Lori wrote: "Speaking of Eleanor of Aquitane, one of my very favorite historical figures, do either of you have a recommendation for a historical novel featuring her?"

There is the play by James Goldman, The Lion in Winter and of course the excellent movie with the same name.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063227/

"Kernos wrote: "What other SF-Fan novels or series take on gender?"

Lilith's Brood, by Octavia E. Butler, has an alien race in which there are males, females, and neuters. John Wyndham's Consider Her Ways (I think that's the one), has a society all of females, because all the males have died. I'm sure there are more; can't think of them right now. Oh yeah, Dreamsnake, by Vonda N. McIntyre, but it would be spoiling to say how. And Startide Rising, by David Brin.

Yeah!! Because its sort of the same thing. A lot of the people have multiple titles, and quite a few of them have more than one name too. Like Eleanor herself; Dutchess of Aquitaine, Countess of Poitiers, Queen of England. Birth name was Aenor, but she was called Aliénor (the other Aenor) because she was named after her mother so there were two Aenors in the castle.

Haha like War and Peace where there's not only a cast of a thousand, but they all have multiple names!

Her stuff often starts slow, you've got to sort of settle in with it. Because there are a lot of characters to be brought into the story if its going to be at all accurate. But once you get established, yum!! Just think of it as a Russian novel Lori, ha ha.

Ha, I own that book! I've been wanting to read her for a very long time - I also own Here Be Dragons which I finally started a month ago. I couldn't get into it - more of wrong timing than bad book, and also afterward a friend told me that it is a slow beginning.

Silly me, I thought When Christ... had to do more with Christ, I am a very silly girl! I still fully intend to return to Here Be Dragons, but now plan on taking When Christ... with me on my vacation in mid-August. I'd prefer to read about the time period/history of Eleanor than Welsh right now, it intrigues me more.

Thanks Bun!

Sharon Kay Penman, who is very good, wrote an Eleanor of Aquitaine series, really about that whole period of history. The first one When Christ and His Saints Slept is about the civil war between Maud and Stephen, and Eleanor and Henry come in toward the end. I haven't read them but I've been meaning to because I REALLY liked her Welsh series.

I'd be interested in recommendations as well.

Lori, the only thing I've read about Eleanor was an old Gladys Malvern and A Proud Taste for Scarlet and Miniver by E. L. Konigsburg. (Probably everyone's read that one already since it's a classic.)

Speaking of Eleanor of Aquitane, one of my very favorite historical figures, do either of you have a recommendation for a historical novel featuring her?

Well maybe if the woman in the Carey book had holdings or retainers before she got married then she went through some sort of fealty ceremony when they married so that her retainers would then come under his rule? To clear up just those kinds of issues. So then that would put her into a relationship to him where petty treason could come into it. Just guessing really.

Sorry, can't help you on the book, its not ringing a bell just now.

BunWat, that sounds very interesting. I bet it is the same thing.

For some reason your mention of Eleanor and Henry's power struggles is reminding me of something in a novel/s I've read. It was to do with the heroine and the adjustments, responsibilities, and conflicts that came up when when someone swore fealty directly to her rather than the man in her life. Now it's driving me crazy because I can't remember what book/s! Aargh! I hate that!

I saw them on your profile and put the first one on my to read mountain. It looks really interesting!!

I read some great articles awhile back about Eleanor of Aquitane's fealty relationships. Very complicated!! Because some people were in direct fealty with her as heiress of Aquitaine. Others were in fealty with her as a representative of her husbands. The ones who were in direct relationship to her weren't subject to Louis or Henry and she had to be sure to maintain and be aware of those different relationships.

The articles went on to say that she was an example of a particularly complicated tangle but that other women also had the same issues on a smaller scale. Apparently one of the issues between her and Henry was that he had a tendency to forget that not everybody who worked for her worked for him too. And then things would get touchy.

Oh, yay! Lori, thanks for the encouragement about Dunnett. I was hoping that it would get easier since so many readers love the books. I've only got through the first 40+/- pages so far and it is hard going. I'm glad to hear that it gets easier. I'm getting the Dunnett Companion--hopefully that will help.

