Thought provoking, even if highly flawed

What did you find "highly flawed"? (I'm not agreeing, nor disagreeing, just curious)

Very Highly Flawed: That means that if we want to achieve our ideal of equal salaries for men and women, we may need to legislate the principle of equal pay for less work. Personally, I support that principle. But I recognize it?s a hard sell.

Equal Pay for Less Work? What a terribly stupid idea.

Personally, I found his ideal (to him) that women are less likely to innovate wrong and disturbing. Try this, euqally sexist remark: Generally, women have less time to innovate, are withheld credentials to innovate, are cubbyholed into odd corners where their innovation is less likely to be appreciated or noticed, but otherwise innovate more hours of the day no matter what their station in life than men, who are more often recognized for whatever little innovation they achieve or purport ot achieve.

Yeah, I found several contentious, and sexist assertions sneaking in the text, but I found the parts about evolutionary rewards for risk-taking males, and those asserting the reproductive potential of males to be lower than females interesting. The latter was new to me. The former would explain some of my behavior as a kid...

The other part I sort of knew, but which he elaborated, is the predominance of males at both ends of several spectrums, e.g. I didn't know more men where 'retarded'.

It's quite obvious you didn't read the article you f****ng simpleton. One note Donny.

"Almost everybody likes women better than men. I certainly do."

--

With regard to the author's above and below statements, I offer this link:

Like I said, flawed. The one that bugged me was

"We know from the classical music scene that women can play instruments beautifully, superbly, proficiently - essentially just as well as men. They can and many do. Yet in jazz, where the performer has to be creative while playing, there is a stunning imbalance: hardly any women improvise. Why?"

Ask Colleen:

This part makes my head hurt:

"Today's human population is descended from twice as many women as men."

I guess it's like compound interest ; )

"Elliot T. Hill" wrote in news:wZOdnawAU7W7NnzbnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

Just curious - why is it simple-minded to say that individuals oughtto be taken on their own merits, rather than being shoved into thisor that arbitrary group and then defined en masse...?

Elliot T. Hill might miss the irony/(or ironies) of his own post:

One or two of them could be the frequency of his participation on alt.arch versus Don's, versus, say, the "constructive" quality of his post. While I don't like to lob negative labels about, I think Don could lob one back in his court without thinking (Sarcastic [oh oh] pun intended-- in jest of course.) ;D