    -b

    .61
    ....a reborn Traci Lords.....

    
    She'd probably use the money to buy a vibrator...
    

    The electric axe works like any other fine Binford products. All
    depends on how you want it. Gas or electric!:)

    Well, I don't know about the electric one, but I sure as hell have a
    gassy axe!
    
    -b

    >>but women have a higher depression rate.
    
    >That's only because men are so disappointing....
    
    
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA{gasp}HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    

    .66
    Did you find that pretty funny or sometin.

    Was this program related to the recent discovery that there seems to be
    chemical differences in the way men's and women's brains work? That is,
    certain outside stimuli seem to elicit differing types of reponses by
    working on different parts of the brain?
    
    But to move from the scientific to the social/political realm, it's
    goofy to set up the straw man of "they claim there's no difference
    between men and women".  Point is, many of the differences are
    environmental (socialization of the sexes differently, etc) rather than
    biological. 
    
    If one thinks more men should emulate traditionally femaline qualities
    and more women should emulate traditionally masculine qualities in
    order to lead fuller and more satisfying lives, that has nothing to do
    with denying the differences between men and women.
    
    Kit

    .3
    
    In your opinion ONLY!

    .10
    
    Actually, you make it your personal vendetta to bash anything
    resembling Republican, so it doesn't surprise me that character doesn't
    matter to you.

    
    
    I found it interesting how the women could remember almost everything
    in that small office that they were waiting in.  
    
    
    Mike

>                   <<< Note 277.69 by PNTAGN::WARRENFELTZR >>>
>
>    .3
>    
>    In your opinion ONLY!
    
    Well, no, it *is* my opinion, but I doubt that it's my opinion *only*.
    
    However, it is characteristic of your style of argument here that facts
    are meaningless and no opinion that is not yours could *possibly* be
    shared by any other soul on earth, let alone have any validity.
    
    Kit

    The show didn't deny that there are sociological differences, but it
    did cite lots of evidence for non-sociological ones, such as studies
    performed on male and female children less than 72 hours old, that
    could scarcely have received much sociological indoctrination, showing
    they exhibited significantly different behaviors that were linked
    (statistically) to their sex.

    In other words, they said that maybe sociological effects don't cause
    differences, but instead differences lead to specific sociological
    effects.  An interesting statement was that perhaps we as parents get
    certain cues from our children that lead us to react to them in certain
    ways.  Though they didn't give examples, one that comes to mind is
    that a boy might like being thrown up in the air, and a girl might not. 
    Since you would enjoy entertaining your child, you would persist in
    throwing the boy, but not the girl, leading to differences, not
    intentional, but stimulated by the child's own characteristics and
    desires.

    Jim

    i read a piece in the papers like last week about the differences.  the
    study measured electrical activity and blood flow in different parts of
    the brain.  it found that women's brains showed more activity in the
    areas that are associated with communication and other high-level
    tasks.  men's brains showed more activity in the areas associated with
    aggressive, emotional behavior - that is, areas that are better
    developed in "lower" animals.

    This is why sex can be fun.

RE              <<< Note 277.74 by SMURF::BINDER "gustam vitare" >>>

>men's brains showed more activity in the areas associated with
>    aggressive, emotional behavior - that is, areas that are better
>    developed in "lower" animals.

  I'll go along with that. We're men. We want to eat meat and drink beer and we
want to scratch and smell bad and say thing like "UUUUUUGGGKKKK, WHERE'S THE
CLICKER!!!" 

  Why go firing off all those complicated neurons when you're just plan'en
to kill them with some good suds anyway.

  George

    .76.... yup... and wee's lov guns too....:)

.44>    Male humans are not distinguished by antlers or manes or different
>    coloration.  Our behavior differs by gender, but not by an extreme
>    amount for the class of mammals.
    
    	Beards?

