Hedy Lamarr:Silly Bimbo? Or Inventor? Nobody Answers Elder George
Nobody Answers: Last week I promised to get back to Elder George on whether Hedy Lamarr, actually should get any credit for inventing anything besides thinking up a name to replace her real one, which was, Hedwig Eva Maria Kiesler.
And before I start, I must admit my egregious error in calling Hedy a “blond” bimbo. She was no such thing. She was, as Elder George remembered her perfectly, a stunning raven-haired beauty. A beauty who said, “Any girl can be glamorous, all you have to do it stand still and look stupid.”
Well, easy for her to say. I stand still and look stupid all the time, it doesn't make me glamorous.
Last week, my “genius” friend, Jack Lander, who himself has 11 patents, is an established engineer, and actually works with inventors in developing their products, got back to me.
Jack goes around the country and sets up whole factories, and designs the machines in them. Trust me, Jack knows his stuff.
He also has been writing for Inventor’s Digest as their technical advisor for years.
Because he is a “man” and therefore might beg more credence with Elder George than anything I might say, I quote him here:
*******
“Yes, as far as we know, Hedy did invent a radio-control device for torpedoes. Her husband at the time was a manufacturer of torpedoes, and one of the problems was that those that were radio controlled could be driven off course by transmitters on the target ship. It was easy to locate the control frequency, and then send a counter signal, etc. (not the composer)
Hedy came up with the idea of using a second frequency, quite low, maybe even in the sound range, to alter the torpedo’s radio frequency. The second frequency was a synchronized between the transmitter and the receiver on the torpedo. Essentially, it was frequency modulation—a kind of vibrato that caused the radio frequency to wander all over the place, but in perfect sync between transmitter and receiver.
I doubt Hedy worked out the exact circuitry. (As do I.) She most likely invented the concept, and had an electronics specialist work out the tuning mechanism. But she deserves the lion’s share of the credit because one requirement for a patent is that the device not be obvious to anyone skilled in the art. Once the technician had a definition of what Hedy wanted, the rest is routine (obvious to one skilled in the art of making radio transmitters and receivers). But the concept of a synchronized wandering radio frequency was not obvious to the technicians and engineers or they would have thought of it first.
Lots of women are excellent inventors, and it’s only that they’ve come to accept the myth of male superiority in the area of inventing that holds them back.
I recently read an account of how tryouts used to be done for musicians to be hired for symphony orchestras. Inevitably the men were picked, and only if no men were available might a woman have a chance. Then, an orchestra was looking for a cello player, I believe, and the directors’ daughter was such a player. To make sure that there was no favoritism shown, they had the players play behind a screen. And the young woman was chosen over a number of men. This was a revelation, and certain orchestras began using it (grudgingly) for all tryouts. Today, there is little prejudice in the selection of such musicians, and we see a good mix of men and woman—young and old—white, black and Asian.
There was a time when women couldn’t own property. Apparently intellectual property was included. A woman who invented something traditionally surrendered it to her husband to patent as the inventor. One such woman invented a feather duster, which was challenged in court. When her husband had to testify about the invention, he fell on his butt, and it came out that it was his wife’s invention.
Finally, one of our “great American heroes,” Eli Whitney, didn’t invent the cotton gin engine at all. He went to work as a tutor for the kids of a Civil War general who died in action. The wife invented the cotton gin, and showed it to Whitney, who eventually fraudulently patented it.”
*******
There you go. Jack presents us with some very interesting facts.
Nevertheless, in agreement with EG, history reports that not many women ever did anything worth of reporting, at least in inventions.
But, could it be that history was mostly written by men? (Yes.)
We will never know just how many women thought up great ideas, only to have them made by their husbands. Certainly, the record would report at least a few more “ideas” from women than we know.
That’s why it’s so important for all the fathers out there to encourage any daughter that has a proclivity that seems to aim toward a “manly” subject, I say—give her a chance.
So, Mr. Elder: If a man had thought of this idea…would he be given the fame for the concept, even if he had to hire an engineer to work out his designs in his head?
That’s what all inventors do. They come up with stuff that no one has thought of before, (not obvious to one skilled in the art) and if they do not have the “mechanical” expertise to make it, they hire a prototype maker, and explain the concept in drawings. Even Bill Gates did not “build” his many concepts.
The main point as Jack points out, is that no one else had thought of the idea…but Hedy did.
Most artists and creative people will tell you that sometimes, ideas just seem to come out of space….and these “ideas” do not care if you are a man or women.
So Mr. George…I said I’d get back to you…what do you think?
I would also like to thank Jack Lander for taking the time to give me his expert “opinion.”
Nobody’s Perfect: Hedy was married six times. She said in response to her bad record: “I must quit marrying men who feel inferior to me. Somewhere there must be a man who could be my husband and not feel inferior. I need a superior inferior man.” (Amfortas, where were you?)
Nobody Knows; Jack Lander not only has talent in the field of inventing, he has just written a fabulous book called “Not in This Desert.” It’s not in the stores…YET…but it really is an outstanding first novel. I’ll let you know when it comes out. I’ve had a peek at it…lucky me.
Nobody Cares; Because I had a mother who ran a printing company, with thirty employees underneath her…and she could do every job in the plant but lift the paper to feed into the press…
And because I, her daughter, worked in over forty bands, (As a drummer) which consisted of all male musicians…and they always hired me because I was usually the best out of the pick of tryouts…
It’s very hard for me not to believe that women cannot compete with men. (In some jobs of course.)
And that’s why I agree with Jack—Hedy Lamarr was the sole inventor of the idea.
And that’s why she gets the credit, by most all the experts. If the men at Boeing thought she was pretty smart, then who is this nobody to argue?
Stumble It!
Posted in: Vox Populi | 82 views
Comments • comment feed
the presence of an execption has never negated a rule in general
July 7th, 2007
Joyanna: EG pitched a fast ball, and you belted it clean out of the park.
Now, when you stroll around the baseball diamond in your high-heeled cleats, make sure – when you get to home plate – that you stop for a moment, stand still, and try to look stupid long enough for EG to get the point.
And for me to snap a few pictures — for the archives.
July 7th, 2007
men/women have differents strenghts that complement one another…the (new genderless society) will try to prove otherwise ….
July 7th, 2007
ESTHER VILAR….”the manipulated male”….
Vilar’s intention is not misogonous : she maintains that:
“only if women and men look at their place in society with honesty, will there by any hope for change”…
July 7th, 2007
I love the way that Ms. Adams airily dismisses the people who have to work out the details. She shows the makings of a true executive. Thomas Edison, who knew a little bit about inventing things, once said, “Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration.” In this case I guess we can give Hedy Lamarr credit for being one percent of a genius.
July 7th, 2007
Note GVrooman, comment #5 above.
Someone has to have the first idea. This is the point the EG has missed. Human ideation of the sort evinced by Hedi Lemar is rare among both men and women.
It’s obvious that the engineering profession is dominated by men. But higher-level conceptualization is the province of a generalist, not a common engineer.
July 7th, 2007
Joyanna wrote: “Lots of women are excellent inventors, and it’s only that they’ve come to accept the myth of male superiority in the area of inventing that holds them back.”
