Our good Dr Leslie here, argues for the need to educate girls to learn the ability to reason correctly - to learn the art of logic. She seems concerned that young women aren't thinking their arguments through properly and so she calls on educators to ensure girls learn to be aware of unspoken assumptions and implications.

Unspoken assumptions and implications!

From personal experience, that's something I didn't think girls ever had to be taught. It just seemed to be natural for women to cook up all sorts of crazy notions in their heads any time a man does or doesn't say something.

Anyway, here's the very interesting part of it, she doesn't argue for the need to educate boys in this same way. Why? What are we readers to make of this? What are the unspoken assumptions and implications of this article?

Is she implying the unspoken assumption that boys don't need to learn the ability to reason because logic is an innate masculine trait? Is she saying that boys naturally possess the critical skills of deduction? And is she inferring here too, that girls are lacking in a natural ability to reason?

If we are to assume the answer to these questions is yes, then the truth is that this call to the educators of girls alone is an insult to every woman's intelligence.

Conclusions based on unspoken assumptions and implications aren't logic Dr Leslie, they're imagination.

Dear Enaj
you should know me well enough by now, and have read enough of my posts, to be aware that I'm not opposed to females working and having careers, I totally agree that when the nurturing process is under control, that work and career are fantastic life options.

My opinion is this. Its not realistic for most women (I say most because without 'most' having children, we will definitly die out) to see 'career' in the same way a man might, where the maximum advancement in that career will usually require on going and uninterupted committment and physical presense.

I would emphasise, that a life for most women in this order would be more socially appropriate:

1/ A good education, but one which definitely includes specific 'nurture related' subjects. (which may include home ec. Health medical, creative use of everyday chemicals for household purposes and psychology)
2/ Work for a time, then Family, Children (if possible).
3/ Either Career/work or community related activities.

At the same time, I believe that we should be teaching MEN, about family responsibility, committment, and the values which make a good family run well.. so I'd again use the education medium to provide subjects related to the male role.

As a Christian, I would prefer to see the underlying values come through in all the above being.

Wives, respect your husbands
Husbands, love your wives as yourselves.

I am of the opinion, that the male should be the guiding hand in a marraige, but anyone who did that without the benefit and insight of another person, (his boss .. the wife :) would be a fool.

I don't think the last 2 paras could ever occurr unless females specifically looked for a man they could feel comfortable with as their guide, and so this comes back to social values and 'what we should look for in a partner'.

leslie - 'On merit alone'?
You seem to be assuming that the same number of women desire to go into the field and aspire to those positions. Until you support this assumption, the options you have given about how 'on merit alone' is insulting are incomplete.

The fact that you also admit that "there is evidence to suggest that young women are less ambitious than their mothers when it comes to work and family" seems to indicate you know this assumption is shaky.

I have often wondered about the principles and attitudes of certain academics in our education system. The author starts the article condemning the “stereotyping” of women.

Eg
“For a government to imply this suggests either that gender-based stereotypes about women’s intellectual and moral inferiority are alive and well, or that most women really do - when matched against men on a level playing field - come up short.”

After this, the author then precedes to carry out stereotyping and generalisations of men.

Eg
“And if women’s disproportionate shouldering of the second shift and the consequent difficulties they - but not their male partners…”
“assumption that men and the workplace aren’t going to change…”
“or are clear about the acceptance of do-nothing attitude of men…”

Leslie Cannold has written much about gender issues, but she appears to be yet another academic feminist that will rarely (if ever) have anything positive to say about the male gender. Just stereotyping and generalised demeaning, maligning remarks about males, but she does not seem to see this as “evidence of institutional discrimination” against men. Instead she only sees “evidence of institutional discrimination” against women.

It all reminds me of this comment by Kathleen Parker

Men haven't turned away from smart, successful women because they're smart and successful. More likely they've turned away because the feminist movement that encouraged women to be smart and successful also encouraged them to be hostile and demeaning to men.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/kathleenparker/2005/11/02/173922.html

Maybe feminists could set aside one day of the year to say something positive and pleasant about the male gender. This would be something very different from feminists, and so many people in so many different countries might begin to think differently of feminists also.

Welcome back Timken. It's been dull around here without you.

BOAZ_David does the boss see your posts before you submit them?

In Australia there have always been 2 groups with lower marriage rates - the low status, low paid men and well educated, high status women. Your assumption that there is a man out there for every Australian woman to respect just flies in the face of reality. Do you want to return to the good old days? My mother studied physiotherapy with women who had left school to work in offices in the 1930’s while their less academically able brothers were shepherded through school and university. These women’s salvation was the war, they enlisted and upon war’s end they took the opportunity to go to university and gain qualifications.

This article is about the appointment of a woman to the High Court of Australia. As law relies on intellect rather than brawn the surprise is why aren’t there more women on the High Court. Is this because the justices on the High Court bench need intellect and a solid professional track record? In most Australian families the woman is expected to support the husband and rear the children and this means their professional career has a big dint in it.

If we think its relevant for the High Court to represent a gender balanced view then there should be positive discrimination towards able women who mightn’t have the professional track record.

Most women want their children to achieve their full potential, not be forced to settle for stunted lives because girls are restricted to these narrow roles, or there aren’t enough resources to allow the child to develop to their potential.

Honestly BOAZ_David would you want to commit your life to raising 2 or 3 children when there is every chance an Australian woman will live 100 years? Rearing 15 children would be more absorbing. Rearing children should be part of life’s rich tapestry and women shouldn’t have to choose between career or children.