Hyerdahl wrote:
> Ben wrote:
> > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > Philip Lewis wrote:
> > > > http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_02_24_05hm.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >       Feminists Get Hysterical
> > > >       First it was Harvard vs. Summers-and now Estrich vs.
> Kinsley.
> > |
> > > 24
> > > > February 2005
> > > >
> > > (edit)
> > >       >
> > > >For the last three years, Estrich's female law students at USC
> have been counting the number of female writers on the Los Angeles
> Times op-ed  pages (and she complains that there aren't more female
> policy writers?  Suggestion to Estrich: how about having your
students
> master a subject  rather than count beans.). She provides only
> selective tallies of the
>  results: "TWENTY FOUR MEN AND ONE WOMAN IN A THREE DAY PERIOD [caps
in
> > original]" (she does not explain how she chose that three-day >
> period or > whether it was representative); "THIRTEEN MEN AND NO
WOMEN"
> > as authors of
>  > > pieces on Iraq.
> > >
> > > I don't see that she needs to explain which three days; the odds
> are terrible.
> >
> > She absolutely does.  All she's pulling is a variation of the old
> feminist stunt that simply counts beans and nothing else.
>
> 13 to zero on any three days shows a problem.  You say she's "bean
> counting";  I say if there are zero women, there's generally a
problem.

I'm saying that a superficial analysis that does nothing more than
count beans while making no attempt to find out *why* the beans are
arranged the way they are is nothing more than a self-serving attempt
to sway opinion.  Or, in Estrich's case, force and extort opinion.

>  She's merely exposing the kind of sexism that men don't like>
> acknolwedging.
> >
> > No, she's not.  Perhaps she can prove that the quality of
submissions
> made by women equals or exceeds that of those made by men.
>
> All you're suggesting here is that men are superior writers and I am
> suggesting that they are NOT.

I'm suggesting you take the vagina-coated glasses off your face.  What
I'm pretty clearly saying is that Estrich needs more than simple
numbers to establish her case.  And, do you really think that women who
submit o the L.A. Times are representative of female writers in
general?

>  Whether the women are facing direct or
> indirect discrimination, discrimination exists.  Direct
discrimination
> is like calling women inferior and not hiring them.  Indirect
> discrimination CAN be by denying women opportunity resulting in their
> inability to compete.

Quality of submissions aside (and neither you nor Estrich has yet to
make a case), the Times is under no more obligation to provide female
writers a forum than Ms. is to provide male writers one.

>
>  If she can> do that, she might have a case.
> >
> She doesn't need to go that far when we already know that most women
> are in the workforce today.

Which has what to do with the L.A. Times Opinion section?

>
> Of course, the Times is not obligated to print x amount of articles
by
> women in some sort of artificial attempt to attain balance.
>
> That's true; they can pretend to be fair and balanced just like Fox
> News.  :-)  But those of us who are in the know, know better.

If those of you "in the know" knew better, you wouldn't hear so much
inanity coming from the Left.  But that aside, since you're
acknowledging the Times is under no obligation, then just refuse to
read it and move on.  If enough women do that, the market will shift.

>
>  And it's certainly not as if women don't have enough forums to
express
> themselves.
> >
> Women need not reinvent the NYT just because the NYT is
discriminating
> against them tho.

They don't need to (and you do know we're talking aout the LA Times,
right?).  There are plenty of existing forums they can use.  And you
still haven't made the case that the Times is discriminating.  Do I
think they are?  I don't know.  But I do know that Estrich hasn't made
her case, and that's my point.

>  And let's face it, women who have been excluded in
> other venues will hardly be able to write about their own experience
in
> that venue.  For example, there was an entire crew of NASA female
> astronauts who were excluded in favor of the John Glen crew.  It
would
> be hard to write about an experience you are prevented from having,
eh?

Got anything more current?  And, have you not been able to read
articles written by other female astronauts?  Also, did you wonder
about other male astronauts who didn't get to go into space because the
women did, and therefore they can't write about *their* experiences?  I
mean, how far do you want to drag this thing along?

>
>
>  Several questions present themselves: how many pieces by women that
>
> met the Times's standards were offered during these periods?
> > >
> >Actually, a more important question might be to count the numbers
of>
> women/men in the press who wanted to report those pieces and the
number
> of women/men who did.  That would more accurately reflect the
reality>
> of sexism.
> >
> > Desire and ability are two different things.
>
> So are nepotism and ability, and yet...that is how most men seem to
get
> hired.  :-)

You're welcome to try and prove that.

