Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!pesnta!pertec!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics
Subject: Re: Income Disparities Based On Sex
Message-ID: <372@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Jul-85 16:14:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: kontron.372
Posted: Wed Jul 17 16:14:10 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 03:02:54 EDT
References: <327@kontron.UUCP> <837@oddjob.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA
Lines: 37
Xref: watmath net.women:6494 net.politics:9994

> >article says that Professor Marian Diamond and her husband, UCLA 
> >psychiatrist Arnold Scheibel, while teaching a course at UC Irvine
> >Extension, indicated that "studies of brain tissue continue to bear
> >out the notion that men and women do think fundamentally differently".
> >In more detail, "Male and female minds really are different.  Men
> >typically have more highly developed cells in the right half of the
> >brain controlling visual and spatial function, while such dominance
> >isn't marked in women.  'This isn't to say that either is better,'
> 
> If you read _Science_ or _Nature_ regularly, Mr. Clayton, you would know
> already that more recent studies of brain function do not bear out the
> by-now popular way of associating the left brain with intuitive functions
> and the right brain with analytical functions.  (I wonder where the asymptotic
> expansions go?).  Furthermore, you would know that brain cells have been
> found to be far more flexible in their function and capacity for growth
> beyond early childhood.  This means that people really do think, and can
> train themselves to actually be hardwired for whatever function they find
> that they have to do the most of.  So your little triumph in finding a 
> little newspaper article that finds "scientific proof that most women 
> are unfit to do complex analytical and spatial tasks (i.e tasks that pay
> lots of money)"  is just a bunch of hogwash, and very closely akin to 
> the "science" of eugenics that Hitler used to justify his little experiments.
> 
My entire posting made it clear that I was raising the issue without asserting
that it was certain.  I raised the issue because it is apparently not a
clear-cut issue.  Also, your quote marks around "scientific proof.." suggest
I said this.  I did not.  In addition, I did not suggest that ANY action
is necessary, or even appropriate.

> Far be it from me to call you a NAZI, Mr. Cramer.
> 
>                                Cheryl Stewart
> -- 

Your anger and hatred is overwhelming.  I really wish you would try to
resolve your emotional problems; you seem unable to have a calm discussion
on this topic.