Really 103105 

Vive la difference: 

I do think there are differences in the kinds of work women do best and the kinds that men do best, but I almost never agree with anybody else's assessment of which type of work best pours into which bucket.

It's dumb to claim there are no differences. I totally buy Helen Fisher's evolutionary theories in The Anatomy of Love. The book is about mating rather than work, but it makes a sensible case for gender differences based on natural selection. I read it in the early 90s I think, then it had a revival a couple years ago. It's pretty radical; it's like people didn't quite believe it the first time, and whipped their heads around years later to ask, "What did she say?"

Fisher [an anthropologist? I'll have to look it up] lets us all off the hook for a multitude of sins by explaining what made the fittest of our brothers and sisters survive over the past 4 million years. A lot of our trouble now is that the way we live has changed more in the last couple hundred years than it changed the first 3-point-whatever million but our evolution hasn't kept pace. We have a lot more to think about these days than getting food and staying warm and making babies. But our wiring still compels us to invest in spreading our seed as far and wide as possible if we're men, and concentrate on settled homey safe 4 or 5-year chunks of life if we're women, the time it takes to launch one kid into society.

So, obviously there are evolutionary and genetic differences between the genders. When it comes to suitability for different kinds of work, and you want to weigh the effect of nature and nurture, I'd say "both," but I would apportion a big share to nurture, especially attitudes in your family of origin.

I'll tell a couple stories to illustrate, but first I want to get back to that list of suitable work. Reminds me of a P.D. Wodehouse detective novel called An Unsuitable Job for a Woman.

WHAT EACH GENDER DOES BEST
I'll pick on Dave's list because people in the OPML community know something about his opinions, and because it's the last men-are-good-at-this-women-are-good-at-that list I've run across. As I said, I never go along completely with any such list. I should also say that I believe Dave when he says he wants the tech community to be more inclusive in all ways. I'm not holding him up as an example of a pig, far from it; don't get the wrong idea.

Here's the whole 1-hour podcast in which Dave and Sylvia Paull talk about gender stuff during the first part.

[still working on this]

Morning (after) Coffee Notes (review) 

An only-vaguely contrapuntal response to Dave's Morning Coffee Notes podcast, because I usually agree with Dave on politics and other things. I really should do this in audio.

Just one comment on the McCoy technique (mcn103005). I don't watch Law & Order, but that kind of dealmaking is pretty much what happened with John Dean, wasn't it? Only I think he did have to go to jail for a little while, not as long as he might have, had he not sung. Maybe we need some nice Sam Ervin style hearings. It makes great TV. It might coax the media away from their stupid mania with trials of people we don't care about.

I can't let myself neglect to comment on Dave and Sylvia's conversation last week (mcn102705) about genetic gender differences that influence suitability for different kinds of work. I think it's probably true that there are differences, but I do have a small bone to pick with Dave about characterizing guys as the gender with the big ideas and us as the detail people. I'll try to make myself say more about it this week sometime. I'm picking out just those two things from his longer lists of respective gender strengths, so don't beat him up yet. I believe he does like us and respect us on the whole.

Nice to see Dave doing more podcasts.



My impersonation of Sam Ervin.