WhiteBlue wrote:a statement that made me read the post three times. I couldn't find the points of argument for the irrelevant bits.
Highly worrying, on
my part - not yours. I will need to re-examine my logic and expression. Sorry for the inconvenience, it wasn't my intention to cause it -
nor any other ill effect - at all. Nor was it to provide a "learning experience", but merely to contribute one more point to further define our collective perspective. Hopefully there is one. I was inspired by your decision to introduce "wider issues". Should the mere extent of the rest of the message appear daunting, feel free to disregard it. There's nothing in prioritising that I will nor want to hold against you.
First off, I can't comment on Guy Kawasaki's "male killer gene" theory. I'm not familiar with it. My personal experience is that both genders are capable of causing severe harm. There seem to be cultural differences in what kind of harm either gender is expected to inflict. There seem to be differences in what motivation the genders are supposed in having to resort to harming others. Furthermore, there seem to be cultural differences in how any caused harm by either gender is viewed. The same seems to be true about other capabilities.
Some of this is the result of conforming to the environment, or "nature". Some of it is the result of shaping the environment, or "culture". We are at an interesting point in history. My view is that "culture" hasn't been nearly as "conscious" as we have liked to think we were. Only by having grown the human population over sustainable limits (
by means currently available) we're forced to admit to underestimating what "nature" is. At the same time, there's a new appreciation of how forcefully "culture" has come to direct evolution in biological terms. The HAR1 gene I mentioned is probably one very tangible example of this. The interaction between "nature" and "culture" doesn't happen between human beings and our environment. It happens within us and within our environment.*
Genders are by no means immune to the interaction of "nature" and "culture". Some societies already expect virtually the same of men and women. This will reflect quickly on both "nature" and "culture" alike, racing included. If there is a value judgement that racing should be equally accessible to women and that this accessibility should be reflected in numbers, IMHO we can only hinder the process by "affirmative action" (
even on thought level) in a thoroughly egalitarian, gender neutral society. This is where I expect change to be almost automatic and "positive amplification" will soon follow.
On the other hand, in an inegalitarian society a woman can outclass men in racing by adapting qualities and skills formed by that combination of "nature" and "culture". The motivation, means and effect can be very different to the egalitarian counterpart, but it is still as possible (
e.g., see Iranian racing driver Laleh Seddigh) and regarded as another real way of advancement. This is why I juxtaposed the effects of evolution and the adaptability of one's own skill set to a purpose. And herein I feel that your notions about averages being less than indicative of an individual's potential are very true. Call it "contrastive amplification" if you will.
My standpoints are varied and incomplete. These issues are so enormous that no-one in her/his right mind should claim to have considered every possible angle. Or "being in the right". I have been influenced by so many sources in this that I scarcely remember most of them by name. As always, there's a certain inevitable randomness in how one gathers information.
I wished to highlight the incredible variety of ramifications our very thinking has on (
perhaps improbable) things like women in racing. And a conversation on a messageboard is pure thinking on very many levels indeed. I wished to consider cause and effect beyond genders, in order to gauge how gender might
not affect one's general proclivity to racing.
I hope this shed at least some light on what I was after in inadvertently inconveniencing you. If not, my sincerest wish is that you do the service of being blunt about it and not leave me hanging. In any case, please do not take the trouble of reading this again, it is not worth it nor purposeful. I wish I could've responded with far fewer words but this, unfortunately, was the best I could do at the moment. Obviously I take further risks at irrelevancy. Of course if all else fails, I always have the option of checking myself in an establishment that has walls with considerably better padding. Alas they, too, might have a broadband connection.
Last, but not least, I very much liked that you dared to equate Danica with Juan Manuel, Ayrton and Michael. Some will undoubtedly regard this as excessive to say the least. On my part, I view it as an excellent example of introducing "wider issues".
-----------
* This, I dare to carefully suggest, also makes the case of how irresponsible, conceited and stupid racist theories and their "scientific" offshoots are. The destruction of one is the diminishment of us all. Our interaction, our very common being is on such a fundamental level that either we all improve, or ultimately none improve. It is our challenge to rise up to that standard.
