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 and not worth refuting.  Most
people
> understand that women already are doing everything men are doing,
PLUS
> gestating.

If women aren't being included in equal numbers, it is likely
> because sexist pigs like Summers aren't hiring them.


Notice how you use the passive sense when talking about womens
careers. The idea that an adult might make his or her own way without
having to always depend upon "being included in equal numbers"  just is
not in your mental universe.
I have got news for you kiddo, the good jobs in this or any society
are not given away to anybody because of gender or any other reason.You
have to fight for them inspite of people telling you rude things,
slamming doors in your face, or worse - a lot worse.
Bravery is not just limited to suing people who do not go far
enough out of their way to make things easy for you.
I have done OK in life and I cannot tell you how many times I was
told by various authority figures I was wasting my time, go home, etc.
I suspect that that true of anybody who ever got anything really
worthwhile accomplished.
But anyone who thinks first of needing "to be included" is pre-doomed
to a pathetic side show existence.

The very nature of his
> statement is based on the stereotyping of groups.  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.
>
> A statement made based on sterotyping is worthy of castigation
without any need
> for a study.  :-)  Studies may tell us how people learn, but they
don't serve
> to sterotype which is what Summers clearly did.  Shame on him and on
you for
> not recognizing stereotyping that leads to discrimination.
>
> >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.
>
>
> >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.
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/27/05 10:45:43 PM ---