Dear dane,

Can you explain to me what was so hot about putting men on the moon - excepting some useful technology that was developed along the way, I can't see that it was a particularly useful endeavour. Seems to me that that particular exercise was more about trumping the Russians than anything else.

dane, ditto to the previous comments by pelican and Suzie.

Given the traditional roles at the time it was mostly women who nurtured and did most of the upbringing of the children who became the scientists and engineers who put men on the moon.

You might also have a look at http://sciencewomen.blogspot.com/2009/08/women-of-apollo-program.html

and http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/bios/women/a.whitaker.html

and http://womensphilanthropy.typepad.com/stephaniedoty/2010/02/notable-women-in-black-history-evelyn-boyd-granville.html

Maybe an apology to the women you have belittled with those comments would be in order.

R0bert

My point is that if women are equal then why do they need this enormous superstructure supporting their 'equality'?

The point that Warwick is alluding to but unwilling to spell out is that men do worse than women on so many indicators because society values them less than women. Russian women fought and died on the front lines 60 years ago. This week we've had two young men die in Afganistan. Where are the feminists asking why it's men not women dying?

Women live 6 years longer than men. For many years men worked longer than women even though they lived shorter lives. Well, if women are equal why don't we split the difference. Say make retirement for women 70. Wouldn't that be fair?

Of course, that would never happen. Because the corollary of Warwick's agrument is that women value themselves much higher than men. They don't match themselves against the universe (Poirot: they can't even imagine why you would want to put that long life expectancy at risk), they match themselves against men. So long as do better than men then thay are happy.

When women have the wonder, imagination and abilty to put themselves against the universe (and are willing to pay for it) then I might begin to think we are equal.

robert,

I don't like being personal but you really are pathetic. I'd put money on it that you are one of these men who run around doing two jobs and all the housework while your wife sits on her arse watching TV and telling her friends how you split the housework equally. Well, if that gives you a warm inner glow - fine, but don't try telling other men they ought to be conned too.

dane some more light reading

http://www.graduatingengineer.com/articles/19980315/Women-Engineers-Make-Their-Mark

http://www.bukisa.com/articles/101408_women-scientists-of-the-20th-century

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pre-21st-century_female_scientists

Now imagine what might have been if Mr and Mr's Grundy had not been so busy ensuring that a woman's place was in the home whether she liked it or not.

R0bert

The attitudes that dane expresses about women are positively Neanderthal. I'm not at all surprised that his version of "masculinity" is in crisis, since it has no place in 21st century Australian society.

I wonder if he has calluses on his knuckles?