Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!agate!rha@bunker From: rha@bunker (Robert H. Averack) Newsgroups: comp.society.women Subject: Re: Countering discrimination your children will face Message-ID: <12874@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: 1 Aug 88 17:18:31 GMT References: <12003@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <12502@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <12654@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <12780@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: Bunker Ramo, an Olivetti Company, Shelton, Ct Lines: 29 Approved: skyler@violet.berkeley.edu (Moderator -- Trish Roberts) Comments-to: comp-women-request@cs.purdue.edu Submissions-to: comp-women@cs.purdue.edu >In article <12654@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> I wrote: >>I believe that [a child's] natural tendency >>needs to be encouraged and built upon, irrespective of whether it falls >>under the Sciences, the Humanities or the Arts. In article <12780@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> clambert%hector@Sun.COM (Caroline Lambert [summer intern]) writes: >I disagree. What if you had a girl who did well in math and science, >but did exceptionally well in, say, languages? Wouldn't it be better for >her to become a scientist/engineer with an interest in languages than >a linguist who knows Stokes' theorem? Thanks for your followup, Caroline. I suppose that I was addressing the case where there is a strong tendency towards a particular area, rather than overall strength across varying disciplines. In the example that you cite, some encouragement in areas which will provide better future employability (in this case, math/science) would seem to be the way to go (although the language strength could lead towards excellent opportunities in International Government or Business Relations). However, if there is a strong tendency towards one particular discipline, then, I repeat, you don't cut against the grain. -- {yale!,decvax!,philabs!}bunker!rha Bob Averack Bunker Ramo, an Olivetti Company Two Enterprise Drive - Shelton, Connecticut 06484