Bunwat, I just discovered P.F. Chisholm (aka Patricia Finney) and was referring to A Season of Knives. I think it was because she was in a fealty arrangement (marriage?) with him. Maybe because she would be considered property? I don't know enough history to be sure but thought that was interesting.

BTW, they are not sci fi, but this series is GOOD! I recommend them to anyone interested.

Oh right Lori, I can go look at what she's currently reading. Was it the Carey book MB?

MB you are reading Dunnett!!!! Just keep pressing on, GOK is her first book and is confusing at first. It all starts to come together and her writing gets tighter as the book goes along.

I know that's not the book you are referring to. But had to express my love of Dunnett.

What period MB? Petty treason because she was in a fealty relationship to him or what was the legal theory there?

Or, as in the historical mystery I'm reading, a wife accused of murdering her husband could be condemned for petty treason and burned. Petty treason? Sentenced to burn?? Wow...we've come a long way.

Excellent point, Brooke. Yes there is a big difference between getting flack from your relatives and having institutions deny you the same opportunities that they offer to the other gender.

My mother in law gave me six kinds of flack because I did work. Yes it was frustrating, yes it made me unhappy. But its different from, for example, my aunt back in the 50's not being able to get a small business loan without a male to co sign with her. Or my great uncle not being able to get custody of his kids despite the fact that my great aunt was crazy.

Kernos, if you are going to call people idiots, take it elsewhere.

Random, it has less to do with family and friends giving your cousin a hard time for her choices and more to do with societal structures in place that block people from doing with they want. Feminism is about attacking institutions and things that are systemic. Things such as whether or not a woman would be accepted by colleges due to her gender, or whether she would be hired as something other than a nurse or a teacher, or whether men can be listed as a dependent on their wives' insurance or social security benefits - these sorts of widespread, institutional things are what many feminists focus on, because if these structures are left up, what choice do people have except to follow them because how else will they be able live? And people take cues from the social structures around them and expect people to behave in ways that correspond with them.

So it's not about whether your family complains about your cousin staying home or washing windows or painting murals, it's about tearing down social structures that segregate people by gender into different life roles by making it practically and economially impossible to do anything else.

And I don't think anyone's disagreeing that being forced into a role you don't want might cause mental anguish. But it's a logical misstep to apply that to a strict gender binary.

..I think we need the 'Yin 'n Yang' harmony here!

Lori wrote: "Family members will always find something to criticize. That's not limited to gender. Your cousin needs to grow a backbone. "

Wow, that is just....wow. I'm bowing out now. For some reason I thought it would be possible for people around here to discuss differences of opinion in a civil manner instead of resorting to insults and ridicule.

MB, I am still interested into hearing about the modern sexist Sci-Fi books you have been running across. I personally haven't and I would like to take a look myself and see if the situations are as bad as you said. If you like, please feel free to send me a back channel message with a few example titles.

So who cares? She couldn't handle the flak? Was she dragged out the door to work? We are talking about the freedom to do as we please, without being forced into any role we don't desire. Everyone is going to get flak about personal choices, it's not limited to gender - that's just life.

I also don't see it as damned if you do or don't, most people including men who would prefer to stay home with their kids need to work because of economics. I know if they had freedom they'd prefer to stay home with the kids and do work they chose. Many women who work are jealous of the women who can stay home because they have enough money to do so. And then many women who work do so because that's what they want. Women who stay home would love to have adult conversation, but because daycare is just as much as what they would earn, why bother?

Family members will always find something to criticize. That's not limited to gender. Your cousin needs to grow a backbone. And relish that she gets to do exactly as she pleases too! That freedom comes out of the feminist movement.

Brooke wrote: "Again, who is talking about anyone forcing anything? I'm very confused by all this talk about force. A world where we put aside silly, antiquated notions of women being best suited for mothering an..."

That was answered a few posts back. Women today do get flack, sometimes a lot of it, if they choose to perform traditional roles (hence the example of my cousin).

Actually she was pretty much in a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. While she chose to not work professionally, she was not the perfect Sally Homemaker either. She is one who felt her time was better spent painting murals on her childrens' bedroom ceilings than making sure the windows were clean. She got flack from the older members of our family because she was "not taking care of her family properly".

