At 08:47 PM 7/15/98 +0400, you wrote:
>Sharon Presley writes:
> > I just joined the list and am jumping into the middle of this particular
> > thread but have some comments for the people who made the following
remarks
> > (and others making a similar claim):
>
>My instant Pavlovian canine's salivation to this: why are the
>extropian women so very consistantly fascinated with the gender
>(non)issue
My instant critical thinking response to this is: Who was it that started this thread about gender? As far as I can tell, it was males.
My instant social psychologist's response is: If you think gender is a non-issue for those who wish to transform their lives in an extropian direction, then you need to get away from your computer, come out of your darkened room and look at the real world around you. Gender stereotypes (often aided and abetted by alleged scientific evidence) have stifled the lives and personalities of both males and females for centuries and ARE STILL DOING SO. Some extropians have made much progress in breaking free of these chains but if you think no extropian has such chains, you are very naive indeed. The question of how much is genetic and how flexible gender roles are is important needed information in understanding how transformations to more balanced, rational and creative lives can be facilitated.
Sharon Presley
Resources for Independent Thinking
http://www.rit.org
P.S. FYI I am also on the Advisory Council for the Extropy Institute
(why, I certainly do see a pattern here, as well to
>the homosexual males' being statistically relevantly overpresented),
>and is this of any (more) relevance to the list than the permanent
>gun(ho)/anti-gun debate?
>
> >
> >
> > [blahblahblah]
>
>Not that I am running the list, or would wish to, or anything. Just curious.
>
>[ducking and running]
>
>'gene
>
>