Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Article: Princeton's Woman Problem

---

This thread was interesting to read.

Maybe you're lost, Steven A. Sylwester

Wiki-this-
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constamend.htm

"to propose amendments

Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or
Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)"

This is a gifted issues discussion forum. Government of the people, by the people, for the people IS, indeed, everybody's issue. So I guess we can discuss your idea as well. I just have one favor to ask, sir. While most everybody here is, by definition -Gifted (some aren't, only related by marriage , now raising kids ), if you read the forum often you'll notice a lot of members are 2e, gifted plus learning disabled. This includes dyslexia, ADD, plus OAAD, BIS.. If you'll stop to notice it will appear that many of the posts here appear polished, condensed, and to the point. You may think that's because gifted people naturally are quite eloquent, but really, we edit for clarity before posting. Well, at least I do. Shush y'all, yep that great grammar of mine actually is often my polished second draft.

"stream of consciousness posts are difficult to read and digest"
-unknown moderator's advice elsewhere

. Use bullets
. But you still need to consolidate and condense more
. Edit ruthlessly

It's okay to use a couple of paragraphs per thought and to have several thoughts per post, many of us do. If after editing you have separated, catorigized (sic), and clarified your thoughts if it still appears lengthy make two or three consecutive posts, it's easier on the eyes.

I didn't make this up, someone told me something similar. There's nothing unusual about being a prolific writer and having many thoughts on a subject and great inspired tangents, it's just a different format of writing. I still worry if I'm doing it right even though I've seen the formula and it's not rocket science.

You know, I might support an amendment if it required not just male and female but also transgendered justices. And what about women who have a Y chromosome? I think they must have a totally unique perspective as well.

Seriously, what a terrible idea. As much as it pains me to see so few women in the top legal positions in our country, requiring that any particular judge or justice be of any particular gender (or race, or religion, etc.) is simply outrageous. Why not promote gender equality in other ways, such as by mandating more family-friendly labor policies?

I think I have finally hit upon the reasons why this proposal irritates me so much.

First, there is an underlying assumption that women, who have been voting citizens in the US for less than 100 years, and who have made staggering progress on their own during that time, and who comprise the majority of the population, won't be able to rise to the point of rough parity on the Court by virtue of their own work without it being constitutionally mandated.

Second, there is an assumption that there is something called "the feminine perspective" that will be brought to the court by this device, as if what women think about the law and how they would rule is somehow determined by their gender. Just as the individual within-gender IQ differences are far larger than those between the genders as a whole, so the experiences and views of individual women are more different from each other than the experiences and views of women as a group are from men as a group - and we don't appoint groups to the courts, but individuals. Many women I know would suggest that Phyllis Schlafly, for example, wouldn't have done as good a job representing their perspective as Thurgood Marshal did.

I am personally far more concerned with what is above the Justices' robes than what is under them. Their legal philosophy, intelligence, and political independence concern me more, and frankly, have far more relevance to the outlook for women's rights, than their gender does.

Third, I have spent my entire life struggling to seen for who I am as an individual, and to be recognized for what I can do on my own merits, and not as some talking dog, as someone who is worthy of recognition because she can speak well and reason well, not because she can speak and reason at all, and this proposal would really institutionalize the idea that there are separate standards by which men and women should be evaluated at the highest levels of performance.

I hope this clarifies for you why so many women have shown absolutely no interest in what you see as a beneficial proposal.

Getting back to the original theme of this thread, I just read an interesting piece about a fraternity at Yale. As a hazing stunt, a bunch of pledges stood outside a women's dorm shouting "No means yes! Yes means anal!" It went downhill a bit after that. Here's a video describing it.

Even though this stunt has been criticized heavily, some people have excused it (see the YouTube comments).

The thing though, is that it even happened at all and what that says about the attitudes that allow people to dream up ideas like that and then send younger people out to carry out the idea. Women and girls have to put up with this kind of garbage for most of our lives.

Some people at Yale (and elsewhere based on the YouTube comments) thought this stunt was funny or a good idea. It isn't funny. It's disrespectful, it sends a message (well, more than one), and what's worse is that some of the men who dreamed up this idea will go out into the world and work with women and eventually make hiring decisions. I have a hard time believing that people who reach 21 or so and still be so disrespectful will start seeing women as peers and equals when they get jobs in a year or two.

It's easy for some people who aren't affected by this problem to ignore it or claim that it it isn't a problem anymore, so I'll try to put it in perspective. People whose kids aren't gifted can easily ignore the problems experienced by gifted kids. They're doing fine, right? They shouldn't complain.

Discrimination is going to be hidden much of the time when it is present, and I agree that such reports are troubling. When I get some spare time I am going to hunt down the reports Bostonian referenced and see how convincing they are. All I can say is that I take all the reports in this thread at face value, and that I may have been lucky to never have been in a corporate environment (except possibly one) where I felt any sort of gender-based discrimination was even a potential problem, and I've never seen explicit sex discrimination on the job. I've also worked in environments that were quite pro-women.

I hope that at least some of the hazees were inwardly ashamed, and that that shame makes them stronger, better people in the long run. I don't know which is worse, the prejudice or the people that go along with it out of ambition or fear.

I suppose that both are equally bad and they're integral parts of each other. Leaders need followers and followers need leaders.

Dang it. �I just made a post and lost it looking up a song I used to like. �Something about someone is paying for that boy to go to college to GET an Education!, not to make a fool of himself.! �It is college so u got the whole "you got the freedom of speech, not the freedom to not be offended" thing. �But you make a darn good point, Val, that this kid is about to be engaged in business, and quite likely in a position of authority over employees, where there are laws restricting offensive free speech- but not the underlying predjuidice... just the visible display thereof.
Don't worry. �Time is on your side. �

You know, I think it might have a greater effect on men who choose "female" professions. �Somewhere or other I have read that, as a field goes from male-dominated to female-dominated, that the pay and prestige drop. �The drop in pay affects not only the women in the field, but also the men. � [/quote]

The blogosphere concurs, in addition to "rubbing it in" that with modern technology eradicating the need for much labor outside the service industry men are just going to have to adjust. �STEM girls researching and politicking humanitarian women's, somebody got too much time on their hands now we don't have to chase down and club a dinosaur or beat our laundry on a rock.

Yeah that song went, "if I offended you, I'm sorry. But maybe you needed to be offended, �and here's my apology, and one more thing....." lol, Ah. �Memory Lane