"George"  wrote in message
news:pP7Hd.10228$yY6.1633{at}attbi_s02...
>
> "Philip Lewis"  wrote in message
> news:353d5fF4ecc06U1{at}individual.net...
>>
>> "George"  wrote in message
>> news:EfYGd.9267$yY6.7592{at}attbi_s02...
>>>
>>> "Way Back Jack"  wrote in message
>>> news:41ec4145.37884374{at}news.newshosting.com...
>>>> Geez, that's what the old timers said before it became
>>>> politically-incorrect to do so.
>>>>
>>>> Bro
>>>
>>>
>>> Gee, my wife graduated cum laud with a double B.S. in geology and
>>> mathematics.
>> So your wife is ALL WOMEN - well thats a 'convincing' argument. Next
>> comes a feminist who says 'ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS AND THATS ALL THEY ARE' -
>> after all said feminist need only to point to ONE MAN to prove her case
>> using your 'logic'!
>>
>> Phil
>>
>
> The Harvard professor said "women lack natural ability in some
fields".

He said a lot more than that but YOU in common with those who are seeking to
repress any scientific findings which do not support their prejudice jump on
out of context 'quotes' as if that was the whole argument that was made -
for example in the same article it is reported ""It's possible I made some
reference to innate differences," he said.He said people "would prefer to
believe" that the differences in
performance between the sexes are due to social factors, "but these are
things that need to be studied." Even so if it is TRUE (and there is a
question about that for we are depending on absolute accuracy in reporting
here!) that he made those remarks (i.e. "women lack natural ability in some
fields". ) then in your response it is clear that you have taken the most
extreme and ridiculous meaning of that phrase in your attempts to 'debunk'
it. For when we say (talking about the sexes in the mass or plural level)
there are differences in men and womens 'spatial abilities' it is not meant
to mean that EVERY single mam has different or superior spatial skills to
every single woman. that is why your anecdotal example is completely
worthless in the context of this discussion

Phil





 He then
> used that argument to suggest that as a reason why so few women take up
> science and math.  My wife graduating cum laud in science in math is proof
> that women do have that ability (when I took calculus in college, there
> were more women than men in the class.  There are currently more women
> actuaries than there are men actuaries.  When I was working on my B.S. in
> geology, there were as many women as there were men in the program).  The
> problem (if indeed, it exists at all) with there being so few women in
> science and math has less to do with their abilities than with the
> so-called "glass ceiling", the "boys club"
mentalility that still pervades
> many scientific professions.  Answer this:  Why are there currently more
> women obtaining medical degrees than men?
>



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/18/05 10:34:03 AM ---