Re: Camp Ground Electricity and Your RV


"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1123432160.509013.96460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Mike Simmons wrote:
>> "Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@xxxxxxx> wrote
>> > can...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >More women aren't in math and science because their male teachers,
>> >> >male
>> >> >counselors, and male classmates belittle them and discourage them at
>> >> >every turn. Think a bit about the power of the self-fulfilling
>> >> >prophesy.
>> >>
>> >> Success in any field by women depends on the person, not on outside
>> >> influences. If you want something bad enough you'll find a way but if
>> >> you accept the 'it's a man's world' cliche, you'll end up just another
>> >> woman dependant on a man for everything important.
>> >
>> > I see. I gather that Canoli thinks it's OK to encourage men to follow
>> > a particular career path, and reward them for doing so, while
>> > discouraging and penalizing women with the same goals. Canoli sure
>> > doesn't believe in equal opportunity.
>> >
>> > One wonders how many of the men would have overcome equivalent
>> > obstacles.
>> >
>> >> Trying to pass off a lack of achievement because of male chauvinism is
>> >> pure feminist BS, another crutch or excuse for lack of desire,
>> >> enthusiasm, or talent.
>> >
>> > That's true in a few cases, false in the overwhelming majority of
>> > cases.
>> >
>> >> You forgot to add a paragraph or two on how the male world is all
>> >> about dominating women: wouldn't be complete unless you found an
>> >> external reason for not being successful.
>> >
>> > Domination is the wrong term which is, no doubt, why Canoli chose it.
>> > Historically, it's been more about (but not ALL about) preventing head
>> > to head competition with men. I'll let Canoli try to explain why men
>> > would fear such competition and why many women have accepted such
>> > artificial limitations.
>> >
>> > If Canoli does try, I'd advise him to start with his bible or koran,
>> > whichever book he prefers.
>> >
>> > No amount of desire, enthusiasm, or talent will get a woman a job as a
>> > taxi driver in Saudi Arabia, and only very recently and very
>> > occasionally will desire, enthusiasm, and talent produce a job as a
>> > race car driver in the United States.
>
>> Jenny, if you will take your FemiNazi blinders off ...
>
> Perhaps Janet was right, at least about one male. Mike seems unable to
> resist the urge to namecall.

Not name calling, just using the term to point out your idiocy.
>
>> ... you will find that males
>> require desire, enthusiasm and talent to be selected as race car driver's
>> too.
>
> Well, 50% of race drivers aren't female. AFAIK, there's only one.

If your knowledge was truly all encompassing, you would know that there are
many more female drivers than one. Danielle Patrick just received a huge
amount of notoriety due to her success at the Indy 500. Also, what
occupation can you think of that has a 50-50 split male/female? Is that
your ultimate criteria? Every occupation must be split equally, male and
female?


Are
> you suggesting that only one woman in the United States has the
> desire, enthusiasm and talent to compete in that job? If not, then
> they aren't being hired for other reasons.
>
>> Can you not acknowledge and accept that there _ARE_ differences in the
>> sexes?
>
> Of course there are. However, the ability to drive a race car isn't
> among them.

You are correct, the ability is the same, male or female. I would submit
however that the desire amongst females is not there... not a societal
conspiracy as you would believe, just a natural inclination of little boys
who like to go vroom... vroom.

Neither are the desire, enthusiasm and talent necessary to
> succeed in most of the jobs in which women are nevertheless way
> underrepresented.

Just because they are under represented, doesn't mean that there is a
conspiracy or that society is forcing females to choose certain occupations.
You are truly a dumb*** if you believe this.

>
>> There is no societal conspiracy against women, at least not here in
>> the US.
>
> There's no active conspiracy, except as noted below, just the
> accumulation of hard-to-change cultural attitudes.

Why do attitudes need to change? Just to satisfy your arbitrary desire for
a fifty-fifty split with all occupations? Accept the fact that we are
different! You should be able to see quite plainly that societies attitudes
will not change to your whim, otherwise we would all be strippers!


>
>> There are just differences as God intended.
>
> Few of which disqualify women from the myriad of jobs from which they
> are excluded or in which they are hugely underrepresented.

There is a huge difference between exclusion and underrepresentation. Show
me an example of an individual (names please) who was excluded from an
occupation for which she was well qualified and trained to do.
>
> All the rest of the allegedly "god-intended" differences are from a
> couple of very old compilations of this and that -- all of which were
> written by men.

Which compilations, I might ask? Which men? Even Marilyn Vos Savant who is
acknowledged by society as the world's most intelligent person by virtue of
her stellar IQ acknowledges the biological and psychological differences in
mean and women. If she can, why can you?
>
>> The president of Harvard attempted to acknowledge this ...
>
> IIRC, he claims he didn't even do that. He claims he just tried to
> generate discussion leading toward a serious inquiry. However, as I
> recall his remarks, he didn't do a very good job of choosing his words
> -- as your interpretation of his remarks demonstrates.
>
>> ... and was skewered by the FemiNazi's.
>
> Once again, you're incapable of rational discussion. You have no
> points to make. You just call names.

OK, what would you call the radical feminists who insist there there is
overt discrimination in our society.... normal?

Jeesh, you are a mindless twit with whom I shan't waste any more time.

Mike

>
>>
>> Mike
>
> :-)
>
> Jenny
>


.