Hyerdahl wrote:
> rdubose{at}pdq.net wrote:
> > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > rdubose{at}pdq.net wrote:
> > > > Hey Hyerdahl
> > > >
>
> >
> >    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.
>
> There is no "dearth" of women interested in science while there is a
> dearth of women being admitted into the higher levels of math and
> science professions, which does not lead to the conclusion that women
> can't do the work.
>
> > The situation at Harvard is hardly unique nor was it the subject of
> the
> > conference.
>
> The situation created by President Summers didn't need any particular
> venue to get him into hot water.  He said what he said.
>
> > 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.
>
> The Bell Curve doesn't measure aptitude; it simply catalogs where
> people end up on biased testing.


   Like giving people math problems to solve on a test is a process
riddled with bias.


 True aptitude is measured by what
> people actually DO.


   Unless they claim that they were discouraged from doing something,
right?

 For example, Bill Gates might not be able to test
> out of a paper bag, but he can sure do things.  :-)   The book, "The
> Bell Curve" is more about bias leading to bigotry than it is about
> actual performance based on ability.

   You are changeing the subect again.

 actual ability, we can only
> learn HOW human beings learn and not by categorizing one as any
better
> than the other.  That is only about labeling.
>
>  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.
>
> >From that, you seem to be assuming that those "guys" who are high
> performers must all go into math and science.  :-)  My point is that
> the only way to really tell why there are fewer women in math and
> science is to 1) compare the number of women vs men who applied for
the
> courses, and 2) determine what messages women were getting about
> whether or not they'd be as welcome as men in math and science
classes.
>  Therein you will find the true basis for the differences.


   You repeat your believe that women must be so pathetically
vulnerable to discouragement that it is unreasonable to expect them to
overcome it. Like guys don't face massive doses of discouragement for
many reasons that few women face.
   You end up re-enforcing the notion it is a waste of resources trying
to advance the careers of this sort of fragile, easily discouraged
people. I mean, what if they get thru school OK and then face a real
tough challenge in the workplace and no one has time to affirm their
delicate feelings? Who would really want to hire such a time-bomb?



>
>  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.
>
> In careers based on math and science, there are fewer women at the
> bottom level as well as the top level.  There are fewer women there
> because of the messages women get.  Even my own neice attended a
> university where the assoc. dean said that white women couldn't do
> science.  He only selected men of all races and Asian women.  Hmmmmm
> He sent a message.
>
>  Of course some women do and good for them - which is
> > what Summers and (almost ) everyone else has said.
>
> Sure, but those are women who have to put up with the sexism and
> exclusion and they still come out on top, meaning that you must think
> it's ok that women have to strive twice as hard to get as far.
>
> >    But it is clearly mischeivious to blame Summers for having
trouble
> > finding enough top flight female math/science professionals.
>
> I totally blame him and other bitter boys like him for allowing their
> own intrinsic bias color who is hired and/or promoted.  I blame him
for
> providing a sexist model in a university president, in blaming
unproven
> biases on his part, for why women are not excelling.
>
>
>  No on else can find very many either. That is why this conferrence
was
> held in the first place.
>
> Women have managed to insert themselves into most other societal
> institutions.  They now do everything men do PLUS gestate.  If women
> are not taking on math and science as often as other areas, it may
> indeed be that they are being excluded by rule or by intimidation.
> Keep in mind, that it has only been a few short years since they
> eliminated body fat tests for telephone company pole climing jobs.
> (Women have more body fat where there were doing the testing, on the
> underside of the upper arm).
> Women have had to scratch their way thru all that bias; the bias that
> exists at the upper levels of the sciences is simply harder to
> identify.
> When your upper level mentor invites you to the Hamptons to
'weekend',
> you may not notice that your female peers were not invited.  Hmmmmm
>
>   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.
>
> You are incorrect.  His job is as the representative of the
university
> and his own female students can place zero trust in him as their
> leader.
> And if he wants to talk about "integrity" he should start by
denouncing
> his own preconceived sexism.
>
> (edit)
>
> > >
> 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.
>
> You must have been sleeping dear.  Everyone DOES have the right to
> pursue climbing Mt. Everest.  Rights are not the same as abilities.
> Your point is not met by that point, however, because women not being
> equally represented in the sciences has never been proven


   Since you do not grant any legitimacy to any test but your own
intuition this point will likely stay unproven in your mind.


 to be about
> abilities, but rather sexism.
>
> >
> >  Obviously, a president of a university who operates
> > > under sexist notions that remain unsupported by science
> >  cannot > represent the women students
> >
> >
> >    he is not there to represent them . The students did not elect
> him.
>
> In representing the university, he represents the students.  He
should
> step down.
>
> >
> >  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??
>
> I don't see that women and men have differing strategems for climbing
> Mt. Everest, but they may have, based on amount of food needed,
issues
> of body heat, etc.  I also don't see that women have less ability to
do
> so.  Historically, women have not had the financial backing to
explore
> or to do many of the things we think of as being male.  If you saw
that
> film with Brad Pitt;  Seven Years In Tibet....his wife is gestating
and
> raising a child.  It would seem that she would be an unlikely
candidate
> for mountain climbing.  But today women are postponing or excluding
> child birth and doing as THEY please.  To exclude women based on what
> you think they should be doing is just as sexist as excluding them
> becasue you think they are not as smart.
> (edit)
> > 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.
>
> No.  I'm suggesting that men like you and Summers have NO RIGHT to
make
> categorical presumptions about what women do or want.


   No. I just open my eyes and observe what they actually choose - and
it is rarely to make a full bore run at a science career.


  Each woman,
> today, like each man, can make up their own mind.  It's time to put
all
> those sexist assumptions away and accept the fact that women are in
the
> maths and the sciences and they aren't going away.
>
> >    The pattern is repeated endlessly.
> >
> > 1. Women make a choice based on their heartfelt preferrences.
>
> What you call women's "choices" are already limited if society has no
> way to adjust for the very natural state of childbirth.  We can
change
> those limitations, and to some degree, we already have.  In a
> non-sexist society women would not be punished in their choice of
> life's work for the time they spend to gestate.


   Only feminists talk about being able to make a choice without having
to take responsibility for the consequences of that choice. That is the
only way to read "not be punished for their choices". Your run-away
sense of entitlement is sickening to just about everybody - women
included.




> > 2. The choices often have the effect of limiting their role outside
> the
> > home.
>
> Same as my comment above.  And, women are making better choices today
> by including the career and the children, but not including sexist
men
> who won't do their fair share of the unpaid work at home.
>
> > 3. Feminists come along after and blame "men" for womens limited
> > presence outside of the home.
>
> Feminists make all of us more aware of the lack of sexual fairness in
> society and as they do so, more people will make policy that includes
> room for the children.  Where society does not accomodate women's
> carreers and children, there will either be fewer children born or
> fewer men as husbands or a combination of both.  Women don't have
time
> today for sexist men.
>
>
> > 4. Feminists demand power and money to torture anyone who makes
them
> > feel uneasy.
> >
> Bulldroppings.  Women everywhere, feminist or not, are demanding
equal
> power and money in their own lives.  They can get that power and
money
> thru a husband, if they choose, or on their own.
> >
> > >
> > >  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
> > g to what kind of person makes a good university leader.
> >
> >



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/27/05 12:46:16 AM ---