-Added in edit

And the post I made saying that Kernos was somewhat correct was only stating that external pressures can cause emotional trauma, and that drug abuse is one way that people suffering from anxiety and depression self medicate.

Again, who is talking about anyone forcing anything? I'm very confused by all this talk about force. A world where we put aside silly, antiquated notions of women being best suited for mothering and men being best suited for breadwinning and just let everyone do what they prefer is the complete opposite of forcing anyone to take on roles they don't want to.

Dear kindly Sergeant Krupke,
You gotta understand,
It's just our bringin' up-ke
That gets us out of hand.
Our mothers all are junkies,
Our fathers all are drunks.
Golly Moses, natcherly we're punksnuts!

Brooke wrote: "Random, what does an abusive childhood have to do with the idea of women and men having mental problems when they try to raise children or work as CEOs when they're not naturally suited for it beca..."

Any situation where a person is repeatedly forced to be something they are not, often with insults and ridicule for their preference can be quite emotionally harmful if carried far enough. This was the form of abuse my husband received from his father.

I personally have not said anything other than gender is part of the overall equation. As I said in my previous post "somewhat".

Random, what does an abusive childhood have to do with the idea of women and men having mental problems when they try to raise children or work as CEOs when they're not naturally suited for it because of their gender? You've sort of gone off on a complete tangent. I believe that Bun is mocking the idea that Kernos has put forth that women will have mental problems when they try to be anything but homemakers and mothers and men will have mental problems when they try to be anything but the breadwinner.

BTW, Kernos, I have mod powers. And, um, no.

Actually, Kernos is somewhat correct about social/external pressures capable of causing emotional problems such as depression and anxiety. Just ask anyone who was forced to survive an emotionally abusive childhood such as my husband.

For people trying to cope with often overwhelming emotional stresses, anxiety, and low self esteem, self medication is quite common, especially alcohol since it is easy to obtain and is social acceptable. Of course not everyone follows this particular path (luckily my husband never abused anything more serious than NyQuil) and reactions will depend upon the harshness of the environment, what releases are available, and somewhat the innate personality of the individual.

...dudes!..the ancient 'Yin and Yang' applys even here in the modern times....to any FanSyFY....

just note our sex here in male and female harmony!

Note to self; Kernos does not enjoy being teased about the antiquity of his notions.

I'm not a moderator, but I don't think BunWat said anything bigoted.

Kernos, I'm not sure what you mean by "If one is pushed into roles by peer pressure one is not suited for, affective disorders and addictive behavior are common.

This is not opinion, but fact. It applies to males and females."

Whaddya reckon mods? Should I be banned?

Kernos, you are not making me blink and wonder because you challenge my assumptions. Most of what you are saying I have heard more than a few times although usually in print because the authors died quite some time ago.

You make me blink and wonder because I can't figure how you got here from the 19th century. Do you have a time machine? Are you exceptionally long lived? Are you connecting to the internet through a dimensional portal? Did you recently emerge from some sort of stasis box? What is it?

Also, what are your thoughts on phlogiston? How many geese can be hatched from a single barnacle? Is hysteria caused by a floating womb and will stapling it down cure the problem? Is it possible to avoid contagion by excluding noxious vapors with a patent curtain or would it be better to address the problem by burning incense?

@Bunwat Further - apparently trying to convince girls that it is better to be powerful than to be a housewife will cause the girls to develop mental disorders or become alchoholics.

Ummm....

Can not will. If one is pushed into roles by peer pressure one is not suited for, affective disorders and addictive behavior are common.

This is not opinion, but fact. It applies to males and females.

I am glad I am making you "blink and wonder". It is always good to challenge ones assumptions.

Random, I didn't say that you said any such thing. I said Kernos said it. Which he did.

I am saying that now that you have explained your position I can agree with some of it. However the things that Kernos is saying are still just... making me blink and wonder.

BunWat wrote: "Further - apparently trying to convince girls that it is better to be powerful than to be a housewife will cause the girls to develop mental disorders or become alchoholics."

I said no such thing. I only said that forcing someone to be something other than they are/choose to be is not a recipe for happiness or self esteem.

Okay Random, apparently your contention is that if a woman chooses to play a traditional role, such as being a stay at home mom, that should not be a reason to criticise her or assume she is stupid. I can completely agree on that with you.

