Re: "Debian women may leave due to 'sexist' post"
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:39:50AM +0100, Peter Tuhársky wrote:
> A man would usually be a terrible personal assistant (secretary) or
> kindergarden nurse, because men are weak in paralell-tasking, where
> women are strong.
> I found these things to be natural -woman is just naturally better
> equipped for the household and children care, not because "man poses her
> to that pose", but because she really CAN effectively cope with multiple
> tasks at time, e.q. she can cook and guard a child at the same time,
> with ease. Man cannot do that, or only with extreme stress. Give him
> three tasks, he would overburn. Other hand, it is usually harder for a
> woman to keep track for long-term goals, concentrate to single task,
> etc. You can find a paralell in some stone-age image, where man must
> concantrate his conciousness and strength to single task -hunt down an
> animal so to feed his family, although I don't believe in stone-age
> either :-)
If only it was that simple. I'm reading "The Rise and Fall of the Third
Chimpanzee." by Jared Diamond.
An interesting excerpt:
"... That transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture is
generally considered a decisive step in our progress, when we at last
acquired the stable food supply and leisure time prerequisite to the
great accomplishments of modern civilization. In fact, careful
examination of that transition suggests another conclusion: for most
people the transition brought infectious diseases, malnutrition, and a
shorter lifespan. For human society in general it worsened the relative
lot of women and introduced class-based inequality. More than any other
milestone along the path from chimpanzeehood to humanity, agriculture
inextricably combines causes of our rise and our fall."
An interesting read. Highly recommended.
--
Chris.
======
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
-- Stephen F Roberts
Reply to: