Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alberta.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!ubc-visi!alberta!stephen
From: stephen@alberta
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Women and Chess
Message-ID: <521@alberta.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 21-Oct-83 01:41:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: alberta.521
Posted: Fri Oct 21 01:41:21 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Oct-83 02:32:57 EDT
References: <5875@cca.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
Lines: 37

s of such general groupings.
You make the statement with very little acknowledgement of the fact
that YOU might be wrong too.

  It is very difficult to prove differences to prove such cases for
such over-generalizatons into visible minorities.  With a visible
minority the difference may be due to genetics, training (including,
and especially societial attitudes) or some combination of the two.

  The main danger, and the reason for the taboo is that when the
difference is due to tranining but attributed to genetics, it
becomes self-sustaining.  

  Example: The best honors math student I know is a girl.
  She had another (femake) friend who also liked math, and when 
they took honors calculus "just for fun" (they were both in pre-med)
her math prof encouraged her to <defect> to math.

  NOW: Which is abnormal, the fact that she (as a girl) liked math
or the fact that she was encouraged to stay with it even though
she was a girl?

	Stephen Samuel
	  (alberta!stephen)