Male superiority in this area is no myth. Count the inventions made by men and compare them to the number made by women. There is probably well over 99 inventions made by men for every 1 made by a woman. This just goes to show that no matter how much evidence there is for male superiority in some area, a feminist will always dispute it with a few isolated counter examples, usually ones that are distorted to “prove” what they want to prove.
The truth is that most women are mechanically inept.
To an engineer like myself, Hedy’s idea is nothing spectacular. Generating such concepts is a lot easier than making them work. Making them work might be considered “routine” to those who have never done it, but the devil is in the details. Any engineer should be able to come up with way more ideas than he has time to work out the details for. Hedy got the men to do most of the work, showing she couldn’t invent anything on her own.
If her husband wasn’t already established, nobody would have listened to her ideas anyway, so she was riding on his coattails. And only through her husband did she become aware of the urgent need for such an invention. If the need for an invention is recognized, the battle is half won before a solution is even thought of.
In addition to being mechanically inept, few women have the guts to take the risks that inventing often involves, the persistence to stick it out through the hard tedious work, the endurance to put in the long hours, and the courage to buck the trend and stick it out when everyone ridicules what they “know” is a stupid idea that will never work. Hedy just did the easy part. Big deal.
You didn’t hit a home run Joyanna, you struck out. (Women can’t play baseball well either).
The next thing you know they will claim that women can compete with men at sports and use some freak of nature like Michelle Wie as their “proof”. Fine. Let the men compete in the women’s tournaments and we’ll see how well the average woman does. The women will all be driven out of the top competitions in no time.
So there ARE differences between men and women. Thank God.
July 7th, 2007
Joyanna wrote:
“Hedy was married six times. She said in response to her bad record: ‘I must quit marrying men who feel inferior to me. Somewhere there must be a man who could be my husband and not feel inferior. I need a superior inferior man.’ ”
Anybody could make a statement like that. What does that prove? Maybe she had an ego problem. Maybe she only picked losers.
Well I’ve never been married but I’ve dated scores of women and I’ve never met one who was my equal either.
You all believe me, right?
July 7th, 2007
OMFG! All this over E.G. makng a general point.
This again proves that someone does not get the POINT and that Feminized Communication rules. Even on MND.
Gads!
July 7th, 2007
thurston861 said:
MLS responds: I know you are, but what am I?
July 7th, 2007
I think it’s bit silly to post on this thread with a chip on your shoulder.
Yes, there are notable differences between the brains of men and women. Yes, men predominate in both engineering and conceptual invention.
Joyanna’s essay does not try to prove otherwise.
Instead, she is posing what appears to be a legitimate question: have men been ever credited for the ideas or the work of their wives? (If so, then how often does this sort of thing happen?)
It’s a fair question, and she has provided a worthy answer.
On the other hand, it’s no use at all – even un-American – to deny an individual the credit for invention solely on the basis of their not being from the statistically correct gender.
Even an engineer can’t flatten a bell curve.
July 7th, 2007
To Joanna,
Below is the comment you made about Hedy’s invention in my article Points and Pictures.
“Okay…got a cellphone? You can thank Hedy Lamarr. ( Yes, the blond bombshell) She invented a wireless communication system…where radio frequencies would pulsate at irreglar intervals between transmission and receptors. It was first used during the Cuban Missle Crisis. This “conceptual” invention has galvanized the digital.com boom forming the backbone of all your wireless new tech toys, fax machines…cell phones…she got a patent in 1941.”
The comment you made about her invention in this article states as follows:
“Yes, as far as we know, Hedy did invent a radio-control device for torpedoes. Her husband at the time was a manufacturer of torpedoes, and one of the problems was that those that were radio controlled could be driven off course by transmitters on the target ship. It was easy to locate the control frequency, and then send a counter signal, etc. (not the composer)
Now it’s a big difference between inventing a radio control device for torpedos and something that was responsible for the digital.com boom. Then we find that her husband really developed it. The authenticity for her involvement from your friend is “as far as we know.” And finally you ignored my reference to Nicola Tesla.
You stretched the truth beyond reasonable limits. Real men—not wimps—would call this a lie.
Now again I ask you to list one conceptual invention made by a woman, not her husband, boyfriend, lover, or company.
Just imagine the ecstasy that it will produce in some of the readers.
July 7th, 2007
“You stretched the truth beyond reasonable limits. Real men—not wimps—would call this a lie.”
A “real man”, I would argue, would not stoop to insulting the manhood of his intellectual opponents.
July 7th, 2007
thurston861 said:
Shame on you, brother.
But there is a solution! You are invited to migrate to EG’s website at mensaction.net. I am certain he will welcome you.
Good luck.
Mike
July 7th, 2007
godless men worship women…
Its seems alot of men in America are godless, and have sought to make the women into a sort of god…
Please..for the sake of the world, and the rest of humanity…realise women are not gods..let them be fully human, and hence fallable like the rest of us..
women have their strenghts and weaknesses
men have their strenghts and weaknesses..deal with it!!
July 7th, 2007
thurston861 said:
Duly noted. Now please flock away to EG’s website. All of your future posts will be deleted.
July 7th, 2007
I find it remarkable that the premise of this thread – that some woman somewhere made a significant contribution to modernity – has been morphed into “godless men worship women…”
Admitting that some women somewhere are positive contributors to humanity is hardly the equivalent of “worshiping women.”
Get a grip.
July 7th, 2007
I never denied some women somewhere are positive contributors to society..
I’m pointing out the men who go out of their way, manipulate truths, distort figures to prove women are equal to men in all areas of life..which simply is not the case..
I do not prescribe to the new genderless society…
And yes, it is mostly godless men, who in turn try to make women into their gods; who are the truth manipulators for the new genderless society..
there are many women who make many sacrifices for their children/ and society.
July 7th, 2007
Well, the ball was pitched and a fair hit followed. The crowd boo’d; several shouted, “Oh well done that Gal with the drumsticks”. But there’s a lot more runs to get before the game is settled.
‘Real men’ don’t whack the ball like that, indeed. EG that’s a low one. But it opens the game up a bit. So, there are unreal men who don’t invent? Care to give a proportion for us. No lies now.
But the batter hits wild too. History is written by men, is it, Joy? There has been enough time since ‘Liberation’ for a book or two (half the authors today are women and the richest one is too) by women itemising all their fellowesses inventions. I don’t see it on the shelf.
Mike is getting shirty at thurston who is uniformly screwy, Mike, and insults everyone. He is trying to start a hooligan riot in the crowd. Wind your neck in Thurston or the crowd will turn on you. Try a mexican wave instead, there’s a good fellow. Even if its a wave goodbye.
I like splendid women, smart women, clever women, women with flair. Where was I asks Joy. I was a twinkle in my daddy’s eye but thanks for the thought, Joy. Had the timing been even a little different, she could have had a willing accomplice in a baby-snatching sortie.
Come on everyone. The Point of the game is the game (unless you’ve bet your house on it).
July 7th, 2007
Then why has this thread touched off so much defensiveness?
This is MND. We take no prisoners here. I don’t care who you think you are. Everyone and everything is subject to deconstruction – including the emotional piffle written by some posters here.
I repeat for the general benefit: get a grip. And keep your rage in a cage where it belongs.
July 7th, 2007
mike…we all know thurston and his loose canon out of control ways…
you had to do what you had to do…you did warn him a few times!!!
thurston for future reference…youre hasty attacks are counter productive!!!and annoying!!
