From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!dutrun!dutrun2!winfstu Tue Nov 26 12:30:51 EST 1991
Article 1431 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!dutrun!dutrun2!winfstu
>From: winfstu@dutrun2.tudelft.nl (Sylvia Stuurman)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Fe-/Male Decision Making
Message-ID: <6191@dutrun2.tudelft.nl>
Date: 20 Nov 91 07:54:22 GMT
References: <THOMAS.91Nov17210303@idiotix.0> <1991Nov18.161207.25884@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
Organization: Computing Centre of the Technical University of Delft The Netherlands.
Lines: 47

In article <1991Nov18.161207.25884@ucunix.san.uc.edu> millerjx@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Justin W. Miller) writes:
>
>   Gender distinctions are the physically visible ones that relate to
>   reproduction and fitness for gender functions. Females have a much greater
>   developed child-raising function, as do all females of any species. This is
>   not by accident, but rather inherent. Just as the males tend to be better
>   hunters. This function, believe it or not, can be seen in everyday life.
>   There is no mystery to me as to why men can be more brutal about children!
>   And there is also no mystery to me as to why women are much more careful
>   about sex: they bear the responsibility! It is not a matter of her personal
>   views of sex-- it is the physical, natural childbearing function inherent in
>   her being.
>
Females have a much greater child-producing function. OK. 
There is no evidence that childraising should be better done
by women than by men because of biologically inhereted talents.

And about hunting: I'm afraid meat always was a very small
portion of the total diet of humans, and that Man the Hunter 
is not a historic figure.

>   Where this relates to 'intelligence' is where extraneous knowledge enters
>   the picture. How many female philosophers have you read about? Not many. Not
>   many at all. My observations support the theory that females are by default
>   so concerned with material matters that they have no time/desire to philoso-
>   phize. To degenerate... "makeup, safe sex, boyfriends, images, popularity,
>   dealing with mom who didn't do that when she was her age, etc.".. the list
>   goes on and on. Is there any wonder why men are historically the ones who
>   tinkered with cars in their off time? Or who had the time to invent famous
>   things?
>
This makes me think you only know females of fifteen or sixteen.
How many male phlosophers do you know of that age?
Or are they to busy thinking about football, girlfriends, cars,
images, popularity?
I think you are right in explaining this observation as a matter
of lack of time.
But the explanation is that men always let their children raise
by their wives, and let their parents be cared for by their 
sisters.
And you seem to forget that is but for a very short time that
girls are alowed to get any education at all.

Well, maybe you know al this but were only provoking.


S. Stuurman


