Ian wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4183495.stm
>
> "Nancy Hopkins, of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was one of
> the academics who walked out of the conference.
>
> She said that, had she not done so, she "would have either blacked
out
> or thrown up".

Interestingly, when the feminist thinks an idea is wrong, or rather,
when she feeyuls that an idea is wrong, this is how she argues against
it.  Rather than telling you why an idea is wrong, she just tells you
she's disgusted with it.  This, by itself, is supposed to be
irrefutable proof that the idea is wrong.

Note also that a gaggle of feminists walked out of the conference, as
if the conference hinged on their presence.  To the contrary, it
continued without them, demonstrating how utterly irrelevant they've
become.  There was a time when they might have forced a stop to it, or
sued the speaker, or at least got him fired, but none of that happened.
Instead, before a crowd of indifferent onlookers, they walked
impotently out the door, unable even to argue against the man's points.

> I suspect that men too, would be crap at science if they couldn't
hear
> opinions they didn't like without blacking out, or throwing up.

Absolutely.  Science is supposed to be objective, and if she can't even
stomach the contrary work of other scientists, how objective is her own
research?  She's not qualified to do any work at all on sex
differences, because if she comes across something she doesn't like,
she'll act like it's not there, and she'll never report it.  Anything
she does or has done on the subject is suspect.

If one refuses to acknowledge an objective truth that she finds
offensive, she's not really a scientist.

> If she blacks out when she hears points she doesn't like, especially
> when they're demonstrably true, exactly what hope is there for
biology
> as a subject?

Men.


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/18/05 10:34:31 PM ---