brain sizes: Einstein's and women's
johnknight at usa.com
Thu Aug 22 22:56:34 EST 2002
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message news:<hmg9muk32u5abor4vbf4lv0ahu5n55jve4 at 4ax.com>...
> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
> >A fellow officer got a Gold Medal at an Olympic event. There was another
> >Gold Medal winner in the same event who got a Gold Medal, who scored 32%
> >higher. There were 9 other men in this event who all scored more than 30%
> >higher; one got a Silver Medal, one got a Bronze Medal, and 7 got no medals.
> >I'll bet you know why this fellow officer got a Gold medal, while the 7
> >contestants who scored more than 30% higher got no medal?
> They were in different competitions. You've already pulled this
> Olympic diving stuff out before. Olympic diving is rated by judges
> subjectively, and on different parameters for the two genders. If
> they wanted head to head competition, there would be head to head
It's not clear yet why you want to continue to ignore the main point
of that post, but we're getting closer, eh?
The POINT is that the only reason the 9 men who outperformed this
fellow officer by more than 30% did NOT get a Gold Medal is *because*
they were MEN. No other reason.
The only reason this fellow officer got a Gold Medal even though 9
other contestants outperformed her by a large margin is *because* she
is a woman. No other reason.
This is plain and simple *sexual discrimination*, and nothing else.
What exactly do you think was accomplished by this *sexual
discrimination*? Were American women somehow improved by giving a
Gold Medal to someone who didn't even come close to the 9 men? No.
Was it fair to the men? Absolutely not. Did it enhance or enrich the
Olympic events in some way? No, if anything, it discredited them.
You can't name one single benefit from this *sexual discrimination*,
can you? You know that there were many problems with it, but we know
that you can't name a single off-setting benefit to anyone.
More information about the Neur-sci