    
    
    	It makes sense that men and women are the way they are. Men were
    built to be the hunter/gatherers...bringing back food/skins etc for the
    family. The women were in the home cooking meals, sewing clothing,
    and rearing the children (which I think is harder than hunting!). Seems
    only logical that man would have a more refined "lower" portion of his
    brain while the women would be more (I almost hesitate to say this)
    "intellectual". Different roles were played by both in the beginning
    and both were built to suit the roles.
    
    
    jim
    
    

    So is this one explanation as to why men tend to get angry in a
    stressful situation and women tend to cry? Women seem to have a much
    better coping mechanism here, in my opinion.

    Glenn

    The Stossel show referred to the so-called "lower" functions as 3D
    imaging abilities, and said thats why males tend to be better (?) at
    video games.
    
    These abilities were honed after thousands of years of developing
    spatial orientation and manipulation skills through stalking, throwing,
    hunting, etc.  There would seem to be an almost direct relationship
    between the ancient acts of hunting and related rites, and modern
    sports.
    

    re. 38 - Wanna rassle?
    
    re. 39 - Yes!

    Re: .80
    
    >Men were built to be the hunter/gatherers
    
    No.  Women were definitely at least gatherers.  I can't imagine what
    kind of evidence would prove conclusively, one way or another, whether
    women participated in hunting.

    Re: .82
    
    >the so-called "lower" functions as 3D imaging abilities
    
    Spatial relations is one of those things that men are statistically
    better at.

    	I was surprised at how terrible the two spokeswoman for the "total
    equality" theory came off sounding. The lawyer was so bad as to almost
    make Gloria sound like a moderate. Funny thing though, I'm sure
    the editors/producers saw how bad they made their viewpoints sound  but
    they still included them anyway. (or perhaps because of this) Where's
    the famous liberal bias of the major networks that we here so many
    conservatives crying about? This certainly wasn't a PC show. How come
    they did it if they're only into reporting stuff that supports "thier"
    point of view?
    
    		
    								S.R.

    .72
    Kit;
    
    You acknowledge that what you said in 3 was your opinion, then you
    label it as fact.
    
    Ok, today is Friday; you were just one day too soon.
    
    

                  <<< Note 277.82 by HANNAH::BAY "Jim Bay" >>>
                    -< "Lower" as in "down to earth"?  :-) >-

>    These abilities were honed after thousands of years of developing
>    spatial orientation and manipulation skills through stalking, throwing,
>    hunting, etc.  There would seem to be an almost direct relationship

Shame on you for making such a sexist Lamark!    

      re: .60
    
      This one really had me laughing!!!

      re: .71
    
      Yeah, me too.
    
      Questioner:
      "What was in that room?"
    
      My Response:
      "What room?!!!"

    re: .87
    
                       <<< Note 277.72 by DOCTP::BINNS >>>

>                   <<< Note 277.69 by PNTAGN::WARRENFELTZR >>>
>
>    .3
>    
>    In your opinion ONLY!
    
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  The only allegation of "fact" was this statement by
    you. Nothing in my .72 reply could be taken as suggesting that my
    opinion is fact.
    
    Emotion and hyperbole have their place, particularly in forums like
    this, Mr. Warrenfeltzer. But you seem unusually incapable of
    considering facts, and arguing rationally, on most any subject you
    turn your hand to.
    Kit

>>           <<< Note 277.83 by SWAM2::SMITH_MA >>>

>>    re. 38 - Wanna rassle?

	And what exactly would be the point of that, since we're
	both women?

    
    
    To see which one of you would have the honor of lugging, say, an M-60
    machine gun around, along with 40 or so lbs. of ammo????

    .92
    
    oo-er you need to ask that ?
    
    ric
    (where's the mud fellas ?)

  Here's a 1st for women. When the Space Shuttle Discovery took off last night
from pad 39B of the Kennedy Space Center, Eileen Collins became the 1st woman
to pilot a U.S. space craft. Women have flown before as Mission Specialist but
never as Pilot or Commander. 

  Discovery is flying SPACEHAB-3 and will rendezvous with the Russian Mir Space
station which will serve as a step for a later mission which will actually dock
with Mir. 

  As far as I could tell she had no more problem activating the APU's than
any man flying in the right seat.