However, Kernos has said and I quote "Most females are most suited for nesting and child rearing. Most males are most suited for protection and providing. This is simple human nature, genetically determined."

Further - apparently trying to convince girls that it is better to be powerful than to be a housewife will cause the girls to develop mental disorders or become alchoholics.

Ummm....

Wow, I end up away for a day and there's almost too much to catch up with. :)

BunWat wrote: "But when I ask do these biological differences mean men and women should have different rights, no that's not it. So should they have different work? No that's not it. Different roles in society? Well Kernos seems to suggest that, but you say no. So I'm left wondering what it is that you guys are talking about."

There's are a couple levels I'm referring to. One seems to be the negative reaction I get anytime I say that there are physical differences between men and women beyond the possession of ovaries and a womb or testicles and a penis and how those differences may have helped spark the early social roles.

The second is society itself. I still remember the horrible flak a cousin of mine took because she chose be to a stay at home mom. She was called lazy, stupid, a disgrace to women everywhere. She was often ignored in social settings as ignorant even though she was an intelligent and well informed person.

That is what I mean when I say harmful. She was happy in the role she chose to play. True equality means that each individual can play the role she or she chooses to play to the best of their own abilities. To be forced to play one you don't want, or don't need (they were fine financially and didn't need the extra money) purely for social pressure is not exactly an equation for happiness or self worth.

In regards to spinning wheels and body strength..
It's been a long time since I watched someone using a spinning wheel, but if I remember right, its more to do with the fact that the job is easier having two nimble hands to work the wool and leaving the feet to do the gross motor movement.

MB, Re: sexist Sci-Fi
What Sci-Fi have you been reading? I'm having problems thinking of anything modern I've read that doesn't just assume men and women are equally capable. You'll see men and women in equal roles of ability or authority and not much else said about it.....which if you think about it is the whole goal of equality to begin with.

There are some exceptions. Bujold's Vorkosigan series comes to mind, but that is on purpose. Barrayar is still a backwater society with some archaic thought patterns. And while that planet has a tendency to consider women lesser, etc, the actions of said women quite contradict those ideas.

MB -
Lois McMaster Bujold - Cordelia's Honor (and many more)
Octavia E. Butler is wonderful - Parable of the Sower, Wild Seed or Kindred are all good places to start. Sarah Pi turned me on to two terrific anthologies of short stories
Women of Wonder, the Classic Years Science Fiction by Women from the 1940s to the 1970s
Women of Wonder, the Contemporary Years Science Fiction by Women from the 1970s to the 1990s
You will get a taste of a lot of terrific authors in those and then you can follow up on the ones that interest you.
I like Greg Bear, the women in his fiction are generally not props or set decorations.

Connie Willis OF COURSE!!!

I've been enjoying John Scalzi lately.
Steven Brust - although he often walks the line between fantasy and sf.


And more, oh so much more.

Ben, which Octavia E. Butler would be best to start with? And, Dune? Hmmm...I've been wondering about that one.

Jim, your Mom sounds great!

Sarah Pi, on reading the reviews of "World Made By Hand" it sounds like the author could be projecting his fantasy world on his future utopia/distopia, by reducing women's status? Maybe his own worldview is distorted or outdated? Is he projecting? What do you think? (I mean, how many people out there really believe that a post-apocalyptic world is going to be 'better' without strong, capable, opinionated and educated women and their skills, input and participation? I haven't read it so am only going by reviews, sorry if my assumptions are incorrect.)

Predisposition is just that - our physiology & environment make some paths a little easier & more likely for the so-called 'average' person. Thank goodness people are too complex to always give in to it.

I could never imagine my mother as 'June Cleaver'. Right in front of my computer desk is a framed article of her taking first in the sheep shearing contest at the Howard County Fair. She mostly competed against big men, because it's not easy rolling a sheep around when you shear their wool off properly. She was one of the very few women to even compete, much less win.

Once, she hitched a ride from the hospital where she'd wound up after a horse riding accident (Gee, you could have called Mom!) & complained bitterly as I drove her the rest of the way home about how you'd think they never saw a gun before. She had a .38 in a shoulder holster that they found when they removed her jacket. Freaked them all out. No one expected to deal with a pistol totting granny, I guess.

