Really it is the class system that I am opposed to, as I am to any structure that stifles an individual's true potential by saying "That's not for the likes of you"

It's terrible, as Jo says, how endemic this attitude still is - but even more terrible is how much limitation is self-imposed by people.

Education is the only answer to this.  My job as a tekka (Geordie for teacher) is often a battle to get truly intelligent people from economically-impoverished backgrounds to recognise and accept their intelligence, and then do something about using it in a way that can make their life (and the lives of others) better.  It's not easy.  University, I still contend, is a much better way of training yourself to use your academic intelligence than any other way available to young (or even older) adults. 

But when it seems prohibitively expensive to study rather than work, as it does even in the vast majority of economically-developed countries, my colleagues and I see getting a student to be the first in their family to receive a University education as an important success.

What I am getting at is that class systems tend to perpetuate themselves in an elitist way by only allowing a certain amount of people 'into the club', and people sense this.  Otherwise, how can an intellectual 'elite' class itself as an elite if it isn't constituted by a relatively small number of people? 

Chad Carter wrote: I love women. I love their emotion. I love their illogic.

Dave Sim, is that you?

Nature against nurture is always a moot point but I don't think even the physical differences are as clear cut as we are led to believe  - women have testosterone the 'male' hormone present in their body naturally, just as men have 'female' hormones.

Furthermore, as you say, the differences lie on a spectrum - the amounts can vary within normal gender parameters so a woman with high testosterone levels could actually have more of the male hormone than a man with low testosterone levels - so does that mean a biologically normal woman can be more male than a biologically normal man? If so that seems to make a nonsense of the whole system.

Of course if you total it up, as a group men will have more testosterone than women do as a group but that does not help you to make more than the sketchiest deductions about the nature of the individual.

So no, for this reason I do not think I am being unduly dismissive of the differences between the sexes. On the contrary I believe that we attach far too much importance to what is a very minor difference compared to to the vast majority of things we have in common.

btw did I miss something but have they found the gene for 'passion and heart'  exclusively on the Y chromosome - if so it sounds as though men are a bit  emotional and - dare I say it - girly  ;)

So you are a teacher Dan, I take my hat off to you. Now there's a job I could never do in a million years.

Again reverting to the original thread is it your experience in schools that people from Eastern cultures put more value on education (for whatever reason) than those from Western ones or is that a myth?

Jo said: "Again reverting to the original thread is it your experience in schools that people from Eastern cultures put more value on education (for whatever reason) than those from Western ones or is that a myth?"

I have only ever worked with 'Eastern' kids from a Chinese background, Jo, and while I am quite wary about making generalisations about such a huge and regionally disparate people, it's got to be said that they often come from a family background that seems to place a lot of value on formal education, self-discipline and politeness. 

Some of them have been lazy little gets, though!

I think men and women are the way they are primarily because of social conditioning because any physical differences are so slight and variable in the total scheme of things as to be practically meaningless on an individual basis.

I'm not denying that physical differences between men and women in general terms exist, or that they do not play a role - just that they are not as important in defining character and personality (let alone such nebulous concepts as heart and passion) as people like to believe.

So yes, I agree, I am being dismissive.

I would add that I think that (what I see as) the overemphasis on the 'nature' argument is particularly pernicious because it not only validates the double standard but also  because it allows us, men and women alike,to abnegate responsibility for our actions - "I couldn't help it - its the way I am programmed" and our society.

Which is never a grown up thing.

Michael, that is your take on things (with which I would add I am partly in sympathy) but the fact is that most people are only too willing to justify otherwise unacceptable behaviour on the grounds of supposed biological determinism far more than for any other reason - if you believe it is a biological imperative for a man to spread his seed as widely as he can then you do not really expect him to be monogamous, or even practice restraint if he becomes aroused.

A classic example of the dangers of this biological determinism type of thinking is the current evidence that juries are reluctant to convict on rape cases even where it was proved that the woman was incapable of giving consent because her drink had been spiked because "everyone knows" that men spike women's drinks - so she should have been paying better attention!

I don't know enough about GID to give a considered opinion either way and think the scientific jury is still out on the question of sexual orientation.