>
> >What is the ratio of men to women among experts on Iraq?
> > >
>  Reporters are seldom "experts" on one part of the world; they are
sent
> to many parts of the world for news.  However, a more valid point you
> could make to support your position is that women sent to Iraq cannot
> go in the same places that men go when they are sent there.  Thus,
men
> could provide a more complete story, absent a woman's point of view
or
>  mingling with Iraqi women.  And it's disputable as to whether female
> reporters could get any more info from Iraqi women than male
reporters.
> > >
>  Estrich never bothers to ask> these questions, because for the
> > radical feminist, being a woman is > qualification enough for any
> topic.
> > >
>  For western women, it's certainly appalling to run into situations
> where they can't be as free as western men, but I think this is one
of
> those situations.
> >
> No, it's not.  First of all, newspapers are under no obligation to
> provide balance in their opiniion spaces (if they were, would you see
> them so uniformly to the left?).
>
> Yes.  Most educated people are actually to the left.  :-)

Indoctrinated people aren't necessarily educated.

> It takes an education to write a news story.

It does.  Too bad the education doesn't enhance objectivity or
journalistic ethics.

>
> Second, women have ample outlets for their views, and a failure to
get
> published in the L.A. Times doesn't
> > exclude them from being published anywhere.
>
> Writing for Ms. is not the same as writing for the NYT, howver. and
> so...it does serve to silence women if they aren't included as
members
> of the press in a variety of venues.

Women are members of the press all over the place.  We're talking about
the opinion pages in one newspaper (and it's the L.A. Times, not the
NYT).

>
> And finally, Estrich has done nothing to prove that the number and
> quality of female submissions equals that of men.
> >
> That is the well-worn argument that women are simply inferior to men,
> and at this point in our evolution, I don't think anyone of intellect
> is willing to 'buy' that.

Anyone of intellect would be able to read what I wrote, which talks
about female submissions to one newspaper.  Your feminist attempt to
skew that and make false extrapolations is noted.  You can sit next to
professional hysteric Nancy Hopkins now.  :)

  Again, this can be by direct discrimination
> or indirect.
>
> Which, even if it did, would not obligate the newspaper.  Let the
> reading consumers decide which columnists they want to read.
> >
> Any newspaper that wants to be considered a newspaper must be fair
and
> balanced.  Fox is just an entertainment show, because it is right
wing.

Newspapers can be whatever they like, but they usually cater to a
market.  Do you see what that means?

>
> It's not necessarily about "expertise" as it is
> about limitations imposed by fundamentist culture both in Iraq, and>
>
> Afghanistan.
> > >
> > > Any female is qualified to write on  Iraq, for example, because
in
> so doing, she is providing THE FEMALE PERSPECTIVE.
> > >
> > > Well, there is that, but in places ruled by fundamentalism, it's
> hard> to say just how much of the picture a female vs male reporter
> will> get. The real issue keeping female reporters from competing is
> the actual
> > > societal limitations of women in those countries.
> >
> > I'll agree with some of this, but I don't believe Estrich was
> limiting> herself to coverage from Iraq.
> >
> I agree.  Estrich was speaking of hiring men and not women for all
> kinds of news stories.

You might want to read the article.

>
> (This belief in the essential difference between male and
> female "voices," of course, utterly contradicts the premise of the
> anti-Larry Summers crusade.)
> > >
>  No, it doesn't.  Women need representation by virtue of belonging
to>
> a group called women, and women's interests are not always the same
as
> men's interests, albeit equal rights.
> >
> > And where women's interests differ from men's, you prefer that
women
> be given priority.
> >
> No;  I "prefer" that women be included fully in the process by a
> variety of means.  AA and EE are one way.  Certainly screened hirings
> are another.  But what's more important is that we stop using
nepotism,
> or 'goodoldboyism' to hire more men than women.

Oh please.  lol   Feminists are wild practitioners of selective hiring.