July 7th, 2007
Sometimes all it takes is a fresh perspective of an outsider looking inside the box to make a difference…I intentionally and rather successfully use this concept to my own advantage as often as possible at work…
On the other hand Mike if you and Glenn are heading in the direction of an equal rights movement composed of both men and women then a name change and a new mission statement is in order…
Joi most of the inventions we take for granted today (washing machines, microwave ovens etc.) were invented by males to make the lives of women easier…However, it was the feminine genders response to willingly pervert thier newfound freedom by seeking the financial destruction of the men in their lives and offer up their own children as living sacrifices to their false goddess…Nor were they led astray as like my own mother who has been married nine (yes 9) times eagerly with both malice and forethought leaped with their eyes wide open into the cauldron of social change with the intention of enslaving the male gender (mainly homesexuals) while doing away with the rest of those who resist their depradations…
BTW These inventions along with the tv dinner do have a downside which is that they also tend to make women necessary since they allow men to take care of themselves without having to bother with an ill tempered female…
July 7th, 2007
The following statement posted above shound have read:
BTW These inventions along with the tv dinner do have a downside which is that they also tend to make women unnecessary since they allow men to take care of themselves without having to bother with an ill tempered female…
And to make myself a little more clearer:
Years ago I came across the quote of a feminist posted on a mens site that declared that the male gender should be reduced to 10% of its current population which is a declaration of intentional genicide…It is my view that when the feminists begin to carry this out it will only be the male homosexuals who will be allowed to live as the defacto slaves of the feminine gender….
July 7th, 2007
dapoet “On the other hand Mike if you and Glenn are heading in the direction of an equal rights movement composed of both men and women then a name change and a new mission statement is in order”…
At this point of the game their needs to be mensrights organizations and think tanks to offset the anti-male destruction of the last 40 years…
July 7th, 2007
(Mike L. ) — “This is MND. We take no prisoners here. I don’t care who you think you are. Everyone and everything is subject to deconstruction – including the emotional piffle written by some posters here.
I repeat for the general benefit: get a grip. And keep your rage in a cage where it belongs.”
Mike, the rage too needs to be deconstructed. Also the cage that makes it seem like unacceptible expression.
You are starting to get it….
What your dangerous MND enterprise promises….
July 7th, 2007
You know, Mike?
I have absolutely no permission to comment , but —
In light of the fantastic success of MND et. al.
You seem like a guy who is holding the lion’s mouth open, and shouting into its throat to demand that the beast please just be polite…..
That’s my metaphor for MND.
Shouting into a terribly dangerous reality, to appeal for manners.
Of course, I could well be incorrect.
July 7th, 2007
Joyanna – you’re correct. Hedy Lamarr is credited with the frequency hopping technique used both by those old torpedoes and (in a more sophisticated manner) in todays’ CDMA- and GSM-based cell phones. And just because she didn’t solder the circuit boards doesn’t mean she didn’t invent the concept. That is a specific case.
E.G.- you’re correct. Most new concepts spring from the minds of men. This is an easily verifiable statistic. That is the general case.
The two of you are arguing on two different levels.
thurston861 and Mike LaSalle – both of you have been descending into the childish arena of character assasination, name-calling, and cross-posting (the blog equivalent of the wife dragging up old sins in a new argument). (And not just on Joyanna’s blog) Yes, thurston started it, and yes, he’s been pretty vicious. But Mike, you are lowering yourself to his level. A poor example from anyone, but especially someone of your position.
thurston861 – Those who resort to name-calling and angry tirades are rarely taken seriously by others. Some here seem to think you ‘re incapable of mature and thoughtful responses. I think you’re capable of much better, and I’d love to see you prove them wrong.
Mike – I’ve been rather disappointed in the decline of mature content presented in some of your recent posts here on MND. IMHO, it lowers your credibility, and sets a bad example for all posters here. Hey, it’s your circus. I’m just throwing my “2 cents” in.
Joyanna – I want to end this on a positive note. I always enjoy your articles, even on the rare occasions I disagree with you. Keep up the good work. Here’s one nobody who believes you are a positive influence on MND.
July 7th, 2007
“Mike – I’ve been rather disappointed in the decline of mature content presented in some of your recent posts here on MND.”
I am endeavoring to be even-tempered in the face of such extreme reaction.
Your allegations about the “decline of mature content” etc appear specious since you have provided no evidence to support the claim.
July 7th, 2007
Here is what Wikipedia says about Hedy in the article “Hedy Lamarr”
>
E.G. wrote: “Now again I ask you to list one conceptual invention made by a woman, not her husband, boyfriend, lover, or company.”
Since Hedy did not invent it alone, it seems to be unclear what role she played.
July 7th, 2007
Oops: quotes inside double angle brackets don’t work on this site, so here is the Wikipedia article quote on Hedy again.
Hedy Lamarr (under her then-married name of Hedy Kiesler Markey) and composer George Antheil received U.S. Patent 2,292,387 for their Secret Communication System on August 11, 1942. This early version of frequency hopping used a piano roll to change between 88 frequencies and was intended to make radio-guided torpedoes harder for enemies to detect or jam. This idea was controversial and ahead of its time and technology. The technology was not implemented until 1962, when it was used by U.S. military ships during a blockade of Cuba,[3] after the patent had expired. Neither Lamarr nor Antheil made any money from the patent. Perhaps due to this lag in development, the patent was little-known until 1997, when the Electronic Frontier Foundation gave Lamarr an award for this contribution.[1]
Lamarr’s frequency-hopping idea served as the basis for modern spread-spectrum communication technology used in devices ranging from cordless telephones to WiFi Internet connections. The technology in particular that is often attributed to her and George Antheil is CDMA.[4]
Lamarr wanted to join the National Inventors Council but she was told that she could better help the war effort by using her celebrity status to sell War Bonds. She once raised $7,000,000 at just one event.
July 7th, 2007
This thread has got to be simply insanity. The male egos and testosterone are producing an excellent example of why the history of the men’s movement is to form circular firing squads.
No question that women are positive contributors to humanity and CAN BE effective engineers and scientist.
The issue is what women choose to pursue; the desire to reproduce or simply get laid or the desire to compete with males intellectually. Like it or not, women that choose to demonstrate their ability to intellectually achieve have few choices in men. Women are naturally complements to men and when they choose to become competitors, they often end up in a self destructive cycle. Contrary to politically correct thinking, women can’t have their cake and eat it too.
Joyanne made her point quite effectively and instigated a dialoged to be avoided by wise men.
“Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving in words evidence of the fact.” – George Eliot
July 7th, 2007
Before I begin, my comments here are my own interpretation of Elder’s message.
MLS — You asked about defensiveness? It’s all from Joyanna.
Here’s a timeline for those who haven’t followed the step-by-step as I have.
Elder’s original post is here, dated 06/28/2007.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/06/28/pictures-and-points/
Thesis: The masculine gender invents, while the feminine gender reacts to masculine inventions.
Problem: When the masculine gender tries to invent within a highly-feminized arena, his inventive processes are hampered by the feminine nature’s NEED FOR REASSURANCE AND EXPLANATION.
Possible Solution for Masculine Inventors: Separate yourself from feminine INSECURITY and align yourself with people who are just as inventive as you are. By doing this, your inventive energies will be freed from feminine manipulation. You’ll almost certainly feel energized, powerful, and FREE.