Yeah, I'm real happy my mother didn't decide that since she was a small, pretty woman that she should be an ornament. She could have been, too. I do wish she had decided to cook more though. I still hate canned spaghetti.

Our society has a lot of catching up to do to the changes that technology has made. If you ever get a chance, read the first 1/4 or so of Future Shock by Alvin Toffler. The picture he paints of our technological explosion & the accelerated changes in our society due to it gives a lot of food for thought - for good & ill.

He takes our long history & puts it into numbers that make more sense. Instead of thinking of 10's of thousands of years that we've been around, picture it as 800 sixty year life times laid end to end. I can envision that much easier. Then realize that 95% of the scientists lived in the last lifetime - as of 1970 when the book was written. That floored me. He goes on to describe a lot of other societal & technological changes in similar ways. Very interesting reading & something I reflect on often.

It often takes societies generations to change ways of thinking & we've changed the basis for much of our thinking over & over again in decades. My grandmother went from no electric to using a DVD player.

MB wrote: "I have to say that I'm finding it pretty disappointing how sexist most of the sci-fi I've been reading is."

Two words and an initial: Octavia E. Butler.

Also, Frank Herbert's Dune saga has some of the most kick-ass female characters of any genre I've read.

No, Sarah Pi, I haven't read that one. I think that that premise would drive me crazy. (Even someone as good as Jack McDevitt irritated me.) The assumptions in novels that men get to do all the fun stuff while women support them are super annoying when projected on the 'future'.

And I'm all for traditional gender roles, don't get me wrong. IF THAT IS WHAT S/HE WANTS AND HAS KNOWINGLY CHOSEN! I don't like for it to be required/assumed. Unless there's a good reason and the plot has been developed so the 'world' setup requires that type of thing. Like religious fundamentalists in space or whatever.

Is Le Guin's LHOD part of the syllabus for gender studies classes? It seems like a good choice anyway due to the discussion/thoughts here.

MB Have you read World Made by Hand A Novel?
Such fascinating concepts, and overall one of the more soothing postapocalyptic scenarios, but I was really irritated by the fact that there probably weren't more than a dozen lines of dialogue for female characters in the entire book. The author seemed to imply that society would be taken over by the menfolk again -as Kernos did in message 72 ("We live in a world where technology allows for a great deal of variation from traditional rôles. But, if the world civilization collapses, from a comet or asteroid collision or effects of global warming, eg, resulting in a return to tribal, feudal or even hunter-gatherer cultures, I think traditional rôles would be forced on the majority out of the biological imperative to survive and reproduce.")

The author didn't really state a reason or back it up in any way. Most of the picture he painted seemed realistic, but there were a few things that just rankled me, and the portrayal of women was definitely one of them.

Another digression:

Lately, I've been trying to broaden my reading repertoire since I felt that the genres I had been reading were growing repetitive and/or stale. To that goal, I've tried to introduce myself to more science fiction (as well as other genres). I joined this group to get recs from people who are knowledgeable readers of sci fi. (I'm more familiar with fantasy, so that's just a bonus.)

I have to say that I'm finding it pretty disappointing how sexist most of the sci-fi I've been reading is. I know that SF has been dominated by male authors in the past, but come on! It's 2009 now. I find this annoying. Don't (modern) authors WANT to attract female readers/buyers?

I acknowledge that women and men are different biologically. But I challenge the premise that in the future we'd still be tied down to the old gender roles with women only put in there as characters to sex-up and/or serve the men. Ooogh!

As an author, if you're going to work that into the plot, setting and world structure, that's one thing. If it's just the way 'life is'...I have a real problem with that. That type of men-are/do-this, women-are/do-that needs to make sense in the plot....and not annoy a modern reader.


This discussion is very interesting!

Jim - that may have been a little harsh on my part. I'm just reacting based on what is clearly a different experience than yours.

