X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY  	autolearn=ham version=3.1.0
Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE
Return-Path: <improvetheworld-errors &AElig umich.edu>
Received: from newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) 	by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jA47sfS8012689 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) 	for <dreeves &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>; Fri, 4 Nov 2005 02:54:42 -0500
Received: from dave.mr.itd.umich.edu (dave.mr.itd.umich.edu [141.211.14.70]) 	by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.2/8.13.0) with ESMTP id jA47scjY032197; 	Fri, 4 Nov 2005 02:54:38 -0500
Received: FROM boston.eecs.umich.edu (boston.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.61]) 	BY dave.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 436B13BC.A2F85.17672 ;  	 4 Nov 2005 02:54:36 -0500
Received: from boston.eecs.umich.edu (localhost.eecs.umich.edu [127.0.0.1]) 	by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jA47sZS8012683 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); 	Fri, 4 Nov 2005 02:54:36 -0500
Received: from localhost (dreeves &AElig localhost) 	by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) with ESMTP id jA47sZBr012680; 	Fri, 4 Nov 2005 02:54:35 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: boston.eecs.umich.edu: dreeves owned process doing -bs
X-X-Sender: dreeves &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu
In-Reply-To: <e8eea358b69c521a0b7cdb4919e6b2dc &AElig umich.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0511040228320.16188 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>
References: <20051102185253.20936.qmail &AElig web81912.mail.mud.yahoo.com>  <e8eea358b69c521a0b7cdb4919e6b2dc &AElig umich.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on  	newman.eecs.umich.edu
X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 02:54:35 -0500 (EST)
To: "David Morris, PhD" <thecat &AElig umich.edu>
cc: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>
Subject: Re: feminsm, masculinism, and anti-stereotypism revisited
Status: O
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 263

>  50/50 is a pretty random number that I doubt nature has any reason to 
> have designed us for.

not so!  it's exactly the ratio we'd expect if males and females are not 
biologically different w.r.t. the salient metric (child-rearing, CEOing).

Erica is making the case for 50/50 as the right answer to Dave's question 
(or as she said, that at least it's an open question).  But Dave's point 
(similar to Lisa's) is also well made: so what if it's not 50/50? 
Whatever it is, we have a ways to go.

-- 
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  google://"Daniel Reeves"