Hyerdahl wrote:
> rdubose{at}pdq.net wrote:
> > Hey Hyerdahl
> >
> >     You snipped the part where I pointed out that Summers
persecuters
> > will soon enough be seen by history as no different than the thugs
> who
> > went after Galileo for daring to challenge their comfortable,
> > profitable orthodoxies. I guess that made you nervous.
>
> Future wishing and hoping, on your part, wasn't particularly worthy
of
> a response.  I prefer to debate ideas that have some element of
proof.
> For example, the FACT that Summers hasn't done well in hiring and
> promoting women during his 'watch' seems to be accompanied by his
> ideology that women are not mentally suited to the sciences.  When
you
> pair those two things together, it gives one reason to suspect
> discrimination.
>

   You have this all backwards. Summers gave a talk in a forum
dedicated to exploring the possible reasons for the WIDELY observed
dearth of women in th higher levels of math and science professions.
The situation at Harvard is hardly unique nor was it the subject of the
conference.
   And he did not say that "women" were not mentally suited for the
sciences. He merely pointed out what is well documented; that the Bell
curved distribution of math abilities is shaped differently for men and
for women. Average ability seems to be very close for both genders but
beneath this fact is the observation that many more guys than women
have weak math skills. But the average performance is the same, because
there are more extremely high performers who are guys. But "average"
performance is meaningless when one is talking about a career at the
top of a math/science specialty-it is all a matter of who posseses the
very top skills. Of course some women do and good for them - which is
what Summers and (almost ) everyone else has said.
   But it is clearly mischeivious to blame Summers for having trouble
finding enough top flight female math/science professionals. No on else
can find very many either. That is why this conferrence was held in the
first place.
   Also, his job as college President is not to "represent" the student
body. His job is to uphold the standards and integrity the university
in its search for truth.
   So when one puts these things together: 1. There are few women
anywhere performing at the top levels in math/sci. 2. He mentioned the
fact that testing has agreed with this for years now.    It scarely
adds up to anything except honest plain speaking.


>
> > The odds that serious scientists can be found anywhere in just a
> > few years from now who will still believe that men and women are
the
> > same except that women can gestate are close to nothing.
>
> I don't think women and men have to be "the same" in order to be
> equally treated.


   Treated equally by whom or what?? It is one thing to keep all
opportunity doors open. It another to try to force nature to be more
cooperative. It is like saying that everyone should have the "right" to
climb Mt. Everest.


 Obviously, a president of a university who operates
> under sexist notions that remain unsupported by science


   the opposite of the truth

cannot
> represent the women students


   he is not there to represent them . The students did not elect him.

 who attend that university.
> AND, based on the notion that both sexes should have equal rights, I
> have no need to make women fit into some male-drawn box so that women
> can become scientists.


   Do you think that women who have climbed Mt. Everest were "forced
into a male drawn box" because a bunch of guys did it first?? Or was
there simply the mountain and the need to put one foot in front of
another and dodge avalanches until one gained the summit?
   See, the mountain, she really does not care. There is only climb or
not climb if you want to get to the top. With making break-thru math
and science, there is only do it or not do it (or maybe talk about how
you could have done it if only someone had been sufficiently
encouraging- which is the exact same thing as not doing it.)

Women already ARE scientists with or without
> brain differences and with or without Summers permission and whether
or
> not they have gestated as well.  IOW, we all know that women make
> choices relative to family life, as SHOULD men, but that doesn't mean
> that women have lesser ability nor does it mean that policies are not
> in place that serve to punish women's gestational choices.  Summers
> screwed up, pure and simple.


   Wow. Did you ever change the subject. But you did admit that women
really do not want a math/science career as strongly as men - they
would rather be a mom - for at least a while.

   The pattern is repeated endlessly.

1. Women make a choice based on their heartfelt preferrences.
2. The choices often have the effect of limiting their role outside the
home.
3. Feminists come along after and blame "men" for womens limited
presence outside of the home.
4. Feminists demand power and money to torture anyone who makes them
feel uneasy.


>
>  It is all over the place even now that men and women resemble each
> other genetically
> > LESS than humans resemble chimps.
>
> That's ridiculous.  I won't even comment on that.  It's sort of like
> arguing the position that the moon really is made of cheese.  :-)
>
> Silly people like feminists at> Harvard are on the run with their
> blinkered doctrinaire self-taught lies.
>
> Gee, it appears to me that it is Summers who is "on the run".  I
> suspect his term is nearly over and the internal debate will tend to
go
> to what kind of person makes a good university leader.


   At Harvard the answer seems to be someone who is abjectly spineless
and who never forgets who he must not upset. If nature outside the ivy
walls can be similarly frightened, it might work out for you guys.


 :-)
> (edit)
>
>
> >



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/26/05 4:46:24 PM ---