  George

    
    <------
    
    I'll be happy when things like this are no longer newsworthy, but run
    of the mill, ordinary occurances...
    

    I find the entire discussion around the "equality of the sexes"
    comical.  You get the feminists on one side claiming that there is this
    or that evidence that there are no differences, and in many areas women
    are superior to men, etc, etc.  Then you get the other side claiming
    equal scientific data to show just the opposite.
    
    The simple proof is to merelt observe.  At this point in time, and it
    may change over time, there are many areas requiring physical strenghth
    that the average woman is not capable of performing.  the tape of the
    California firefighters is a classic case in point.  Does that mean
    that NO woman can be a firefighter?  Absolutely not, but anyone who
    wants to be one, must pass the same tests and if you can't make it,
    you're out.  Go off and train and come back, but do not lower any
    standards to accompdate a political agenda.  Even the female
    firefighter supported absolute standards and if you can't make it,
    you're out.
    
    I think as soon as the feminist leaders recognize that there are better
    ways to achieve the so-called equality, real progress can be made.  As
    long as they are stupid and irrational enough to talk about an electric
    axe, etc then a natural response will be that women aren't equal and
    need special assistance to compete.  Now if that's the point of the
    "equality" debate, then I think it's lost before it's begun.
    

    
    I can't believe it, for once in my life I agree with ::Rocush!
                             					
    Someone make a note 8^).

    I make a SNARF!

    Re: .97
    
    	Good note, you have it 90% dead on!!! 
    
    	To complete the thought one might add that there are physical
    differences that give men advantages in areas relating to hygiene under
    some adverse conditions.
     
    

    Which brings us to the question of women fighting in combat!

    Better to have that than women not fighting in combat.

  Is there any reason to believe that a man can fly an F-14 better than a
woman?

  George

    A man will fly it faster but will pay higher premiums....

    .105
    
    > A man will fly it faster but will pay higher premiums....
    
    ackshully, women tend to have higher chicken-out thresholds as well as
    higher red-out thresholds.  all the available evidence points to their
    being far better combat pilots than men, in the general class v. class
    case.

      Kit,
    
        Just wanted to suggest that the 'nature verses nurture'
        argument is very old and it seems that highly intelligent
        people can have very different takes on it.
    
        To what extent am I who I am due to nature and to what 
        extent nurture?  I think you stated that a large extent is
        to nurture, but I think the show gave some credibility to the
        notion that that nature impact of things (relative to the
        nurture) is a lot more significant than many of us have thought.
    
      On men/women differences:
        I think it can be a little deceptive that the differences wherein
        the average man outperforms the average woman are more obvious.
        I mainly mean the physical differences.  The #100 ranked man would
        blow away the #1 ranked woman tennis player.  These things are
        obvious.   Strength, speed, etc.
    
        But, in a LOT of subtle ways, women outperform men.  Women are 
        more acute in 4 of the 5 senses for example.  There's just a lot
        of things.
    
        I just figure we're different and thats good and the measurables
        are so vast and how to weigh them in importance so undoable that
        lets just say we're equal and have a happy!!!
    
                                                        Tony
                                        

    re .92
    
    My apologies!  This conf has me all fired up!
    
    P.S. - re .97
    
    There are some men who wouldn't make good firemen either!!!!!
    
    MJ

    Re: Women in combat..
    
    I was actually referring to women in trenches, not naval aviators or
    Airforce pilots.
    
    I'm parroting here...can't remember where I heard it, but my
    understanding was that in order for a pilot to be able to overcome the
    G Forces, they have to be of a certain body weight and have a certain
    upper body strength in order to adequately pilot a jet.  As long as a 
    woman qualifies under the standards, then absolutely no problem!!!
    No doubt there are women pilots better qualified than men pilots.
    
    -Jack

    I think one key to this is statistics.  Is it impossible for the
    strongest person on Earth to be a woman?  No.  Can a woman be the best
    pilot or fighter pilot?  Yes.  What about best fireman?  Why not?
    
    BUT, statistically speaking, how many women will elect to become body
    builders, pilots or firemen, etc?
    
