On 2 Mar 2005 13:38:12 -0800, "lukne"  wrote:

>Here is a good article about gender differences.  I'll be somewhat

Good? It was just a silly feminist spew.

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

Who wants "everyone" to succeed?

>
>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.

Time is a feminist magazine and wouldn't report on men
"whistleblowers."  Lack of coverage in the Popmedia doesn't
mean anything.


>
>Could it be that women generally are more ethical than men? 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. Now others are saying that

Therefore her argument most likeley unsupported nonsense.   Why
repeat it?

>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.

Isn't that the same rag that published the bogus sexual-whatever
charges against Arnold just before he was elected anyway?

A headline in a feminist rag - some "proof," huh?

>
>"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.

More unsupported feminist tripe.

>
>Rosener's statements barely caused a ripple, and women generally nodded
>in agreement. 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. Incidentally, Summers also listed
>old-fashioned gender discrimination and the lower likelihood that women
>will take jobs requiring incredibly long hours as other reasons women
>do not get the top jobs in the sciences, which has been largely
>overlooked in the firestorm following his comments. (This isn't the
>first time Summers has been in the hot seat. Previous comments about
>other matters also provoked controversy, and his "imperious, abrasive"
>leadership style has become part of the discussion about whether he
>should stay or go.)

Which would be all fine and dandy if he'd toed the feminist line
more closely.

>
>All this happened back in mid-January, but the issue is still blazing
>in practically every major media outlet. Yet where was the fury when
>some saw in the ranks of the women whistle-blowers not only a greater
>willingness to come forward than shown by their male peers, but also a
>difference in style -- and yes, morality? There was none.
>
>We generally agree that women are more likely to consider how their
>actions affect others, thus making them more collegial than men in

No, we don't generally agree on that at all.

>their work habits. And no one doubts that women are more in touch with
>their feelings, are better able to express them and, consequently, have
>better interpersonal skills. A woman prefers to share how she feels,

Yes, plenty of people doubt that.

>while her mate would rather debate whether Barry Bonds' steroid-fueled
>records ought to have an asterisk after them.

Whatever.

....

>
>The average IQ scores of females and males are equal because IQ tests
>are designed to purposely eliminate sex biases in the scores. But
>looking deeper, one finds that females and males score differently on
>separate parts of the test. Men do better on spatial questions, women
>on reading and other verbal skills.

Not true.  Men do better on all aspects; the differences incorrectly
cited apply to school children, not adults.

>
>While some argue that this is a result of conditioning -- when girls
>take up throwing a ball, their spatial ability increases by leaps and
>bounds -- conditioning doesn't explain why males' IQ scores are more
>variable than females'. More males than females end up at the low end
>of the IQ scale, and not surprisingly, relative to females, there are
>more male high school dropouts and more men in prison. But the opposite
>is also true: More males than females have extremely high IQs. And like
>it or not (I don't like it), this is probably why the world has more
>male geniuses à la Einstein, Mozart and Michelangelo. We can thank the
>goddess Nike for Marie Curie, but where's another woman in our
>pantheon?

Pantheon of scientists who were made famous for no reason other
than their sex?  (Who discovered uranium? Plutonium?)

>
>Oddly enough, those who argue against the existence of gender
>differences in ability are likely to fervently believe that biology,
>and not one's mother, determines homosexuality; demand same-sex medical
>trials; and adhere to the theory that, indeed, women are more collegial
>than men when they make decisions.
>
>Despite the biology, environment, of course, is critical in shaping who
>we become. The numbers of women pursuing careers in the sciences has

Cite?

>skyrocketed in the last couple of decades. At the prestigious
>Massachusetts Institute of Technology nearly half the student body is
>female. And at medical schools nearly a third of the students are
>women, while at law schools half are female.

Let's hear a big "hurrah" for "affirmative action," lowered
standards for women, and other anti-male discrimination.

>
>Yes, women can do the math. A new way of thinking about male and female

Some can.  Most people of either sex can't.

>abilities, beginning in the '60s, has opened all kinds of doors. But we
>are talking about the great mass of people, the averages, here -- not
>the dim boys who drop out of school or the geniuses who devise a new
>theorem or discover a new element.
>
>There's still a great deal we don't know about what is ingrained and
>what is instilled, but acting as if the differences between the sexes
>are purely anatomical, or merely the product of our environment, does
>not serve us well. Ignore the differences, and we forfeit the
>opportunity to encourage and enhance the talents of all of us, from the
>ordinary student to the truly gifted, regardless of sex.
>
>When mathematically talented 12- and 14-year-olds took the SAT in 1980,
>the journal Science reported, the ratio of males to females who scored
>over 700 (out of a possible 800) was 13-to-1. Now the ratio is only
>2.8-to-1, a clear sign of progress. What we have to do is continue to
>make sure that that "one" is nurtured to succeed in whatever she wants
>to do -- whether it is to be our next Madame Curie or not.

See other post which explains why the ratio change is due to changing
the SAT to benefit "women and minorities," not to a change in innate
abilities.




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/4/05 12:57:41 PM ---