Re: Cars make more economic sense than transit: fact

[techscan@gte.net (Robert Coté)]

In article <3795d34a.16790589@bri-news.tpg.com.au>,
qldspeed-spamsevil@geocities.com (qldspeed) wrote:

>      http://wwwistp.murdoch.edu.au/
> 

> It's fairly self explanatory - (what the hell is ecofeminism anyway?)
> but there's heaps more amusing reading on the actual web page - well
> worth a look!

>From the site:

Many feminists (as well as environmentalists) have perceived a 
connection between the exploitation of women and the exploitation 
of 'Mother Nature', noting parallels between the 'rape' of the 
'virgin' land and abuse of women. Consequently the women's movement 
of the 60-70's focused attention on nature as an exploited female 
presence. 

Carter and Kirkup (1990,p140) suggest that what distinguishes 
engineering from other masculine professions is the machismo myth 
which surrounds it and the aura of masculinity which is associated 
with it. Indeed, women engineers are a rarity. Engineering education 
as it now exists attracts students with stereotypically masculine 
traits. That is, a high concern for order and certainty; little interest 
in humanities and social sciences; an 'activistic' orientation (they want 
to see things working); little interest in people and moderately high 
interest in opportunities for self-expression and attainment of money 
and prestige. (Gerstl, p51) 

In their study of women engineers Carter & Kirkup (p 141) found that 
despite the fact that "feminists have generated much anti-technology 
literature and initiated many campaigns around technological issues" 
few of the women engineers they interviewed "questioned the nature of 
technological progress in the abstract." Many avoided women-defined 
groups and at home fulfilled traditional middle class female roles.