Joyanna’s response thread is here, dated 07/01/2007:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/07/01/nobody-calls-god-a-man/
Her Thesis: Women contribute by helping men! (You’ll notice the subtle jab in her first major paragraph: “Being as the conversations once again on MND have come to boatloads of vast esoterical questions on whether or not men and women can ever communicate—is Venus on Mars?—are we all missing the PICTURE and the POINT? is taking steroids going to help?”)
Pictures…points? Oh I get it! Elder’s post has rendered you upset! Subtle, but easily decipherable.
My Thesis: If you take that article at face value, it’s pretty good primatology. The woman assumes the pose of COY POWERLESSNESS to get the man to serve her. She fools him into thinking he has control and power, but meanwhile pulls all of the strings. And, in classic female reactor mode, she does this such that HE WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE for all mistakes while she will MAINTAIN HER INNOCENCE.
My Deeper Thesis: Joyanna was insecure over Elder’s original message. Like most women, she fears that if masculinity were to devote itself to inventive improvement (both self and world), it will discover that feminine INSECURITY holds them back. It will see all of the feminine NEED, and all of the feminine COY WEAKNESS, as a parasitic intrusion upon its power. And then it will leave for greener, peaceful pastures.
(In a rare moment of niceness, I just laughed away Joyanna’s “Nobody Calls God A Man” thread. I found it cute, but I saw most clearly the INSECURITY involved in it. She needed to hear some comments that said, “Joyanna, you’re awesome. You write so well…” She didn’t OVERTLY ask for the ego boost, but her article proves that women rarely overtly anything!)
And finally, there’s this thread.
Her Thesis: There is an indeterminate number of inventions (naturally PRESUMED to be gajillions) were developed by women but stolen from men.
My thesis: Only an INSECURE woman would say such a silly thing! The presumption of the “gajillions” of stolen inventions is just that…an assumption.
So, all in all, Elder proves his point. If the masculine spirit wishes to invent, it must shun ALL FORMS of feminine INSECURITY – chief of which are (1) the need for proof, (2) the need for reassurance and safety, and (3) an unhealthy fear of embarrassment and risk. (”But what will the neighbors think!?!”)
And I would tack on my own point, which is the converse of Elder’s: that feminine INSECURITY is mutually exclusive from masculine inventiveness. If you[’re too damn scared to take risks, you will NEVER invent: whether rocket engines or your own personal style! (After all, if you can’t wear pinstripes with polka dots, just how ARE you going to reform the child support laws? “But honey, what would the neighbors think!?”) Instead, you’ll inevitably and completely devote yourself to maintaining a pose of COY WEAKNESS and NICENESS to mooch off others.
July 7th, 2007
Addressed especially to MLS, but certainly relevant to this discussion. There’s a Time magazine article: “The Best Inventions of 2006″. It came out in December-ish of that year. And it’s also been a source of secret comfort. I don’t talk much about it, but I think about it very often…and smile.
The inventions span multiple fields and are quite kick-ass. Each one is briefly described – focusing especially on its purpose, future potential, and a guess as to when it’ll become available.
Oh, and by the way, the inventor(s) are also named.
Now, many of them are credited to groups, so it’s impossible to tell the gender make-up of these companies.
But you’ll be interested to know that, of the inventions attributed to INDIVIDUALS, about 19 were developed by MEN, and only ONE was invented by a woman.
So, there you have it. Before feminism, 95% of inventions were credited to men. Yet after feminism…what’s 19 divided by 20? 95%, of course.
Maybe those “gajillions” are really zeroes?
July 7th, 2007
scottkirk – #18.
Primatology dictates that the two major masculine reproductive strategies are: (1) grabbing as many resources as you can, and (2) competing with other men for status in women’s eyes.
When the inventive masculine gender, usually personified in men, figures everything out and says, “That’s it! I’m ridding myself of all feminine insecurity, because such energy seeks to only hamper me!” – a reaction takes place.
The feminine insecure principle loses her meal ticket and thus looks to someone else.
And then meanwhile an uninventive masculine entity says, “Wow, that guy’s a jerk. Why not get with me, baby?”
But don’t worry. It’s not like such deeply rooted biological principles are in play today. We conquered them a long time ago.
July 7th, 2007
mmx…. i would agree with your assertions. 100 yeares ago, it was unnecesseary to point them out. that does not mean i believe we should return the good ol’ days. women deserve more. it does mean that men are no longer allowed to be gentlemen and still survive. men deserve no less. thats my 2 cents.
July 8th, 2007
What I am about to say is something I dislike strongly when others toss off an argument thusly, but, this entire thread, and the article it follows utterly and completely misses the point EG was making in his original post of points and pictures.
But to spend a moment in the tangent with the folks, as to inventions, it seems most agree that men have been credited with far more inventions than women. If someone has a problem with that statement then you are being reactionary and wanting to live in the “not all __________” world. So an entire tangential thread has erupted when near everyone here would agree to that short summation of the matter of inventions. To borrow from Mike…get a grip.
EG doesn’t posit that ALL men do this and ALL women do that. He posits certain natural characteristics that, when recognized and allowed to operate freely can order society “naturally” and potentially eliminate some of the angst, and depression, and suicide, divorce etc. It took me awhile to get past use of the word “tribal”, and certain dismissal of things western (I’m still not down with ALL that). But how can we daily read and write about the deconstruction of our society along feminist lines and the devaluing of men in general and then NOT be willing to speak truth to power (power is woman, hear her roar).
EG’s post on points and pictures plays out daily…if you listen. Listen to people around you. Listen as you speak to men and women and THINK about what is being said. But, do not think simple thoughts like, MAN BETTER grunt, WOMAN DUMB scratch and burp, which appears to be what some here are equating with EG’s writing.
I’ll ask, is efficiency better? Always? Are you sure?
The answer to that question is critical.
My answer (IMHO, because I haven’t THE answer to anything) is that there are situations where efficiency IS better. There are others where it is NOT the goal. Efficiency and nurturing do not make good bedfellows. Imagine approaching raising toddlers with only efficiency in mind. It sounds cruel doesn’t it? Well, it can be.
But imagine in war, the presence of the virtue of patience is liability. We cannot bring people along, we must shove them.
Something else occurred to me. Amfortas pointed out the general level of societal discourse or lack of and indicated that men do not think and “better” then women. Ok, fair enough. But, group people according to whatever measure of intelligence you prefer, and within those groups then test EG’s thesis on points and pictures. What you’ll find I think is that on the spectrum points and pictures there will be variations according to groups categorized by intelligence, and in the top tiers you may well see more conceptual thinking women then in the lower tiers. But within each group I submit EG’s thesis holds. So amfortas listen to thick men talking and listen to thick women talking and see there if the generality I keep referring to doesn’t hold. The men’s conversations are short, point to point like ping pong, while the women meander. Both accomplish what they set out to do, but they take vastly different paths, and in fact have vastly different goals. Its so painfully obvious I am flabbergasted it causes such anxiety.
