On 9 Mar 2005 13:07:04 -0800, "lukne"  wrote:

Actually it was just another Very Silly article...which, BTW,
appeared here: http://www.powells.com/portal/ContemporaryCulture.html
(lukne didn't post the complete article)

Summer's talk is here:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=505844

>Much of the press coverage simply reinforced the gender stereotyping
>evident in Harvard University president Lawrence Summers' comments.
>Readers of the New York Times, for instance, learned interesting -- but
>irrelevant -- facts, such as the existence of sex differences in green
>spoon worms.

Well, that's what one gets for reading the NYT.

>But those who still don't understand why the Summers
>controversy represents a setback for women's equality, need look no

Women's inequality represents a setback for women's false claims
to equality (or "sameness.")

>
>That 20 percent of positions in science, engineering and technology
>development are held by women, as noted in the New Republic, proves

"A study of the math-intensive academic marketplace predicts that
women will top off there at about 22 to 23 percent."
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/women_and_minorities_in_science.htm

>nothing but that 20 percent of those positions are held by women. As
>any sixth-grade science student knows, the effect is the not the cause.
>So one would hope that university presidents, journalists and
>scientists would know better than to equate the two.
....

>Until they can cite a supporting body of evidence, Summers and others
>shouldn't make comments that disparage all women.

Read Summers' actual comments, which didn't "disparage all women."
BTW, women's relative lack of ability in math and "science" is very
well documented.

>If you aren't
>convinced, replace the word "Jew" or "black" for
"woman" in the
>coverage of Fiorina.

Besides not following the Rules of PC, what about it?

>
>Summers' defenders have offered some alternative explanations to
>genetics for the dearth of women in science, such as discrimination
>that leads to stereotyping about women's abilities and the lack of
>adequate child care, which would allow women to pursue careers while
>raising children. And in more rigorous careers such as science, many

Actually Summers himself offered those explanations also, so
Kirsten is either ignorant of or dishonest about what Summers
said - probably both.

>women are unable or unwilling to commit to the years of education and
>training that are required to reach the top echelons because of their
>family obligations. With all these other factors indisputably
>contributing to the dearth of women in the sciences and at the higher
>levels of other professions, the desire of Summers and his supporters
>to tie the phenomenon to an inherent lack of ability is perplexing.

....
>Equality also exists when a female CEO loses her job for bad
>performance and it is treated the same way as a male CEO who loses his
>job for bad performance. We clearly still have a long way to go.

Kirsten's own article is proof of the last statement.

>
>By Kirsten Powers



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/10/05 12:09:24 PM ---