"Society"  wrote in message 
news:10up563gtti3715{at}corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Philip Lewis"  wrote in message 
> news:352v5vF4fn2fkU1{at}individual.net...
>>
>>   Women Lack 'Natural Ability' In Some Fields,
>>   Harvard President Says
>>   Comments Came At Economic Conference
>>
>>   POSTED: 4:06 pm EST January 17, 2005
>>   UPDATED: 4:19 pm EST January 17, 2005
>>
>>   CAMBRIDGE, Mass -- The president of Harvard
>>   University prompted criticism for suggesting that
>>   innate differences between the sexes could help
>>   explain why fewer women succeed in science
>>   and math careers.
>>   http://www.local6.com/education/4090001/detail.html
>> Was he right to suggest that innate differences
>> betwixt the sexes may be a factor in women's
>> relative lack of progress in science and math
>> careers OR are we to be condemmed to dismiss
>> ANY science based view that does not lend itself to feminist orthodoxy?
>
> We're condemned, Phil.  I took a look at that
> TV station's web page to which you linked and
> I can only conclude that whoever wrote that blurb
> bleached most of the facts out, then ran what was
> left through the PC spin machine.  Here's a Boston
> Globe account with more details and context
> left in:
>
>   He [Harvard President Lawrence Summers]
>   offered three possible explanations, in declining
>   order of importance, for the small number of
>   women in high-level positions in science and
>   engineering. The first was the reluctance or
>   inability of women who have children to work
>   80-hour weeks.
>
>   The second point was that fewer girls than boys
>   have top scores on science and math tests in late
>   high school years. ''I said no one really understands
>   why this is, and it's an area of ferment in social science,"
>   Summers said in an interview Saturday. ''Research
>   in behavioral genetics is showing that things people
>   previously attributed to socialization weren't" due to
>   socialization after all.  This was the point that most
>   angered some of the listeners, several of whom said
>   Summers said that women do not have the same
>   ''innate ability" or ''natural ability" as men in some fields.
>
>   "Summers' remarks on women draw fire"
>   by Marcella Bombardieri, Globe Staff
>   _Boston Globe_, January 17, 2005
> 
>
http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/01/17/summers_remarks_on_women_draw_fire
>
> I'm willing to believe that the feminists who are
> hyperventilating in their hysteria are twisting what
> they heard into what they wanted to hear for the
> purpose of playing at being indignant in the properly
> PC fashion.  Too often I've seen that sort of
> reality-distorting behavior from feminists, Parg
> being the paradigm example.  I notice that the press
> accounts lead off with the feminist spin of President
> Summers' remarks and, if his own words are used
> at all, what Summers himself says is places way,
> way after his critics' comments.  (Feminists call
> that "fair and objective" reporting.)
>
> The MIT biologist who walked out during Summers'
> remarks, Nancy Hopkins, would be right at home
> in Stalin's Russia, kissing Lysenko's butt, hewing
> closely and rigidly to the party line, and denouncing
> anyone who so much as suggested that some obvious
> alternatives to the failing orthodoxy be looked at.
> Sheesh.

Indeed - I believe she was also involved in the massive STITCH UP of MIT a 
few years by methods which were basically exposed as fraudulent in this very 
forum around the time!
She was clearly grandstanding by her actions - her snapping shut of her 
computer and walking out was clearly a signal to all her allies within the 
biased orthodoxy she helped to create that once more FACTS don't matter 
because 'territory' has been encroached and in her orthodoxy 'principle' 
(i.e. female victimology at the expense of men - a challenge to this would 
not allow her to blame men and thereby get tangible redress etc) comes 
waaaaaayyyyyy before FACTS.

>
> Oh well, Hopkins isn't a compleat waste of protoplasm.
> She's done her part to add to the already heaping great
> Himalaya-sized mountain ranges of evidence for my sig:
>
> -- 
>   All excuses for feminism depend on the censorship
>   of reality to appear plausible to rubes, boobs and
>   graduates of clown colleges.
>

Correct and if anything thats putting it mildly but I won't add my own 
invectives as I am mindfull of my BP these days!

Phil
>
> 



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/18/05 6:05:12 AM ---