How many have attended marriage counseling? If so, you know that the first thing the person says, to the point of it being cliché, is that we need to work on communication. Then they set out to describe how women communicate and how men MUST do it that way. If we accept the above, that men are mainly the inventors etc., then why must we communicate that way ALWAYS? Why is there not an equal reference to her learning to understand him? It seems as a whole we buy that advice and want the world to operate that way, even though the world has rocked along nicely in terms of advances etc. Please don’t give me the war crap…about how men start them etc. It’s a non-starter in the point I’m making. What we see here with those who agree with EG on this matter is blowback from a society trying to make women out of men.
There really isn’t much more that I can say, except finally that the very existence of this thread and the sort of cyber smugness and arms crossing that comes through demonstrates something I see frequently. In debate women in general will disarm men by raising a truth that is irrelevant but unquestionable. Many times that truth takes the form of pointing out an exception. If debate were sport women would win hands down because a man simple doesn’t know how to handle it when that happens. It’s amazing how many people here simply went along with it.
Joyanna I love reading your writing. Your cadence and wit are unique and it is a pleasure to read. You are an interesting person with fascinating life experience and insight into the world around you. In no way do I look at you as an inferior thinker and I definitely see you as a superior writer and creator of the written…superior obviously to me (I have no widely read blogs) and to many who write here. I savor what is different about your writing. And I would humbly suggest that much of your strength is unique to women. Is that an insult? I think not. But that guy you quote in your article offers a few tidbits of fact and then writes essentially his opinion about gender and inventiveness, offering nothing whatsoever of value to the conversation except the few facts included. It could have been a couple of sentences. And clearly he was in “woman defense” mode so typical of beaten American men. Like the old cliché someone wrote here and the song says also, we are ruled by the words, If mama ain’t happy ain’t no one happy” as a guiding principle.
Thurston it saddens me to see you getting so foul in your writing. You are very bright and I enjoy your comments, but the invective gets too extreme, and in fact is a form of uncontrolled emotionalism that I wish you’d keep in check. I can point out how I may see Mike or anyone else suffering from wrong thinking in my opinion, and while mildly irritating to be told that, I don’t call them names and dwell in the invective. Maybe give it a try.
July 8th, 2007
That was a good exposition Cons. Worthy as usual. What a pro. (Do I really have to reiterate that I GOT EG’s laboured point??).
Joyanna LOVES humour. Don’t let us have a sense of humour failure here. She fights her corner well and gives one hell of a lot of grace. (I am not being a white knight here, She’s a big girl who can hold her own).
As Mike POINTED out in #2 above, this is a baseball game going on here. EnJoy it. Let’s keep it good ol’ boy/girl banter and not see it as gender thrashing.
EG is a crusty old coach down on the bench yelling at the players, demanding that they stick to the agreed play strategy. That’s his chosen role. What are you doing? The Commentary Box? Interpreting for the fans? Rapidly scanning the stats sheets to see who made the most home runs in ‘41? You are in danger of missing the point or the next crack of the bat against ball.
We all know what Thurston’s doing. He’s in the club bar getting pissed as usual and cursing the barman. Go pour him a black coffee (whoops, sorry, a coffee of colour).
July 8th, 2007
donnieboy — Women don’t deserve more, because no one deserves anything. As long as we all still inhabit an inventive universe, women who want more can either: (1) invent it themselves or (2) give unlimited freedom, time, and space to the inventive masculine force.
Joyanna’s article here is a very typical “third option” (Put in quotes, because it doesn’t work). That is, “cockblock” the inventive force so that it will serve her needs. But this cockblocking only pisses off the inventive force and reduces its effectiveness, which means the cockblocker will have “control” – but certainly not more.
July 8th, 2007
Amfortas — When a sense of humor is used to sneer at virtue, it’s just not farking funny. Using humor to threaten the futures of every human being AS WELL AS the futures of every unborn human being is completely unfunny.
Or as Screwtape told his nephew, “The real use of Jokes or Humour is in quite a different direction, and it is specially promising among the English, who takes their “sense of humor” so seriously that a deficiency in this sense is almost the only deficiency at which they feel shame. Humour is for them the all-consoling and (mark this) the all-excusing, grace of life. Hence it is invaluable as a means of destroying shame.”
Later he adds, “But flippancy is the best of all. In the first place, it is very economical. Only a clever human can make a real Joke about virtue, or indeed about anything else; any of them can be trained to talk AS IF virtue were funny. Among flippant people the Joke is always assumed to have been made. No one actually makes it; but every serious subject is discussed in a manner which implies that they have already found a ridiculous side to it. If prolonged, the habit of Flippancy builds up around a man the finest armour against [God] that [we Devils] have ever known, and it is quite free from the dangers inherent in the other sources of laughter. It is a thousand miles away from joy; it deadens, instead of sharpening, the intellect; and it excites no affection between those who practice it.”
Jokes, in other words, are what weak people use when they wish to hamper the strong.
July 8th, 2007
“Jokes, in other words, are what weak people use when they wish to hamper the strong.”
Uh-huh. As Glenn Beck might say, “Oh, shaddup.”
July 8th, 2007
For all of my disbelief in Brad Pitt’s personal politics, I do, occasionally, enjoy his movies. Though he is not a great actor, he does portray a convincing zeitgeist of American masculinity.
That said, in the movie Troy (2004 – see imdb.com), Brad Pitt plays Achilles – a man and soldier of fortune who constructs his life as a composition of increasing personal challenges. In his world, social stability is an illusion that cannot be trusted. For Achilles, only internal values are true.
Achilles’ counterpart in the movie (and in Homer’s epic), is Hector (played by Eric Bana).
If you are not familiar with the basic plot, a Greek warlord named Agamemnon specializes in confronting his neighbors with the grim choice of war or allegiance. One by one, autonomous Greek tribes are absorbed into Agamemnon’s growing army.
At the head of Agamemnon’s army is his general – the fearless and ingenious Achilles.
Achilles’ motivations are the love of war and the challenges of combat. He is a man driven by no allegiance save his own personal sense of honor.
He is Nietzsche’s blond beast released in the body of Brad Pitt. (In some ways Pitt plays this role with some of the same sad suffering he mustered in Interview with a Vampire. He’s actually pretty good at that, and it’s a very nice layer of conflict over the character’s otherwise robust embrace of the inner beast.)
Hector, a noble Trojan, is the product of a rich and stable society. With tens of thousands of Greek warriors camped at the gates of his proud city, Hector rallies the city’s defenders by appealing to the most essential motivation of its common menfolk: “All my life,” says Hector, “I’ve lived by a code and the code is simple: honor the gods, love your woman and defend your country.”
Achilles – as a mercenary and a rogue with no love or comprehension of the Divine – could never articulate such words, because he has no country, wife or god. He is the ultimate humanist – a moral island untroubled by the checks and balances of Hector’s “simple code.”
July 8th, 2007
Mike LaSalle — Um, please tell me what was wrong with my last comment? Isn’t it obvious how silly your reply #40 is?
Also, why ignore that Time Magazine article, which attempts to prove that even today, men are out-inventing women? (Which also means that Joyanna’s “men steal inventions from women” assumption may be completely wrong.)
Lastly, what’s the point of your Hector – Achilles comment? Which of us, according to you, has “no country, wife or god.”?
July 8th, 2007
MMX -
Please abstain from provocations.
The Time mag article is immaterial to the argument since, in my mind, the issue here is not whether or not men predominate in areas like invention.
News Flash: This is MND. We already KNOW this to be the case. You are therefore arguing the merits of the Time Mag article to an imaginary opponent. That is a waste of time on this site.
