Time Magazine: Man of the Millennium
handleym at ricochet.net
Mon Sep 28 14:32:41 EST 1998
In article <360D5C15.328C9C39 at gmx.de>, Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan at gmx.de> wrote:
> Larry Caldwell wrote:
> > His view may be sexist, but it is also accurate. Maybe by the end of the
> > next millennium, women will have made a more profound contribution to
> > human culture.
> I think they already did make the most profound contribution to human
> culture. It is widely supposed that women invented agriculture, and
> turned a lazy 20-hour-hunting week into an overworked 80-hour-farming
> week. It also took them several thousand years to convince the male part
> of the population that they should work hard, too (in some parts of the
> world, farming is still a women-only job). Short after, the harnessing
> of oxes and horses, the plow, the mill and other aids were invented.
Oh for heavens sake. This is just turning into another self-flagellation
orgy, isn't it? If we're going to go back 10 000 years, why not let's go
back say a few million to the theories that speech started as a by-product
of a larger brain, than came about through the skill of throwing objects,
a skill that, as you have specifically mentioned above, is attributable to
Look I like women, and I like intelligent women. I'd love to see more
women in science for example. But I also love the truth, and I don't think
the truth is served by these ridiculous attempts to rewrite history,
redefine the question or similar such tactics.
Rather than wasting your time, how about accepting for example the obvious
point that, eg, what, 0.1% of the posts on comp.sys.arch are from women.
My opinion only
More information about the Neur-sci