    When a (singular) fire department has on their staff a person
    acknowledged to be THE best fire-person (male or female) in the world,
    they will still find that when a 3 alarm fire occurs, that the whole
    crew better be pretty good, because the "best" fire-person can only
    carry the weight for one or two - the rest are on their own.
    
    A person (woman or man) does everyone on the team a disservice when
    they get there by what I, in an oversimplification, call cheating
    (lowered standards, etc.).
    
    Its not a matter of whether a woman or man is "best", but rather how
    many will try and how hard will they work?  Unfortunately there is
    absolutely NO guarantee that a woman or man will "work harder" than a
    everyone else to prove a point if the "rules" don't require it.
    
    So what does this mean?  Probably that some professions will always be
    lopsided in sexual ratios.  Without a doubt there have been, are and
    will continue to be barriers to PEOPLE not based on any sort of merit,
    but rather sex or color.  And we should strive in every way to destroy
    these barriers.  But not with quotas or numbers.
    
    Eventually we may find out that there is a 50-50 split in everything,
    but if the human construction is such that 50-50 isn't natural, then
    we'd be kind of crazy to twist nature to our whim.
    
    Jim
    

    .109
    
    upper body strength stopped being a qual for fighter pilots along about
    when they figured out what a servomechanism is for.  the pilot doesn't
    have to horse the stick around, there's a computer-driven slave circuit
    doing the work.  in fact, current online fighters require a relatively
    delicate touch on the controls - which happens to be something women
    are statistically better at than men.

    
    re: .107
    
    >    extent nurture?  I think you stated that a large extent is
    >    to nurture, but I think the show gave some credibility to the
    
    Tony --
    
    Actually, my point was only that a lot of the characteristics that some
    people describe as sex-specific are actually a result of socialization.
    In that sense, they are "masculine" or "feminine" traits only to the
    extent that society has made them so, and not biologically.
    
    Of course there are many characteristics that really are related to the
    biological differences. And I was particularly intrigued by the
    information that I cited about the recently reported study about how
    different areas of men's and women's minds are affected by outside
    stimuli (the report that Binder also mentionned).
    
    My concern is only that people don't use perceived differences that are
    simply learned differences to keep us from recognizing and encouraging
    behavior and characteristics in ourselves that we would like to
    encourage, regardless of sex.
    
    And while I did not previously mention this, one could argue that it
    might be more "useful" in the biological sense, to unlearn or overcome
    some types of hard-wired biological behavior that is no longer socially
    useful.
    
    Kit 

    
    
    You've got that right, Dick.  Ever get to play with a stick on an old
    F-4?  Them suckers are heavy.  

    I couldn't find the energy to wade thru' this lot.  However, the
    princial cause for the fall in male fertility is polution.(.-n)  Many
    artifical chemicals, especially some insecticides of estrogenic
    properties.  Now, pure human estrogen is not a problem as human
    male babies are not poisoned by there mothers hormones.  However, the
    tiny levels of these substances can have powerfull estrogenic effects
    (sp?!)  And, its not just people that suffer from this problem, it is
    also very well documented in fish and in reptiles.  
    
    It probably will not help in ZPG because there is so much fertility tec
    available, and humans understand to just keep on trying.  It could
    empty the seas even faster than a trawler fleet however.
    
    R. Michael. 

    An aside in a Crichton novel ("Sphere") points out that women are far
    better suited for sub duty than men.  They're smaller, so they fit
    better into cramped quarters.  They consume fewer resources (like
    oxygen).  They cope better with the social constraints.  There were a
    few other things, mostly physiological.  However, the Navy's never
    gonna hand subs over to women.

re .114:

See .31.

    
    RE: .115
    
    What for??
    
    According to some... there's no need for that archaic stuff in today's
    defense.
    
      Scrap that sub and feed the hungry!
    

    Re: .117
    
    Subs?  I believe the issue was the _type_ of sub.

Meatball subs are archaic.

    
    
    And I just found one more thing that is different about men and
    women...well, sorta....oh, never mind.  :}
    

    RE: .118
    
    Really??
    
    What _type_ of sub were you talking about in your reply back there?
    

    Re .81:
    
    > So is this one explanation as to why men tend to get angry in a
    > stressful situation and women tend to cry? Women seem to have a much
    > better coping mechanism here, in my opinion.

    That depends on the situation.  If you're stuck in a situation you
    can't change, maybe it's better just to cry.  But if the situation can
    be changed, then it's better to change it.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    We can cry and still work to change the situation.  Much better than
    smashing walls IMO.

    	Not if the needed change was to remove a wall!

    re: .124
    
    
    ......or a glass ceiling. :-)

| <<< Note 277.125 by SMURF::MSCANLON "oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye." >>>


| ......or a glass ceiling. :-)

	If that glass is a mirror, then ya better leave it as is!!! :-)

    
    
    	re: women consuming less oxygen
    
    
    	Oh, does this just BEG a nasty little comment or what? ;*)
    
    

    Once again I see the arguing going on about this or that specific
    activity and whether a man or a woman is better at it.  It just doesn't
    matter.  What does matter is that standards are established that are
    put in place to insure that anyone, man/woman/dog/cat, etc can do the
    job.  Whoever qualifies and can do the job - at the standards - gets
    it.
    
    If you can't meet the standards, go find something else to do until you
    can meet them.
    
    It seems so intuitively obvious.
    

    .128
    
    yup.
    
    	All beings are created unequal.  The best society provides each
    	with equal opportunity to float at his own level.
    
    				-- Frank Herbert, "The Dosadi Experiment"

    
    RE: .129
    
    Dick...
    
     You wouldn't be so quick to comment if your life depended on it...
    
    Ever been in the military? I was in armor and the physical exertions
    that are needed are tremendous...
    
      My tank had a loader who couldn't do the job because of his physical
    limitations.... we got rid of him... We got someone we could depend on
    to load those 90mm sabots without skipping a beat. If a woman can't do
    that either, then we'd get rid of her to. If she can, then she'd be
    just as much a part of the team as anyone else... why? Because her
    butt's in the sling along with ours, and besides.... with the smoke and 
    the red lights and the noise... one body dressed in combat fatigues
    looks just like any other... :)

    .130
    
    andy, do you have trouble comprehending "FLOAT AT HIS [sic] OWN LEVEL"?
    
    you spell out what i'm saying in your second paragraph, the long one. 
    your loader's level wasn't handling 90mm sabots.  but if there is a
    person whose level IS handling 90mm sabots, that person shouldn't be
    excluded from the job SOLELY on the basis of her having a vagina
    instead of a penis.  that is specifically what "float at his own level"
    means.

	Q: What does .130 have to do with the statement in .129?
	A: Nada.

    <-----
    
    You're so cute when you wanna be Di....
    
    RE: .131
    
    Sorry Dick... I misread the quote...
    Thanks for the correction...
    
    
    I guess "sorry" doesn't qualify for the hackneyed note.. huh Di?
    

    							      ----------->

What he said.

    RE: .134
    
    You playing ping-pong again Glenn???
    :)
    

    							8-}  --------->

<------------- :^(

Glenn, is Nostradamus your newest personality?

(BTW, according the unimpeachable sources at
 The Weekly World News, he predicted this winter's
 weather.  'Course, this is the same publication
 that brought us the 500-ft Jesus at the UN)

re: .136

Reminds me of a frog at feeding time.

Bob

    Re: .121
    
    >What _type_ of sub were you talking about in your reply back there?
    
    In this note?  Any sub.  In the defense appropriations note?  I don't
    recall, exactly; it was probably some kind of subhunter sub, since the
    tenor of the article I had read was about smarter weapons technology.

    Re: qualifications
    
    As far as lowering qualifications goes, it is an acceptable practice IF
    those qualifications are only in place to restrict the applicant pool. 
    If the qualification in fact tests an ability required for the job,
    then all people who have the job must be periodically retested against
    the qualifications.

    the sole intent of "qualifications" IS to restrict the applicant pool.
    
    this not only not a good idea, it must be exercised.
    
    what we're really talking about is whether the criteria to be met is
    excessive to execute a duty or function.
    
    it's the bar... raise it and quality (may) rise... lower it and
    mediocrity will set in.
    