The real issue here is the remarkable inclination on the part of some posters to deprive any individual woman of the capacity to be “inventive”.
PLEASE NOTE: Someone has observed that one cannot deprive anyone else of a “capacity” to do something. But this is true only superficially.
If you make an unconsidered assumption that some individual is incapable of performing a genuine conceptual feat solely on account of their sex, then by definition you have deprived them of the capacity to express that function – at least insofar as you a concerned.
July 8th, 2007
MLS — “The real issue here is the remarkable inclination on the part of some posters to deprive any individual woman of the capacity to be “inventive”.”
There is absolutely no force in the universe which can deprive any individual woman of her capacity to be “inventive”. If any individual, whether man or woman (!!), feels deprived of their “inventiveness”, it’s only because they place too much value in security, appeasement of the masses, detailed proofs, and charming people.
July 8th, 2007
“We will never know just how many women thought up great ideas….”
That is true.
Why did they hide them?
(Mike LaSalle) — “I am endeavoring to be even-tempered in the face of such extreme reaction.”
That is really funny!
I could t-y-p-e- some more, but I’m having trouble getting enough oxygen!
Laughing too hard…..
Mike…
no more ‘net stand-up, pleeeeeeese!
July 8th, 2007
MMX – I’m sorry, but as usual, I am perplexed by your arguments.
Let’s see if I can recap:
EG says “Invention is a masculine enterprise”.
Joyanna responds with, “What about Hedi Lemar?”
EG says, “She shared the glory with her husband, therefore bad example.”
MLS opines, “I agree, invention is an essentially masculine trait. But there is no rule in nature against a female evincing traditionally masculine traits like invention.”
EG responds, “I knew you wouldn’t understand.”
Joyanna says, “Hedi Lemar was a legitimate inventor, and here is a specialist in Inventions to prove it.”
Specialist Jack Lander: “Oh, yes, women have a long history of inventing things.”
thurston861: “Stop the world, I want to get off!”
MMX: “Okay, LaSalle. You see what you’ve done? You happy now?”
MLS: “I should have taken the blue pill.”
July 8th, 2007
Notice: irrelevant or argumentative posts will be summarily declared spam.
Have a nice day.
July 8th, 2007
Women and men have been socialized differently. (I was born in 1960 and even MY parents expected that I would get married, raise children and be a homemaker while being supported by my husband.) It has not been for long that women have been “told” they COULD be inventors.
“Today, hundreds of thousands of women apply for and receive a patent every year. So the real answer to the question “how many women inventors are there?” is more than you can count and growing. About 20% of all inventors are currently female and that number should quickly rise to 50% over the next generation.” Quoted from: http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blwomeninventors.htm
Mae Koening Rubin, a chemist at the Mobil Oil Corporation, was one of the inventors of catalysts called zeolytes, which makes it possible to extract more gasoline from crude oil. Scotchgard, the invisible spray-on coating that protects upholstery from stains, was patented by Patsy Sherman and Samuel Smith of the 3M Company in 1973. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE6DE173AF933A15752C0A966958260
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0906931.html
From the above link, (and mentioned in previous comments), “We’ll probably never know how many women inventors there were. That’s because in the early years of the United States, a woman could not get a patent in her own name. A patent is considered a kind of property, and until the late 1800s laws forbade women in most states from owning property or entering into legal agreements in their own names. Instead, a woman’s property would be in the name of her father or husband.
For example, many people believe that Sybilla Masters was the first American woman inventor. In 1712 she developed a new corn mill, but was denied a patent because she was a woman. Three years later the patent was filed successfully in her husband’s name.”
Patents held by women: http://www.asme.org/Communities/History/Resources/Patents_Held_by_Women.cfm
PATENTS; More women gain credit as inventors, and some move well beyond household problem-solving…http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D07E5D7133EF936A25750C0A96F958260
July 8th, 2007
Mike, which posters are denying that some women can be inventive. Show me an absolute statement that asserts ALL women are not inventive and ALL men are. Or, to a more literal interpretation of your comment, who in the world is trying to prevent women from inventing, Or to deny them same? And more speccifically what comment here by a poster indicates that?
Context is a useful consideration when considering the words of others.
Amfortas, I know you said you got the point. But there was a certain sense of “Ahhhhh, she gotcha there EG” in this thread, and in your comments, though moreso in those of others.
July 8th, 2007
Mke LaSalle — Notice: irrelevant or argumentative posts will be summarily declared spam.
Do I dare ask what made my comment so irrelevant?
Ok, let’s try this again.
“I agree, invention is an essentially masculine trait. But there is no rule in nature against a female evincing traditionally masculine traits like invention.”
Yes there is! The more a person cares about fitting in, maintaining their “good image” in front of people, and never creating controversy, the less likely this person is to be “inventive”.
This is because invention happens when people go ALONE into the world and interACT with it. (DaVinci discovered the mechanics of an airplane’s wing by dipping REAL sticks into a REAL river to see the REAL results. He didn’t seek permission. He didn’t care that the “Men Can Never Fly” Congressional lobby would call him a jerk. Not did he care that his results may create controversy. He just up and interACTED with the world.)
But, when a person is so busy wondering what OTHER people think, he or she simply isn’t going to dip sticks into rivers.
That’s the rule of nature which you fail to see.
July 8th, 2007
REF: Pictures and Points by EG,
Joyanna responds in comment 3:
EG said in comment #6:
In comment 9, Joyanna Adams said,
Comment 11:
Joyanna responded in comment #36:
EG challenged Joyanna to “name one conceptual invention made by a woman.”
Joyanna rose and provided a detailed explication that answered the challenge.
Many posters are now yelling “foul” because Men Dominate the Sciences and Engineering.
Sorry, conservativation and company. You have lost this argument on your emotion alone, much less the facts.
July 8th, 2007
KateM, no one said women cannot invent, but thanks for the information. Did you read the original thread that precipitated this?
There is a small problem with what you say though. Regardless who legally can apply for a patent, that is a formality. If “credit” were not given the woman, it is a problem with the husband no? And where was the strong gal while HE was running about taking credit.
Oh forget it, this entire line of reason is silly silly silly.
MLS, who the heck is Specialist Jack lander? I know WHO he is but who is he really? You’ve credited him quite nicely.
Are you serious that argumentative posts are deleted? Even us respectful types? Sh*t man thats what makes this ball game fun!
July 8th, 2007
Mike thay may have lost this argument, but this argument was created by those living in the side bars. I agree the argument “women cannot invent” is lost before it starts. That wasn’t the point.
July 8th, 2007
Mike LaSalle — “EG challenged Joyanna to “name on conceptual invention made by a woman.” Joyanna rose to the challenge, and provided an detailed explication that answered the challenge.”
But the fact that the challenge was so CHALLENGING proved my interpretation of Elder’s major point — which I explained in my #50.
If he said, “Name me ONE!” and Joyanna cited 10,000 then Elder would’ve looked stupid. But Joyanna gave him ONE, and had to work her butt off to do it.
Do you understand, or do you think it’s irrelevant?
July 8th, 2007
Mike only tyrannts delete arguments that they cannot refute and in the real world they murder those who dare to oppse them…
July 8th, 2007
DaPoet: That’s rot. You are provoking the very response you are condemning.
