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.

>  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.

>  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?

>  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.  :-)

How do you know it's due to stereotyping, especially since it's true?
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.

>  Shame on him and on you for
> not recognizing stereotyping that leads to discrimination.

lol  Save your silly shaming nonsense.

>
> >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.

>
>
> >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.



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