         Chip

    What about the argument that if qualifications are raised too high,
    that enrollment will drop off?  Seems like the volunteer army had a
    problem with that at first.
    

    -1 no argument Jim... it's clearly an unfair practice.
    
       Chip

    Re: .143
    
    >the sole intent of "qualifications" IS to restrict the applicant pool.
    
    So, what about the oft-mentioned requirement for fire fighters to be
    able to lift 200 pounds?  Here we keep getting told that the
    requirement is there to make sure that the applicant can actually
    perform the duties of the job.  Have we been lied to?

    -1 possibly, i dunno. if i weighed in at 190lbs. and had to rely
       on a firefughtters ability to lift me to save my life i'd be
       glad he/she could lift 200lbs... 
    
       i really don't what the right weight is or who makes the rules
       and why...
    
       Chip

    I don`t have to lift 200lbs. I am required to do some things out of the
    norm. I have to carry a scout pack up a latter with a charged line,
    throw a person over my shoulder and carry that person 50 yards. Thats
    only the basic Firefighters I course. It will be a challenge for me
    because of my age (40 something). This is one of the reasons I`m
    working out at Bally`s as often as possible. Yes, we do have women on
    our dept and she can do things that I can`t yet do. 

    .148
    
    > I have to carry a scout pack up a latter...
    
    don't the scouts resist that kind of treatment?

    .148
    They try like hell...but it is a requirement of Fire School so there
    must be volunteer oh never mind.....

    Well it seems that there seems to finally be some actual discussion
    around qualifications and affirmative action, etc.  It seems that there
    has been a common ground reached that says if you can meet the
    standards, regardless of any other factor, then you get the job. 
    Lowering standards, or having different standards for different people
    is detrimental to society and in the long run, the person themselves.
    
    I never thought I would see Soapbox come to such an agreement.
    

    And here I thought I started a controversial topic.
    
    Some weeks nothing goes right!  :-)
    
    Jim
    

    how many scouts in a pack? i can't remember, but i'm sure they're more
    than 200lbs.
    
    :-)

    Re: .151
    
    >It seems that there has been a common ground reached that says if you
    >can meet the standards, regardless of any other factor, then you get
    >the job.  Lowering standards, or having different standards for
    >different people is detrimental to society and in the long run, the 
    >person themselves.
    
    What note have _you_ been reading?  I fail to see how a discussion of
    the _purpose_ of qualifications leads to any such conclusion.

    Re: 154
    
    Oh, I'm sorry.  It sure looked like a lot of people were supporting the
    idea that once standards were identified as being necessary to a job,
    then anyone who met the standards got the job.  No special standards
    for anyone.  Either you met them or didn't.  At least it seemed like
    there wre quite few folks, from different spectrums that supported that
    idea.
    
    Should I take your response to mean that, regardless of the required
    standards for a job, thjose standards should be changed in order to
    accomdate less competent individuals in the job, regardless of their
    ability to meet the minimum standards.  I sure hope you mean that and I
    am misunderstanding your point.
    

    Re: .155
    
    >that once standards were identified as being necessary to a job
    
    This is what you left out of your .151, and is the source of my
    objection.
    
    >Should I take your response to mean that, regardless of the required
    >standards for a job, thjose standards should be changed in order to
    >accomdate less competent individuals in the job, regardless of their
    >ability to meet the minimum standards.
    
    No.  You should take my response to mean that you omitted an important
    qualifier.
    
    >I sure hope you mean that and I am misunderstanding your point.
    
    Make up your mind -- do you want to disapprove of me or not?

    I should have known...a S.C.O.U.T. (and I don`t what it means yet) in
    and of itself weight between 17 & 35 lbs and holds up to 30 minutes of
    air depending if (OK, Ok  here it comes) your a heavy breather or not.
    There are some packs that will hold up for an hours worth of air but we
    chose not to use them because we do not want a person (or pair) to be
    in a burning, smoke filled house for 60 minutes. It is hard to be in
    there for 30 minutes. The adrenalin is ususlly flowing for the entire
    time your in a building and you really don`t know how tired you are
    until you come out and sit for a few minutes. 

