<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.5" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Does Michael Noer type with his toes?</title>
	<link>http://www.polimom.com/2006/08/24/does-michael-noer-type-with-his-toes/</link>
	<description>I used to be in the middle, but they keep moving the line!</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:44:44 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Lazarus</title>
		<link>http://www.polimom.com/2006/08/24/does-michael-noer-type-with-his-toes/#comment-30900</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Aug 2006 02:20:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.polimom.com/2006/08/24/does-michael-noer-type-with-his-toes/#comment-30900</guid>
					<description>It's my understanding there are differences between male and female that exceed the external (and internal) biophysics. 

Do I see a reference to another group originating the thought? &lt;B&gt; "Why? Because if many social scientists are to be believed, ..."&lt;/B&gt;
So now we're killing the messenger?   I do so love modern liberals.
As side note: &lt;I&gt;Freudianism&lt;/I&gt;?  I thought most modernist thought SIg's stuff, including his simpleton theory of &lt;I&gt;ego super-ego and id&lt;/I&gt; was dated more than bloomers,  petticoats, and knickers?

&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/I&gt;&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/I&gt;&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/I&gt;&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/I&gt;&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/I&gt;&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/I&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s my understanding there are differences between male and female that exceed the external (and internal) biophysics. </p>
<p>Do I see a reference to another group originating the thought? <B> &#8220;Why? Because if many social scientists are to be believed, &#8230;&#8221;</B><br />
So now we&#8217;re killing the messenger?   I do so love modern liberals.<br />
As side note: <I>Freudianism</I>?  I thought most modernist thought SIg&#8217;s stuff, including his simpleton theory of <I>ego super-ego and id</I> was dated more than bloomers,  petticoats, and knickers?</p>
<p></B></I></B></I></B></I></B></I></B></I></B></I>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Smukke</title>
		<link>http://www.polimom.com/2006/08/24/does-michael-noer-type-with-his-toes/#comment-30826</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2006 18:00:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.polimom.com/2006/08/24/does-michael-noer-type-with-his-toes/#comment-30826</guid>
					<description>Seems like the best thing to do here is simply go through Noer's article and replace all the male nouns/pronouns with non-gender words. If he had written this from a non-gender viewpoint, it would just be a list of interesting marriage-related statistics.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Seems like the best thing to do here is simply go through Noer&#8217;s article and replace all the male nouns/pronouns with non-gender words. If he had written this from a non-gender viewpoint, it would just be a list of interesting marriage-related statistics.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Feminist Law Professors &#187; Blog Archive &#187;</title>
		<link>http://www.polimom.com/2006/08/24/does-michael-noer-type-with-his-toes/#comment-30755</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:47:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.polimom.com/2006/08/24/does-michael-noer-type-with-his-toes/#comment-30755</guid>
					<description>[...] You can read more at Polimom, and Be A Human Being, and Indian Writing and other fine feminist blogs. I leave you with observations from Grendel at On The Turning Away: It’s hard to escape the suspicion that the evocative and provocative Noer piece on Forbes.com that has generated an uproar in the blogosphere is not a (desperate) PR stunt to draw traffic to the Forbes.com site amid the summer malaise. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] You can read more at Polimom, and Be A Human Being, and Indian Writing and other fine feminist blogs. I leave you with observations from Grendel at On The Turning Away: It’s hard to escape the suspicion that the evocative and provocative Noer piece on Forbes.com that has generated an uproar in the blogosphere is not a (desperate) PR stunt to draw traffic to the Forbes.com site amid the summer malaise. [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
