lukne wrote:
> Here is a good article about gender differences.  I'll be somewhat
> interested in what you guys think of it. I found it in Salon.com.
>
> Just like a woman
> Lawrence Summers was right about one thing: There are innate
> differences between males and females.

Summers didn't claim that.  He put it up for discussion, but in the
company of feminists, apparently even that is too much.

> And if we want everyone to
> succeed, we shouldn't dismiss them.

Summers' point exactly.  He wanted to talk about the possibility that
there may be an elephant in the living room, because you wouldn't want
to ignore such a thing if it were there.  But this didn't stop the
feminist feeding frenzy that followed.

> By Lorraine Dusky
>
> March 2, 2005  |  Others besides me have noticed that most
> whistle-blowers of late have been women -- former Enron vice
president
> Sherron Watkins, retired FBI agent Coleen Rowley and former WorldCom
> audit executive Cynthia Cooper. To underscore the point, Time made
> these three its Persons of the Year in 2002. Recently, HealthSouth
> financial executive Diana Henze joined the ranks of female
> whistle-blowers.

So far that's four female whistleblowers.

> Could it be that women generally are more ethical than men?

I'd say your sample size is a bit small.

> Yes, wrote
> Harvard University's Carol Gilligan more than two decades ago in the
> book "In a Different Voice." While some hemmed and hawed, Gilligan's
> argument was largely embraced by feminists.

Well of course they did.  They believe in the superiority of women.
Whereas most others don't, so it takes more than anecdotes to convince
us otherwise.  Do let us know when you have something more.

> Now others are saying that
> women are more likely to be the straight shooters who cry foul when
> they see their corporate companions jiggering the books. "Women Are
> More Likely to Blow Whistle" announced a 2002 headline in the Los
> Angeles Times.

Bzzt!!  Appeal to authority.  Invalid.

> "Women see things in a much bigger context than do men," says Judith
> Rosener, a professor at the University of California at Irvine. In
> "Ways Women Lead," a 2002 Harvard Business School e-book, Rosener
> proclaims that a woman's way of leading -- interactive, cooperative,
> inclusive and personal -- is profoundly different from the
traditional
> male way of leading, which she calls "command and control." She goes
on
> to say that women consider the larger implications of their actions
> when making a business decision, while men focus on the immediate:
that
> is, how much money they're going to make, or whether they're likely
to
> get caught.
>
> Rosener's statements barely caused a ripple,

  I can see why.  Anyone can write a bunch of statements.  It
takes someone smart to back them up with argument, or better yet,
proof.  I see none.  You are noise.

> and women generally nodded
> in agreement.

Indeed, women are superior.  Just ask them.

> In contrast, all hell broke loose when Lawrence Summers,
> the president of Harvard, said that one reason women don't ascend to
> the highest positions in science might be due to the "intrinsic
> aptitude" of men in this area.

Perhaps he was surreptitiously trying to prove that women have thinner
skin.

[...]



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/4/05 8:57:16 PM ---