    -1 ahhhh... but is it:
    
                              trustworthy
     
                              loyal
     
                              helpful
    
                              friendly
    
                              courteous
    
                              kind
    
                              obedient
    
                              cheerful
    
                              thrifty
     
                              brave
    
                              clean
    
                              and reverent?
    
    God, i don't believe i remember that!
    
    Chip                              

    .158
    For effective and efficient usage I expect my SCOUT pack to be all of
    those things mentioned, not only for me but for the people that I might
    have to rescue. 

    
    Note 277.157

    >...a S.C.O.U.T. (and I don`t what it means yet)...
    
    My guess is: Self-Contained Oxygen U<mumble> Tank.  :^)
    

    Oxygen could not be carried in a tank into a fire...at least not on my
    back. Could you imagine the explosion that would happen if I sprang a
    leak:'). I`m not sure if SCOUT is the correct spelling, it might not
    have the O.

Oxygen does not explode.

  No but it's mighty friendly toward those substances that do explode.

  George

    .162
    Yea, but I still wouldn`t want to be near it when it does do whatever
    its gonna do. I would not want to be around it if someone threw a tank
    of it on an open fire either.

>                      <<< Note 277.164 by MAIL2::CRANE >>>

 >   .162
 >   Yea, but I still wouldn`t want to be near it when it does do whatever
 >   its gonna do. I would not want to be around it if someone threw a tank
 >   of it on an open fire either.

A pressurized tank of _ANYTHING_ even CO2 thrown on a fire becomes a
large handgrenade, complete with shrapnel and all.

Oxygen supports combustion, might make something burn slightly faster
if the tank leaked. chances are you'd be in more trouble with other concerns
at that point(like what hit you hard enough or was hot enough to cause your 
tank to leak?)

re .165:

>Oxygen supports combustion, might make something burn slightly faster
                                                       --------

That's an understatement!  A bursting tank of oxygen at 2400 psi will make a
fire _real_ exciting quickly.  Many things not normally considered flammable
will burn merrily in pure oxygen (this is what happened to the Apollo 1
astronauts), stuff that's burning already, well guess what that does...

    Please tell me what happens to something that is already burning? I
    would like to know.
    
    Thanks.

    Oxygen allows combustion to occur.  The more O2, the faster the rate of
    burn.  It will accelerate the combustion process.  
    
    Brian

    .168
    I`m still glad they don`t put 02 in my scout pack! I have a drill
    tonight and I`ll try and find what it stands for.

    O2?  Seriously?  It is the natural state Oxygen atoms exist in.  Being
    highly reactive, it seeks atomic partners to bond with (oo-er) and will
    do so rather quickly.  It's sort of a chemical nymphomaniac if you
    will.  
    
    Brian

    .170
    Is that like a "love fest" in a bottle?

And, as my high school chemistry teacher was fond of saying,
"If the O2 is lucky enough to find a Hydrogen atom, they get
bent and form water."

re .167:

Things burn much hotter and more rapidly.  Think of an acetylene torch and
how it burns when only the acetylene is on (such as when a welder lights it)
Then what happens when he turns the oxygen on.

A cigarette will normally only smoulder.
Back in high school I saw an interesting demo.  A cigarette was dipped in
liquid oxygen and then lit with a _long_ match.  It took off like a bottle
rocket.

    .172
    
    > "If the O2 is lucky enough to find a Hydrogen atom, they get
    > bent and form water."
    
    not likely.  water is h2o, not o2h.

 Now, who is going to tie all this back to the topic? ;-)

    OK, women can`t be the same as men because I like women more than I
    like men.

    Well one atom has an extra electron and one is missing one so it is
    almost, by a far stretch, analogous to being male and female and hence
    they are different on a sub-atominc level.  
    
