Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;DonnaML, post: 4748966, member: 110350&quot;]I don&#039;t want to get into an argument with you or anyone else here, but I&#039;ve already expressed my strongly-held opinion that this kind of reductionist pseudo-scientific thinking may be the subject of a lot of articles in the popular press, but is devoid of actual scientific support.&nbsp; It&#039;s about as valid as the &quot;study&quot; that attempted to prove that women have a genetic propensity to be interested in cooking, and men to be interested in driving trucks, by giving toy pots, pans, and trucks to baby monkeys and claiming that the boy monkeys played more with the trucks and the girl monkeys played more with the pots and pans. As if the monkeys knew what the objects signified! (Admittedly, it&#039;s true that the vast majority of adult monkey cooks are female, whereas most adult monkey truck drivers are male.)&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>In any event, I&#039;ve said before that women have the &quot;collecting&quot; and &quot;accumulation&quot; impulse every bit as much as men; it&#039;s just stereotypically directed at different objects, whether it&#039;s clothing or china or shoes or, as you admit yourself, scrapbooking.&nbsp; Not to mention that the majority of people studying and getting degrees in academic subjects related to numismatics (whether history, art history, classics, or archaeology) are women, not men. Just like most humanities subjects.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in