Danielle,

Who hasn’t clashed with Col on OLO, but why blame him for shortages in female pilots and astronauts? Surely Lisa Nowak and others like her, have exerted more influence to such outcomes than we could realistically credit frolicking Col.

*Women, indeed, have entrepreneurial flair. They can turn an old idea on its head and create something new.*

Danielle, I did not say none existed, just that in comparison to
men, women have not done very well in the entrepreneurial stakes.
Look at the world's top 500 or so entrepreneurs, how many are
women? I'm not saying its good or bad, just that it is so.

I think that there are good reasons for that. Today its pretty
well accepted that the "tabula raza" theory was nonsense.
Behaviour is affected by both genes and environment. What
our ancestors were selected for, still affects us today.
Hormones also affect behaviour and if we land up male
or female, different hormones will be more pronounced in
our endocryne system.

People like Rupert Murdoch, don't go out to work for the
money. Its the buzz they get from winning. Money simply
measures how well they have done. IMHO its still the
hunter gatherer in us. The businessman going out to make
a "killing", the sporting team going out to win a "trophy"

So men are more focussed on business, sport and sex (in general)
and women with all sorts of other stuff.

Thats another reason why I think that men were the hunters and
women picked the berries, not the other way around :)

Vanilla,
"To be honest, I do think HRS is a bit problematic,"

I've never said anything mean and nasty about you, even after you have said many abusive things about me, and I vote you as one of the top three abusive feminists on OLO.

Yabby,
There is possibly another reason why men have been hunters. Eating meat is one of the most efficient ways of getting protein, and also various other essential nutrients such as iron.

Today, men are probably working longer hours in paid work to get essential money, and also pay the essential mortgage.

Bronwyn you haven't convinced me!

although you say that you love and admire men, you give examples of the differences between the play of boys and girls. You said that girls were generally more co-operative.

However research into the bullying behaviour of girls showed that they flew under the radar and that their bullying behaviour was more difficult to detect. One article looked at how girls had adapted their bullying tactics with the use of new technology.

Warren Farrell in one of his books asked a teacher to conduct some research into who hit who and how often. The teacher, I can not remember the exact quote but remember that the teacher after awhile tended not to notice the girls violence.

I personally know of two boys who have been kneed in the testicles by girls and even though it was reported it was ignored. I cannot imagine that it would have been ignored if a boy happened to knee a girl in the labia.

One of the boys reported that he was not the only one it had happened too.

Too call you a supremetist is perhaps a little exaggeration.

The article by Kellie Tranter is described as "Women who speak out for equal rights - the same rights, not special rights - are often described as being 'man-haters', or worse." Looking at the posts from the usual (male) suspects I would have to agree with the article's premise.

Attaching a derogatory label belittles any attempt at meaningful dialog and significant change.

Some of the discussion has been about violence.

I would recommend two pamphlets for people who want to understand the link between the society we live in and violence against women.

They are both by socialists.

Sandra Bloodworth "Rape, Sexual Violence and Capitalism"

Sheila McGregor "Rape, pornography and capitalism