Haha, not.

The problem for you Brightie, is the the women you pick. Lots of women don't think that or say that. But the women you gravitate to, they're do. Maybe you should think about that.

Really though, sociobiology is to liberals what climate science is to conservatives

-- dick dworkin

Huh, I always thought that conservatives also didn't like sociobiology, except when it reinforced their prejudicial stereotypes.

Remember phrenology, fainting couches, that letter from Harvard Law's president where he said women's brains are just not suited for the study of law?

How do you know that the ideas about innate differences you're espousing now (with no cited evidence, yet, I must point out) are not the same kind of drivel pseudo-science?

PS I also have to point out that there are differences among men. Does that mean that they are all biological? How about the same among women?

"Harvard Law's president where he said women's brains are just not suited for the study of law"

Can you provide a reference ?

Some posters here seem to be clinging to the long discredited idea that is no difference between men and women. In fact, there are vast biological differences. There are hormonal differences that affect brain development, and result in different behavioral and cognitive differences. Source: Scientific American May 2002:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00018E9D-879D-1D06-8E49809EC588EEDF

It isn't the former president of Harvard Law you mean, but Larry Summers, former president of Harvard University.

The "submit references to me" is the first refuge of people too lazy to google for anything that high-profile.

Don't laugh. Men find it sexy...as shown below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKGKKcpcqOs

I am well aware of the Larry Summers quotes which have been inaccurately described countless times here at BS. Since LeCastor talked about a Harvard Law President commenting about women not being suited to study law, this has no connection to Larry Summers. Talk about lazy.

responding to your post on p. 8:

Like you, I don't think women trade sex for household chores. It certainly doesn't work hat way in my house.

BUT, when my husband does something out of his way to make my life easier, which can include doing household chores that he does not typically do, I feel valued, loved, cared for. (I generally feel that way anyway, but I get an extra "surge" of that feeling, whatever). My husband, in that moment, becomes even more attractive to me.

Were I to remove my husband's shoes when he came home from work, I doubt he'd feel the same way. BUT, there are lots of other things I can and do do, to express my affection and appreciation for him.

When we are feeling well-loved, we may tend to have more, or at least even better than usual, sex. It's not "payment" for anything, but it's celebrating and sharing how good we feel about ourselves and each other.

I can't find it now, but it's from the late 19th century. I did not mean Larry Summers, who said something completely different.

I would like to draw your attention to Bradwell v Illinois, 83 U.S. 130 (1872), in which the Supreme Court of the United STates said that Illinois could deny women the right to practice law. Why? Here's the concurring opinion:

... the civil law, as well as nature herself, has always recognized a wide difference in the respective spheres and destinies of man and woman. Man is, or should be, woman's protector and defender. and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life. The constitution of the family organization, which is founded in the divine ordinance, as well as in the nature of things, indicates the domestic sphere as that which properly belongs to the domain and functions of womanhood. The harmony, not to say identity, of interest and views which belong, or should belong, to the family institution is repugnant to the idea of a woman adopting a distinct and independent career from that of her husband. So firmly fixed was this sentiment in the founders of the common law that it became a maxim of that system of jurisprudence that a woman had no legal existence separate from her husband, who was regarded as her head and representative in the social state; and, notwithstanding some recent modifications of this civil status, many of the special rules of law flowing from and dependent upon this cardinal principle still exist in full force in most States. One of these is, that a married woman is incapable, without her husband's consent, of making contracts which shall be binding on her or him. This very incapacity was one circumstance which the Supreme Court of Illinois deemed important in rendering a married woman incompetent fully to perform the duties and trusts that belong to the office of an attorney and counsellor.

It is true that many women are unmarried and not affected by any of the duties, complications, and incapacities arising out of the married state, but these are exceptions to the general rule. The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfil the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator. And the rules of civil society must be adapted to the general constitution of things, and cannot be based upon exceptional cases.

The humane movements of modern society, which have for their object the multiplication of avenues for woman's advancement, and of occupations adapted to her condition and sex, have my heartiest concurrence. But I am not prepared to say that it is one of her fundamental rights and privileges to be admitted into every office and position, including those which require highly special qualifications and demanding special responsibilities. In the nature of things it is not every citizen of every age, sex, and condition that is qualified for every calling and position. It is the prerogative of the legislator to prescribe regulations founded on nature, reason, and experience for the due admission of qualified persons to professions and callings demanding special skill and confidence. This fairly belongs to the police power of the State; and, in my opinion, in view of the peculiar characteristics, destiny, and mission of woman, it is within the province of the legislature to ordain what offices, positions, and callings shall be filled and discharged by men, and shall receive the benefit of those energies and responsibilities, and that decision and firmness which are presumed to predominate in the sterner sex.

Why, you see, my dear, it's NATURE that says you can't be a lawyer.

This is what i'm talking about.