I know girls that like hot cars & loud motorcycles, and girls that change their own oil. There are more female jockeys than there used to be, just as there are more female horse trainers, more female chefs, more female CEOs, more female mechanics, more female police officers, more female carpenters. Obviously, the numbers aren't even in any of those professions. I think part of the discrepancy lies in cultural resistance. Women in the professional kitchen are often given a hard time, as are women in the jockey's room. If you look at pay statistics in the business world, you see the discrepancy again. Women trying to break into those businesses are discouraged at multiple levels.

Obviously there are differences in physiology, but I don't think they necessarily make a difference in the way we think and what we like, and I don't think that most jobs are better suited to one gender or another.
---
Kernos said "But, trying to change one's basic personality, based on social reasons (eg, for girls it is better to be powerful than it is to be a housewife and raise a family) results in mental disease, especially affective disorders and addictions like alcoholism.
Who is talking about changing anyone's basic personality? I'm not entirely sure what that means. And what is the correlation between that and mental illness?

Sarah Pi, yes, generalizations based on experience. There are always exceptions to the rule. I've lived on farms & worked construction most of my life all over the country, so I've seen a fair cross section, I think. It mostly works that way. There was nothing about my post that should suggest, "I'm not a racist, but..." I stated facts & experience.

It's a fact that women generally have more body fat than men & less dense muscle. It's a natural part of being able to make & feed a baby. They tend to be smaller, on average. Take a look at medical average charts for size, body fat & all. Their bones tend to be smaller & different enough that a trained person can tell the difference at a glance. Men are usually bigger & stronger. In less civilized & technologically advanced societies, that generally meant women had different roles - often subservient, at least outwardly.

I know a lot of guys over 5'11" & 175lbs, but not many girls that big that are in decent shape. That's pretty much the minimum when it comes operating a 90 lb jack hammer all day, I think. That's my size & in 3 years, we never had anyone smaller that lasted at the job more than a day & we had quite a few try. That's not sexist, just experience.

I'll agree that a lot of horse farms I know are run by women. Not most, but it varies by type. Women often feed the hay, but aren't usually the ones stacking it in the loft or on the wagon. The racing stable where my wife & I met made it an 'all hands' operation. I don't recall a woman ever being the one tossing the bales up to the top of the pile, though. Mucking stalls seems about an even split between sexes. There are more male jockeys than females, but at shows, I tend to see more women.

My mother is an exception to every rule except for size. At 5'2" & 110 lbs, she can't toss around 40 lb hay bales for long. She'll move them if she has to, but it's a lot harder on her than most men. (Even if it isn't, she's no dummy.) With a weedeater, I've seen her out-work most men. With a grass whip, I was outworking her as a teen. (We didn't have weedeaters then.)

I've known lots of teenagers & other folks that like hot cars & motorcycles. Had a lot of them using my shop or driveway. It's rare to see a girl that likes a loud one or see her tinkering with one. I know a lot of woodworkers, construction workers & mechanics. They're predominantly men.

I think the differences in physiology makes a difference in the way we think & what we like. I think that there are jobs that are generally better suited by gender. I don't think one sex is better than another. I do think there are differences & they need to be taken into account.

Jim said "As for the farm, I've been around them for a fair number of years - lots of farms & people. I believe women are wired differently & they don't have the upper body strength for tossing hay around. They can & will do small quantities, but large quantities are beyond them. If they do help, I get one of them to stack while I toss. It goes quicker & better."
I can toss hay bales all day long. Most of the horse farms I have worked at are run by women, all of whom are comfortable throwing large quantities of hay.

I've never known a woman that liked using a chainsaw. That's probably the most aggressive piece of machinery I use. It's mean, loud & a handful. Men seem to get along with them better - it fits their natures & strengths better...
My wife loves power tools: chainsaw, drills, you name it. She's comfortable with them and good with them. She just built a gorgeous, rock steady structure in our backyard. My uncles jumped on it trying to prove that she couldn't possibly have made something so sound from scratch. She can also outdrive every guy on the golf course on an average day.

So yes, I think men & women are better suited for some jobs due to their physical & mental natures - as a general rule. When it comes to getting a job done, I don't care who does the job, so long as it gets done well & the best way possible. There's always plenty more work to do. It's stupid to do something based on gender only - but it often is a good starting point to know who can do what best.