Additionally, I am officially tired of insults and invective. Your comments are angry and provocative.
You don’t like my bar, go down the street three blocks and turn left.
July 8th, 2007
To Kate M,
My question was for a conceptual invention done on her own. Both of the patents you ascribe to women were co-patents with men. I ‘m not having my statements redirected to something else. Joyanna could not find one, nor have you at this moment. I looked up your reference and can easily challenge it. That is not my intent. Name me one conceptual invention created by a woman. I’m not saying you won’t find one, but it will be a hard search.
I’ll be addressing this issue in my own article tomaorrow.
July 8th, 2007
kate…
About 20% of all inventors are currently female and that number should quickly rise to 50% over the next generation.”
keep feeding our boys ritalin and prosack, and you got a good shot at 50%…
we are facing disaster as a nation by strenghtening the weak by weakening the strong!!!
July 8th, 2007
I’d like to get my hands on the bastard who invented the rolling pin. Was it a man or a woman?
July 8th, 2007
Someone said: “Mike only tyrannts delete arguments that they cannot refute and in the real world they murder those who dare to oppse them…”
To which Mike said: “…I am officially tired of insults and invective. … You don’t like my bar, go down the street three blocks and turn left.”
There has to be a standard of civility, and though it’s a thankless task, someone has to enforce it. Calling someone a tyrant and a murderer, though I’m sure it was not meant to be taken seriously, is not necessary or constructive.
Thanks Mike. I love your site. Thanks for using some masculine leadership and starting it!
And I’m learning from *all* the commenters on this thread, so thanks to all.
July 8th, 2007
Mike…
I) The first comment I made that you unreasonably deleted was neither angry nor provocative…
2) In that comment I simply pointed out why Joyanna was and her premise were both faulty and outright wrong…
3) Unable to refute my argument you resorted to the very same tactic that feminists use when they cannot logically refute their challenger and that MRA’s, and indeed, Glenn Sacks has complained about recently in another blog which was to delete my comment…
4) That is not the way to go about making friends or reaching the men you need to reach to build a solid foundation of support for the Men’s movement…However it is the perfect way to make enemies out of those men like myself ( who btw are still married and have a clear understanding about what is going on) and to polish the perception that the feminists have of MND and the Men’s Movement in general of being composed of mainly divorced, bitter and abusive men…
July 8th, 2007
John W. Reed invented the rolling pin in 1864, Amfortes. But given the date attributed, that could mean that his wife actually invented it…
July 8th, 2007
thurston861 – you are banned from this thread.
July 8th, 2007
scottkirk,
I agree that the ritalin and prosack craze ia s a disaster.
July 8th, 2007
What is truly missing here is the respect for the sparc of invention. Forget whether its a male or a female, thats just accounting. However one thing here is terribly clear, people think that solutions at the time AND place of conception are not something special and valuable.
i am right now in a pickle over a search circuit that would really improve search speeds by huge amounts. the circuit is actually quite simple. however, no one is using it, or incorporating it, etc.
here is what a man who helps inventors wrote back to me, when i was worried that what i have will be taken by whom i could show it to (and have shown it to):
People don’t respect ideas until they are patented, and they have a way of
twisting things around until the idea is a minor input, and their
exploitation of the idea is what deserves all of the credit. Intellectual
corruption.
yes several people can have an idea, and there is most assurdly a first person. but its the first person who writes it down, and knows it can work. they do not need to know how to build the circuit, they can describe the principal that would create the specs for that item.
in my case, i cant make a fab, or open a chip factory. i dont have the resources to by the items in flip chip and assemble them into a pseudo asic… nor do i have the talent to create ultra high speed circuits, as microwave and faster acts very different than slower speeds.
however, i can block diagram the solution, and all the functional parts, and work out the timing constraints and such… ALL of which come NATURALLY from that initial spark.
to make it easier to see. the whole nano industry was started by one scientific paper by a physicist who may be one of the greatest unsung heroes of our age. richard feynman. bout the most most people know if they know at all (other than his fans), is that he worked on the manhatten project, got a nobel for feynman diagrams, was the one that figured out the o ring problem of the shuttlecraft, and he wrote a paper that put the world in perspective. the paper was titled “plenty of room at the bottom”, and the whole nano industry and billions and such going into and things coming out started with one idea and one paper. it could have started 10 years earlier… after all, not much in the paper except noticing the scale and proportion of things and of how much room there was to work with.
if one would deny hedy her idea, then one must deny feynmans as well.
after all… feynman died, and never really got to see much of anything towards the idea… so he cant be credited with actually building things towards a solution.
and hedy, she didnt build the final products either. but she not only was a person who thought of it in the company of someone that knew the technology, but a man who was fair and honest and credited her with the germination of a solution that potentially made a large difference in the war effort.
you would also have to deny the honesty of her husband, as well as the fact that he didnt think that “just having an idea” was not important. obviously he thought differently than those here who think that the idea is nothing (individual), in favor of the people who make it work (the group).
the creation of an invention always starts with one person. the reason that many people end up on the list of that invention is that in order to make it work a bevy of other inventions became possible… so often its the first in a string of items that originally were started by that thought.
i like to think that michealangelo thought so too when he painted the sistine chapel.
July 8th, 2007
Thanks for that KateM. Since its invention, by JWR or his missus, there have been many inventive ‘not-for-purpose’ uses made of it, usually by mothers-in-law and wives. Perhaps a few here need to feel its extra-purpose effects.
July 8th, 2007
Those interested in the process of invention and thinking — which seems to include everyone on this thread — will enjoy books by Edward de Bono. He is probably the world’s foremost authority on the subject. I’ve read several of them and I thought most were excellent. No need to spend a dime because they should be in your public library. For a description of some of the titles see this link:
http://www.edwdebono.com/debono/booksi.htm
His books show how to develop thinking skills (i.e. habits and practices) that can be used to solve a wide variety of problems in all areas of life: technical, business, social, etc. The ones I like are “Lateral Thinking”, “Simplicity”, “The Book of Wisdom” and “The Six Thinking Hats”.
Best of all, his methods work for both men and women. And even children.
July 8th, 2007
Concerning my post #67, the relevance to this thread is that both genders can improve their thinking using the same techniques. Though men and women will still have their differences in how they think, we also have a lot in common.
July 8th, 2007
Elder George,
Yet we do not know, (see Artfldgr comment above), whether the ideas were the original thoughts of the women with regard to those two patents I sited.
I do understand your point and have been/am considering it. It is an interesting debate whether or not women can be the originator of concepts. From what I read, I think yes but I’m looking for more reference/support of that. I promise to keep you apprised.
July 8th, 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK2yqVqHCpY&mode=related&search=
If you want to see what this silly debate is about, go to YouTube.com and search Hedy Lamarr.
Try not to weep when you realize what women used to be like…..
July 8th, 2007
And Kate..
I promise that I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in whatever appraisal you may deliver…
As a faux- “originator of concepts…”
You go grilllllllllll!!!!!!!!!!!!.
. (period)
July 8th, 2007
KateM — You simply don’t get it. The NEED for gender score-keeping with regard to inventions is silly. (That’s the PICTURE.) But the pursuit of understanding the masculine and feminine influences, whether positive or negative, on the inventive process is crucial. (That’s the POINT.)
