Hyerdahl3 wrote:
> >Subject: Re: "Panel rebukes Harvard president"
> >From: "Ben" ArGee45{at}hotmail.com
> >Date: 1/27/2005 4:39 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: 
> >
> >
> >Hyerdahl3 wrote:
> >> >Subject: Re: "Panel rebukes Harvard president"
> >> >From: greg1199{at}yahoo.com
> >> >Date: 1/21/2005 12:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id:

> >> >
> >> >
> >> >yared22311{at}yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> Panel rebukes Harvard president
> >> >> A university faculty committee chastised Harvard University
> >President
> >> >> Lawrence H. Summers on Tuesday for remarks he made at an
> >off-campus
> >> >> conference last week that suggested he does not think women
have
> >the
> >> >> same "innate" or "natural"
ability in math and the sciences as
> >men.
> >> >> at http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050120-120237-1942r.htm
> >> >
> >> >You'll note that this panel didn't bother to refute the content
> >of>Summers'
> >> statements.
> >>
> >> His comments were of a sexist nature
> >
> >No, they absolutely were not.  Perhaps you didn't take the time to
read
> >all his comments in context, preferring instead to just glance over
the
> >NOW cribsheet.
> >
> >> and not worth refuting.  Most people
> >> understand that women already are doing everything men are doing,
> >PLUS
> >> gestating.
> >
> >No, they're not.  Until and unless women are present in all the
> same>occupations that men are, in the same numbers, they're not
> doing>everything men are doing.
>
> Sure they are;  "doing everything" and "doing
everything in the same
number"
> are two different things dear.  In order to prove that women can do
the work,
> we only need to show one or two that do.  That doesn't mean that
many, many
> women WANT to do X.    Too bad you're so illogical.

Illogical?  Let's look at that for a moment.  One of your pet peeves is
the amount of housework a man does or doesn't do.  If I use your logic,
all a man has to do is cook one meal a year or do one load of laundry,
or whatever, and he's doing everything women are doing (PLUS the rest
of the unpaid work).

No, if 1,000 men are doing a certain type of work for a certain number
of hours a year, then 1,000 women need to be doing the same thing for
the same amount of hours to be doing "everything men do".

And it doesn't matter if women WANT to do a certain type of work or
not--if they're not doing it in the same numbers, they're not doing
everything men are doing.

So it's really not a matter of logic or illogic, it's more a matter of
you trying to claim credit for something women aren't doing.  Now, if
you want to say that there isn't a career field that doesn't have women
in it, that's a different matter, and is entirely more accurate than
some self-serving exaggeration.

>
>  If women aren't being included in equal numbers, it is likely
because sexist
> pigs like Summers aren't hiring them.
>
> >There could be lots of reasons why women aren't found in the same
> >numbers in  given field--most of them will be because of decisions
the>women
> made.
>
> That is also true as I've indicated above, but it has nothing to do
with
> women's ABILITY to do the job.  AND, there's nothing wrong with
studying WHY
> women aren't applying.

There's also nothing wrong with wondering if over- or
under-representation in a given field is due to gender differences.

>
> >>>  The very nature of his> statement is based on the stereotyping
of groups.
> >
> >"Stereotyping" that appears to be borne out across cultures,
across>time, and
> with no small amount of scientific backing.  But I realize
> >all of that falls because Ms. Hopkins felt like she was going to
"black
> >out".  Apparently, a bit of a challenge was enough to give her the
> >vapors.  Care to talk about casting yourself in a stereotypical
role?
> >
> Sterotyping is wrong dear; it's just that simple.

So how is it stereotyping if it appears as a constant?  Why not ask the
question "why"?

>  AND, no, I do as I wish, >and
> don't cast myself in stereotpic roles.

Sure you do...you're a stereotypical gender feminist with a strong
sense of female superiority and entitlement.

>   BTW, bringing sexism to light has
> nothing to do with getting "the vapors".  :-)  We have your number.

No, Hopkins pretty clearly got the vapors and reverted immediately to a
histrionic reaction to try and get an emotional response, which is the
standard cowardly feminist reaction.

>
> >>  What more is needed than
> >> that to lable him a sexist?
> >>
> >> They just castigated him for making the
> >> >statements, which is the typical feminist mode of argument.
>
> They caught him being a pig;  oink oink.

They're caught reacting like a bunch of hysterical children.  waa waa

> >>
> >> A statement made based on sterotyping is worthy of castigation
> >without any >need
> >> for a study.  :-)
> >
> >How do you know it's due to stereotyping, especially since it's
true?
>
> Stereotyping is when you apply a group reasoning for a particular
member of
> that group, i.e. most blacks are lazy because they don't have jobs.
X group >is
> black; X is therefore lazy.  The whole problem above is a stereotype
first
> assuming that African American prefer to be out of work  rather than
> considering what's keeping them out and then by transferring that
stereotype >to
> other group members.

It's pretty clear that there are innate differences between the sexes
*because* they're different genders.  Feminists love to make this claim
anytime they think it points out their 'superiority', so why is an
exploration of it all of a sudden taboo?  Differences don't mean
inferiority, just predisposition.

Of course, NOW is trying to use this as leverage to put women in
positions regardless of merit.

>
> >I would think it would be worthy of discussion--I realize that those
> >who flinch from the truth and from honest query would think
otherwise.
> >
> >>  Studies may tell us how people learn, but they don't serve> to
sterotype
> which is what Summers clearly did.
> >
> >Nope, he made an observation and presented several different
questions.
>
> No, he stereotyped a group of people based on a false notion.

It's not a false notion.

>
> >
> >>  Shame on him and on you for
> >> not recognizing stereotyping that leads to discrimination.
> >
> >lol  Save your silly shaming nonsense.
> >
> No; we can use it right here.

You can try, but I'm pretty much immune to childish nonsense like that.

> >>
> >> >Hence, we see that feminists would rather intimidate the
> >opposition>into
> >> silence than openly and rationally debate with their opponents.
> >>
> >> There is never a need to "debate" stereotyping of
groups of people
in
> >order >to> exclude them from societal institutions.> No more debate
is needed
> there.  If Summers wants to discuss HOW
> >people >learn,> that is another matter.
> >
> >Actually, his question would lead naturally into this one.
> >
> No; he made assumptions based on a sterotype.  That is NOT the
scientific
> method.  :-)

The scientific method doesn't include getting the vapors and running
around hysterically if you hear something you don't like or don't agree
with.

>
> >>
> >> >Thusly, they justify the term "feminazi."
> >>
> >> Call feminists what you like; it won't change the FACT that
Sommers
> >>stereotyped>> in order to exclude.  He's just another sexist pig.
> >
> >Histrionics are never pretty, Hy.  The way the feminists are
dealing>with this
> plays far more into stereotypes about women than Summers>comments
ever will.
>
> Not at all.  Pigs are pigs, not by assignment but rather by
stereotyping and
> prejudice.  He made his own bed.

"Stereotypes" about irrational, hysterical, overly punitive feminists
don't appear to be so stereotypical, do they?



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/28/05 1:14:05 PM ---