I don't think you mean any offense by this, Jim, but to me it sort of feels like "I'm not a racist, but..."
I'm sure that many of these generalizations are supported by your experiences. Nevertheless, none of the examples above are borne out by my experience. So we've had different experiences, and we've come to different conclusions. My conclusion would be to find the most appropriate person for a task; gender doesn't come into it.

Bunwat, draw your own conclusions from what I said about the girl not showing up. I made none, just stated the facts. She wasn't the first not to come back, not even the first not to make a full day. She was the only girl that tried.

Personally, I thought it was stupid. We'd turned down small guys for the job before. (I was the smallest that worked out.) If the boss had been more tactful or the girl less belligerent, it would have been an easier day on the two of us working. Like having a flat chested girl work at Hooters, some folks obviously don't fit the job. As it was, it took another day to get someone that might work out. (I don't recall if the next worked out or not.)

You're trying to force value judgments that I don't consider valid. Who is stronger? It's more a matter of who is stronger under what circumstances & which is better, isn't it? My wife can put up with stuff for ages that drives me nuts in minutes. In some circumstances, it's better to endure, in others it's better to bring it to a conclusion. We tend to let the other lead when we feel the situation calls for their skills. She handles bureaucrats, I handle salesmen.

As for the farm, I've been around them for a fair number of years - lots of farms & people. I believe women are wired differently & they don't have the upper body strength for tossing hay around. They can & will do small quantities, but large quantities are beyond them. If they do help, I get one of them to stack while I toss. It goes quicker & better.

I've never known a woman that liked using a chainsaw. That's probably the most aggressive piece of machinery I use. It's mean, loud & a handful. Men seem to get along with them better - it fits their natures & strengths better. Now if a girl stopped by this morning & volunteered to cut up the trees that fell across the fence the other day, I'd have no problem piling the brush for her while she cut. As it is, my daughter will pile some of the brush & haul it out of the way while I cut. It works out that way, although I've certainly offered to do it the other way around.

So yes, I think men & women are better suited for some jobs due to their physical & mental natures - as a general rule. When it comes to getting a job done, I don't care who does the job, so long as it gets done well & the best way possible. There's always plenty more work to do. It's stupid to do something based on gender only - but it often is a good starting point to know who can do what best.

--------------

From what I've seen of looms, there isn't a lot of leg work required. A lady was showing us (me & Mom) how she worked hers at the Shaker Village a couple of months ago. Seemed to me the reaching was the hard part - lower back & arms. We've done some spinning before - we had sheep - & I never found that hard on the legs either. Again, the sitting & reaching, depending on the spinning wheel & how you do it, keeping your arms in close can be tough. I'm no expert, though.

As for the portable battery, that's the way the better cordless hedge trimmers work. Big battery pack on a harness with a cord going to the clippers. Mine hung from my waist, not the place I'd want a drill battery. I'd prefer to have the cord follow my arm. Otherwise it gets in the way, especially those curly ones. Tends to catch on stuff.

Man or woman, if you hold a weight at arm's length for any amount of time, it's going to wear out your arm & back - even if it is just your arm. Mechanical efficiency is what you're looking for. I have a few cordless drills, but if I have a lot of heavy work to do with one, I use a plug in one. That's why I have a generator & extension cords - a lot more power delivered a lot more efficiently.

Jim, I don't really think that men are (bioogically) more aggressive or that testosterone is doing something to make them so. When I was a criminal justice major, I read some studies where scientists were trying to figure out if convicted violent felons had more testosterone than the average man. The answer was "not really."

I think many cases of men being more aggressive is societal conditioning. Just think about little kids on the playground, the encouragement that little boys get to run around and be rough and how fathers exhibit concern if their sons are content to just sit in the corner. Little girls are told not to hit and are encouraged to talk about their feelings and sort out problems they have with people. I realize that it's tempting to chime in here with an ancedote that goes against this, but that's not the point - If you look at how boys and girls are raised across modern US society, these are the patterns.

I'm a big believer that societal conditioning is a huge, huge part of who we are. It affects everything from what we enjoy to who we are attracted to (historical studies will demonstrate that we are NOT naturally attracted to certain body types - it varies greatly across cultures and time) to how we behave and expect others to behave. And I think we truly do fool ourselves into believing that these things are innate, rather than learned.