Think small; get small. If you focus on the PICTURE, at the expense of the POINT, you lose a lot.
Think big; get big. If you focus on the POINT, at the “expense” of the PICTURE, you gain a lot. (”Expense” is in quotes, because the cost of ignoring the PICTURE is offending some small-minded individuals, which, in a grand scale, isn’t much of a cost.)
July 8th, 2007
To KateM,
MMX stayed up later than I did but he gave you essentially the same answer that I would have. I hope that you don’t lose the equanimity that you exhibit as things heat up.
Women are designed to bring life into this world and nurture it. Men are designed to provide the environment and means for that function to take place. Our attributes are opposites—that’s why we need each other. Research is not required—understanding is.
Western society is drowning in research but is bereft of understanding. Understanding is conceptual. Get the point?
July 9th, 2007
kate….John W. Reed invented the rolling pin in 1864, Amfortes. But given the date attributed, that could mean that his wife actually invented it…
Kate its women like you that are forceing women into roles and expectations that are not their own, and suicide, depression ect. ect. naturally fallow..
Are You the type of women who make other women feel guilty as stay at home moms??
July 9th, 2007
Conservativation,
To your #52, yes, I read the thread and my original comment was in response to it and some of the comments. And as mentioned previously, “…until the late 1800s laws forbade women in most states from owning property, (including patents), or entering into legal agreements in their own names.”
DaPoet,
A woman, not a man as you said in your comment #22, invented the washing machine. (Margaret Colvin in 1871.)
MMX,
Gender score-keeping is significant to the article and thread.
From your comment #33,
“But you’ll be interested to know that, of the inventions attributed to INDIVIDUALS, about 19 were developed by MEN, and only ONE was invented by a woman.
So, there you have it. Before feminism, 95% of inventions were credited to men. Yet after feminism…what’s 19 divided by 20? 95%, of course.”
Please recall your comment #42 as well.
BTW, you did not credit Elder George for use of “PICTURE” and “POINT”.
Elder George,
I “get” your points but that doesn’t mean I agree with all of them.
Scottkirk,
Both my sisters are stay at home moms. (One of them has a business as well, which she successfully runs from home but her children and family are most certainly her priority.) I respect their choice, actually the choices they each made with their husbands, and think they have made wonderful decisions for their families.
July 9th, 2007
kate…
“…until the late 1800s laws forbade women in most states from owning property, (including patents), or entering into legal agreements in their own names.”
women were treated as children during that time period..
A man would go to jail for his wifes crimes in that time period..
You see the problem men are having with this situation is women want it both ways..and in effect want it all!!!
In some ways they want to be treated like children (not held fully accounteable under the law)…. well documented!!!!
and in other ways want to be treated as adults in the work place..(but still want to be treated as children )..
If they would make up their minds society would treat them any way they want…just not both ways at the same time..
By receiveing the rights without the responseability…white middle class women have become the most liberated group in terms of health, wealth, leasure time, and general life options that the world has ever seen!!!
July 9th, 2007
Unmarried women could always own property—and voted when that right was tied to property ownership—but whatever she had would essentially come under the husband’s control if she married. Only if she were illiterate or deemed too ignorant due to lack of education—which wasn’t rare—would she have an imposed guardian if she wanted to enter into a contract.
July 9th, 2007
I agree with you, Scottkirk. And as someone who can see what is happening to boys, men, and fathers I also can see that entitled women, (and current laws that completely favor women as well as countless double standards), negatively affect me too. (Thinking long-term of course but I am certainly knee-jerk viewed differently because of them.)
This one by Joyanna and Elder George’s recent posts are interesting and thought provoking. I am curious to see how they might benefit “the cause”.
July 9th, 2007
kate…I think E.G and a few others are simply counter-attacking after 40 years of vile, feminist demagoguery that has thrown America into chaos…
July 9th, 2007
KateM — “This one by Joyanna and Elder George’s recent posts are interesting and thought provoking. I am curious to see how they might benefit “the cause”.”
Not only that, but how much potential benefit rests within each particular respondant’s approach? Yours, mine, amfortas’, Mike LaSalle, and Elder all have different potentials. And, if you’re serious about the cause, you have to properly grade the potentials.
July 9th, 2007
KateM – I “get” your points but that doesn’t mean I agree with all of them.”
KM- Why would any man ever wish to say “I Do..” … in marriage… to you?
You represent every trivially inconsequential female “attribute” that men have rejected, and have realized that they do not need.
Thank you.
I could write more.
But you are the exemplary metaphor for why young men should never marry.
I’m sure you are “an exception to the rule…”
Go girrrrrrllll!!!!!!
July 11th, 2007
MMX says: “Not only that, but how much potential benefit rests within each particular respondant’s approach? Yours, mine, amfortas’, Mike LaSalle, and Elder all have different potentials. And, if you’re serious about the cause, you have to properly grade the potentials.”
Right. But go further. We must develop and USE all the different potentials in the service of the ’cause’ if success is to be achieved.
I have always struggled with the ‘urge’ in some MRA’s to make women the enemy instead of Feminism. Man=Good. Women =Bad. A simple reversal of a feminist lie.
EG would be the first – I imagine – to understand the ‘point’ that it is the effects of the concept of Feminism that is the root of the problems we face and not the nature of masculinity and femininity. So why are we getting bogged down?
I am all in favour of understanding and developing the potentials of both masculinity and femininity, and yes, grading them BOTH is an essential component of the plan.
Sure there are many deficit points that will need a lot of work if they are to be reversed or eradicated. But the natures of men and women are complementary and any advance in human society, perhaps even human evolution, requires honouring both the masculine and the feminine. Not imprisoning them.
The constant carping and criticising, marginalising and denying that is going on in this thread and some other one comes across, is destructive.
We men need women. Women need men. I am not anti-MRA when I say that women have a great contribution to make to the MRM. Yet what do we see? Constant tripping up. Constant catching-out.
I am not averse to subjecting people’s motives and actions to scrutiny and even calling them to the drum-head from time to time to explain themselves. But when a good person, one who is effective at highlighting issues fairly – and even with humour – like Joyanna is made to walk the plank I say hold on there. I don’t want EG to walk the plank either. His ability to highlight issues is worthy and valuable.
The issue of ‘invention’ is a furphy. (Oz slang for fake). It is a distraction. EG makes the point, which even I have conceded, that men have been inventive, seemingly mush moreso than women. But it is not shown anywhere that this is a function of masculine/feminine difference. So why labour that point.
I urge EG to stop being a plank, to walk or otherwise, and be a table instead. One we can sit around rather than whack one another with or be made to walk out over the water on.
Where do the inventive ideas that people have, come from? Discovering that is a much more worthwhile pursuit. A pursuit more likely to produce results.
Where does insight arise and how? It seems to me to be an aspect of human mind as opposed to any other animal. Why? Is is due to the architecture of human brains? Or is it confined to only 50% of human brains? That seems to be EG’s thesis but for the life of me I don’t see the evidence and he promoteds a path down which we wander only to get bogged down in demeaning the other 50% of humans.
Just because feminists think that only women have worth and men are worthless, we should not go down the destructive opposite path. We are so busy lauding faux-masculinity that we do not see the point that there are several alternative roads to take. A Squadron of MRA tanks can travel some of them but others will only allow footsore individuals in single file.
July 11th, 2007