>  But there was nary a peep from women's groups on the milestone.
Instead, the
> >ladies were busy expressing fury at Harvard President Lawrence
Summers.
>
> Well deserved as well.  He's a caveman and should not be doing the
hiring or
> promoting if his Neanderthal views prevent more female hires.

Summers merely stated that this was a possibility, how is that
"Neanderthal?" He simply suggested a possibility that has never been
proved or disproved scientifically. The data actually suggests that
this is true. People tend to focus on fields that come easily to them.
If math is harder for me at the grade school level than English, I will
enjoy English more and be more likely to go into a field that contains
more of the work and skill that I am good at, and therefore enjoy more.


> >Speaking at the National Bureau of Economic Research, Summers
suggested
> that>the shortage of top women in the "traditionally
male" fields of
math and
> >science might possibly be attributable to "innate differences" in
aptitude
> >between the genders.
> >
> If he goes that route he should have hired all Asian men since we
know that
> white men can't add measure or jump.  :-)  I mean Asian men
outperform white
> men on almost all those standardized tests ...and yet, Harvard has
more white
> male scientists.

He did not stated that he only hired men. In fact the statement was
about the absense of women in math and science fields, not about hiring
professors at all. Furthermore, Asian men make up a very small
percentage of the population and are overrepresented in math and
science fields compared to other ethnic groups, I am sure that they are
also overrepresented at the doctorate level also. Therefore if 2% of
college professors in math or science fields are Asain men, they are
still overrepresented at that level. Some if Harvard, Yale, and
Princeton only have one asain male professor of a science or math
field, asians are still statistically overpresented, understand?

> >Never mind. Summers' critics raged about his message to the
brilliant young
> >women of Harvard: Give up now, because women can't cut it. And
being>absolute
> wusses, the women would have done so, wouldn't they? Well, no. Even
> >if Summers had said what was attributed to him, most would have
brushed it
> >off and gone about their super-achieving without batting a feminine
eyelash.
> >
> Women did laugh.  They laughed at the lack of sophistication of
someone in a
> high position of power and they would like him pilloried and
replaced.

Expressing views that are not politically correct in your opinion does
not denote a "lack of sophistication." Judging from your posts here, a
"lack of sohistication" is something you should be familiar with, or
maybe a lack of intelligence.

> >Meanwhile, the feminist refusal to offer even slight applause to
Rice's
> achievements sends a far worse message: Women's progress doesn't
count>unless
> it is accomplished through bellyaching and political allegiance to
> >the left. Nowhere is that message heard louder than in academia.
>
> Rice is a token, but I'm A-ok with her acceleration AS a token thru
the
> Republican minefield, and Boxer didn't have to vote for her as she
was a
> shoe-in.
> Cause to celebrate, not so much.

Rice is a token huh? I would think a token would not be promoted when
Colin Powell left.... I guess he was a token too? The Bush
administration is not pandering to females or blacks with her
appointment, because Bush cannot be elected again, and everyone knows
Cheney will never be nominated to run for president....
I guess the blinders are really over your eyes.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/24/05 10:40:52 PM ---