    H atom to the O2 twins, "My, my, you two make my electron spin!" 
    
    Brian

{hanging head in shame}

Of course it's H20...  I really must get more sleep.

(And I scored a 735 on my Achievement Test in
 Chemistry. too.)

    Ya know, I really can't help but look at the title of this note and
    think to myself, "No $#!^ Shirlock!." :-)
    
    -b

    
    
    -b...i think that, too, when i see the title...
    
    
    z
    

Amen...  and then I add. "so what's the
problem with that?"

	Vive la difference.

    RE: -< shErlock >-
    
    Mz. Deb,
    
    I must have had the lovely little hamlet from whence you come
    on the mind when I was typing that previous note! :-)
    
    -b

    But Karen saved me!!!

| <<< Note 277.186 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| But Karen saved me!!!


	Only God knows why....or how, for that matter.

    
    	Women are from Venus ... too bad they didn't stay there.
    
    	[Stolen and modified from a T-shirt caption.]
    

    -1 we'll be around a little later to tape that "Kick Me"
       sign to your back, Shawn. :-)

That was probably on the rack right next to

	"I keep hearing about battered women, but
	 I still prefer mine plain."

    filthaaa.

A manly man wouldn't submit to a test of his manliness.

    
    	I guess that would depend on the criteria used to determine the
    	degree of manliness.
    

    A REAL man wouldn't do _that_!

See the last item in the list.

    Real men double-clutch

  I am reminded of a Galen Rowell "hard man" story from the late sixties
 at Camp Four, the legendary Yosemite big wall rock-climbing base camp.

  Rowell was roped in with one of these guys doing a first ascent, and
 they had to do some unanticipated protection work nearly 2000 vertical
 feet of granite above camp.  Darkness forced an unplanned hanging bivy,
 and that night a high wind and cold brought in freezing rain and a quarter
 inch sheen of verglass over rock, ropes, men.  Rowell pulled up the haul
 sack, and fished out a thin garbage bag and shimmied into it to try to
 sleep.

  His partner, a "hard man" looked at him with disgust.  "How SOFT you are,
 Rowell," he said, through his icy beard.

  bb

| <<< Note 277.198 by APACHE::KEITH "Dr. Deuce" >>>

| Real men double-clutch

	I agree!

Maybe real men double-clutch, but it isn't a necessary and sufficient
condition for real-manhood.

Real women double-clutch, too.

    List?  Hadn't seen the list?

    7

    A real man invented synchromesh so men don't have to double clutch.

    ><<< Note 277.204 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Patented Problem Generator" >>>
    
    >A real man invented synchromesh so men don't have to double clutch
    
    Real men who drive company cars, don't even use the clutch.
    
    POL$who_uses_the_clutch_on_his_own_Grand_AM

    Yes they do, it's an automatic clutch.

    
    >< Note 277.206 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Patented Problem Generator" >
    
    >Yes they do, it's an automatic clutch.
    
    Not on my MR2. It was a manual clutch. I only used the clutch for
    standing starts.
    
    POL  :>>

    
    	RE: .207
    
    	Real men crank the engine over while the car is in gear and lurch
    	to a start.
    

    I've done that and drove home with no clutch.

    
    	Well, when I drove home like that, I did have a clutch.  Seemed
    	silly to remove it right then, so I left it in.
    
    	But I did drive home without using it.
    

    DILLIGAF?

 do i look like I get away friday

  bb

    >  RE: .207
    >   
    >        Real men crank the engine over while the car is in gear and
    >        lurch to a start.
    
    
    Did that with my 46 Chev dump truck. I couldn't figure why it was
    cranking so hard until it started and proceeded to chase me with the
    crank still engaged and spinning...
    
    Steve    
    
    
    

    
     Real men powershift.

    Yes, but what does that have to do with driving a car?

    
    Powershift = Foot to floor (keep it there), **quickly** push in clutch,
    shift into next gear, let out clutch...(Remember the quickly part.)
    
    Chris

I think that qualified for a whoosh.

real men are just that: real.

real women are just that: surreal

    
    I don't. I think that was a wise crack.