From Neuroethology to the Womens' Movement.

Damn. I love the web. I find wonderful organizations and areas of study I never knew existed. Like this one today....neuoethology. It concerns the study of animals: Neuroethology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Neuroethology is a branch of neuroscience that emphasizes the study of neural mechanisms of natural behavior. This is in contrast to other approaches to ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethology - 24k -

http://nelson.beckman.uiuc.edu/courses/neuroethol/model_systems.html My generation started the practice of giving dolls to boys and guns to girls on the theory that aggressive behavior which allows men to dominate in the work place and salary situations is caused by nurture. I agree, it is stupid. But it was all the buzz in womens' magazines in the mid-1960s. The womens' movement was so spectacularly wrong on so many things. I speak as a woman of that time as well. The women with $$ and rich husband's told the rest of us that we too could do everything they did. Well, no, ahhh, that wasn't true. But those of us grunts in the job trenches in the 1970-80-90s sure didn't twig to the truth until pictures and the history of Gloria Steineim started surfacing. One of the ancillary outcomes of the womens' movement is the no-fault divorce so useful to those who married and don't have kids. But one of the no-fault movements bigger issues is that it opened the way for divorcing couples write in non-support clauses or decide to have joint custody where each parent is liable for the basic support of the kids. Sounds reasonable but in practice one parent pays more. It just is what happens. And generally it is the one who for all sorts of reasons will not ask for reimbursement from the one who is not paying as much. So, no, there is no parity in this.