>
> > > Summers point was offering a reason, based on different levels
of>
> > intelligence as to why women were not equally represented in the
> sciences.
> >
> > No, he was speculating on gender differences as a group--he made no
> comments whatsoever regarding intelligence.  However, given Hopkins
> hysterical response, others are certainly free to question *her*
> intelligence and emotionalism.
>
> She had every right to be angry, given he was, as you suggest,
> "SPECULATING" about the inferiority of women rather than discussing
the
> real things that hold women back.

What she had every right to do was challenge the speculation, which
didn't imply inferiority (do all women make fundamental logic errors
like this, or just feminists?).

> Women professors IN the sciences know that is bullocks!
> >
> > You don't speak for female professors any more than you speak for
> womenin general.
>
> Perhaps not, but that's certainly how female professors are
> experiencing their own forms of discrimination, but subtle and not so
> subtle.  And they are the ones speaking up, no?

The hysterical ones are screeching, and the calm, mature ones are
shaking their heads at them.  So yeah, I guess they're all speaking up.

>
>  And some women *in* the sciences not only concur with
> > Summers but are ashamed of Hopkins' reaction.
>
> I don't recall even one "woman" in science claiming shame over
Hopkins
> reaction.  Do you have a quote on that?

Do you not read anything at all except gender feminist material?  It's
all over the 'net, and I've aleady povided you with several sites.
There are many links off those sites to other articles.

>
> Men tend to hire other men and that is rife in the sciences.
> >
> > Perhaps there are more qualified men than women.
> >
> Whether women suffer direct or indirect discrimination your only
> argument here appears to be that women just can't cut it, i.e. that
> women are inferior in science.  I don't buy that.

I should hope not, since that wasn't my argument, just your skewed
interpretation of it.

> > >
> > > Thus, to buttress her claim that Kinsley >
"refuses" to publish>
> women,> Estrich merely provides a few examples of women> whose
> offerings have been rejected: "Carla Sanger . . . tells me she> can't
> get a piece in; I have women writing to me who have submitted> > four
> piece  [sic] and not gotten the courtesy of a call-and they teach>
> gender studies at  UCLA. . . ." It goes without saying, without
further
> > > examination, that each  of those writers deserved to be
> > > published-especially, for heaven's sakes, > the gender studies>
> professors!
> > > >
> So basically, she has provided PROOF of the non-publication of women
> professors.  ????  Is Carla Sanger any relation to Margaret Sanger?
> :-)  Again, it's important to look at the numbers of the press trying
> to get> published vs 'God's chosen'.  :-)  In that regard, we would
get
> a
> > much > clearer picture, but I'm not sure it's her job to do that
> study.
> > >
> Self-centered? Thin-skinned? Takes things personally?
> Misogynist > tropes that sum up Estrich to a T. It is the fate of
> probably 98 percent of > all op-ed hopefuls to have their work
silently
> rejected, without the  "courtesy of a call." But when a woman
> experiences the silent treatment, it's > because of sexism.
>
> When women fail to get publshed in comparison to men and silence is
> golden, yes it's quite easy to extrapolate that to abject sexism.  As
> more studies come out, more sexism will likely be revealed.
> (edit)
> > >
> Estrich is entitled to her opinion as to why she was ignored, and her
> words may inspire someone to do an actual study on why women
reporters
> are ignored, if they are.
> >
> > If it's a feminist study, we can all save time and ignore it before
> it gets completed.
>
> Not really.  The well known rule of studies is that one will do until
> the next one comes along.  :-)  I'm ok with that.

That's where you and I differ.  I'm only ok with the truth.

> >
> The assumption that being female obviates the need for any further >
> examination into one's qualifications allows Estrich to sidestep the
> most fundamental question raised by her crusade: Why should anyone
care
> what the  proportion of female writers is on an op-ed page?
> > >
>  If 50% of those trying to write an op-ed page are female, it's
> > important to address why.  Perhaps women just aren't intellectually
> capable enough to be writers, eh?  :-)
> >
> > Establish that women constitute 50%, first.
>
> Well, women now comprise just about 50% of the workforce so it isn't
> terribly hard to believe that 50% of those wanting jobs in writing
are
> women, especially when you consider that more women than men enter
> college, and that more women than men enter journalism, and have for
> about the past 15 years.  I guess something just magically happens to
> women's talent between the time they enter college and the time they
> are hired. :-)

So in other words, you can't establish that 50% of the submissions to
the LAT opinion pages are from women.  Why not just say so?

>

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 100