Hyerdahl wrote:

> Dustbin wrote:
> 
>>greg1199{at}yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm sure you're all aware of the situation of Dr. Larry Summers,
>>>President of Harvard.  During a supposedly off-the-record
> 
> conference,
> 
>>>he was explaining why professors of math and the hard sciences tend
> 
> to
> 
>>>be men.  Among other explanations, he suggested that more men than
>>>women may reach the very highest levels of mathematical ability.
> 
> MIT
> 
>>>biologist Nancy Hopkins quickly ran to the fainting couch.
> 
> 
> Good for her.  It should be shocking when men use the 'inferior brain'
> response in order to exclude women from a societal institution or
> explain why they have not been included.  We've evolved past that.
> 

Typical hymendahl. *DIFFERENT* is not the same 
as *INFERIOR* - DEAR!

D.
> 
>>>Of course, this was hardly a new idea.  Some scientists believe
> 
> that
> 
>>>men tend to spread out more along the spectrum of intelligence and
> 
> of
> 
>>>mathematical ability, meaning there are more male geniuses and more
>>>male morons.  In contrast, they believe women tend to cluster
> 
> around
> 
>>>the average.  Others say men have greater spatial ability, and
> 
> women
> 
>>>greater verbal ability.
> 
> 
> Women may well "cluster around the average" just like most men, but if
> women were excluded from the same levels of math, it's hard to pass
> that on to ones daughters, eh?  IOW, it isn't the innate ability of
> women that ends up placing them in the middle of the spectrum; it's
> their prior exclusion.  It's similar to why the children of Asian
> immigrants have better famial relationships than the children of
> slaves.  They pass their heritage onto their children.  Sexism is
> sexism and Larry Summers is guilty of such.
> 
>>>After Summers suggested that this idea should be discussed, there
>>>erupted a nationwide outbreak of hissy fits, and Summers suffered
>>>vicious attacks at the hands of the brownskirts.  To keep his job,
> 
> he
> 
>>>groveled, apologized, groveled, apologized, and groveled more.  But
> 
> was
> 
>>>this enough for Harvard femscists?  Hardly.
>>>
> 
> Indeed.  His performance is piss poor.  He does not represent Harvard
> well, and because of his sexist statements should step down.   If you
> are a woman attending Harvard, you will know that your president thinks
> less of your brain power, than that of your brother students.  How can
> such a man continue to represent the women of Harvard.  Should he slip
> them a sly grin as they walk by?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20050315/ap_on_re_us/harvard_summers
> 
>>>The Faculty of Arts and Sciences just passed a no-confidence vote
>>>against him.
> 
> 
> Good for them.
> 
>>>The moral of the story?  I'll paraphrase Winston Churchill.  You
> 
> can
> 
>>>give up your self-esteem, or you can be punished.  If you choose
> 
> the
> 
>>>former, you'll get both.
>>>
> 
> 
> INdeed.  The women of Harvard should NOT accept the sly grins of
> Summers.  They should have a leader who also represents THEM.
> 
> 
> 
>>>All of Summers' groveling got him a whole lot of nothing, and he
> 
> lost
> 
>>>his soul.  It's as though he made a Faustian deal, but without the
>>>payoff.
> 
> 
> He blew it.  He disenfranchised the female students.  How can he lead
> them?
> 
>>>When feminists come after you, just accept that they'll get your
> 
> pound
> 
>>>of flesh, and defiantly maintain your position.  Go out with
> 
> dignity.
> 
>>>No matter how badly you offend them, or how many times, they can
> 
> still
> 
>>>only hang you once.
>>>
> 
> He has already come out of the sexist closet; what more can he say.
> The women teachers and students of Harvard should not have to accept
> him.  He doesn't represent them.  It's over, and the fat LADY is
> singing.  If he want to continue his sexism he can, or he can say he
> was wrong, but either way, women of Harvard should not have to deal
> with his sly smile as they pass.
> 
> 
> 


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/18/05 4:59:38 PM ---