Previous posts in this discussion:
PostSocially Conditioned Misogyny? (John Heelan, -UK, 12/02/17 5:53 am)
With respect, Helen Pitlick (2 December) misunderstands me when she writes "John Heelan's and Istvan Simon's statements may seem really innocuous, but they're damaging. It's the packaging of women as both brains and 'eye-candy,' and men debating this." I took pains to emphasise the difference between brains ad eye-candy for that very reason. Or is it that "men debating this" in the male-dominated WAIS forum that bugs her? If so, I agree!
Helen further commented that "women lose out on experiences, and men lose out on our knowledge and perspective. I used to think that sexism would die out with the older generation, but given the current political state, I don't think that's the case."
I agree! The media and the White House persist in "eye-candy" marketing campaigns. At the domestic level Helen can rest assured that surrounded, as I am, by two generations of bright female family members (with Honours degrees some 1st-class), I soon get slapped back into line if I inadvertently step into chauvinism!
JE is right that WAIS needs far more female input to leaven the dough of elderly male opinions.
JE comments: Helen Pitlick was critiquing the very fact that (some, not all) men should be discussing "brains vs looks" when it comes to women. Consider the absurdity of a WAIS thread, say, on the importance of looking beyond Stephen Hawking's physique to appreciate the "knowledge and perspectives" of his mind.
Did I get that right, Helen?
On the other hand, don't (some, not all) women also debate the merits of hunks vs cerebral, geeky dudes? Or what about income? There's something about Zuckerberg's $70 billion that makes him irresistibly hot.