Hyerdahl wrote:
> [That's not true.  Every woman on campus now has reason to suspect
> Summers
> of harboring the notion that women are not intellectually prepared or
> fit to become scientists.  It gives every woman on campus the right
to
> believe that their own university president may hire or promote based
> on his own assumptions.  It also provides Summers an easy out, when
> explaining why women are not hired or promoted, instead of looking at
> issues like sexism.]

"Sexism" is just another name for womens failure to sacrifice to get to
the top just like the men.

> [Sure it does;  test taking skills actually measure how good a person
> is at test taking.  If, for example, women are less aggressive test
> takers, all the tests will measure is that.  The actual math ability
is
> better tested in actual work related situations, like school work
where
> women do quite well in math.  Since women are not as aggressive as
men,
> it stands to reason that women would also not be as aggressive in
test
> taking, which does not result in a an actual measurement of math
> ability at all.]

Math ability shows itself everywhere: the best programmers on the
planet are men.

> [I suspect endemic sexism IS mainstream and that many, many male
> educators would like to write off women as inferior in some way.
> Historically, we have much in the way of HIStorical proof to show
that
> to be just the case.  We have no reason to expect that today's male
> leaders are any less intimidated by strong bright women.  In fact, I
> suggest that many male leaders of universities are even MORE sexist
> these days, especially since so many women are now enrolling in
> colleges.]

The sooner you get off the "sexism" bandwagon, the better it will be
for women. Peddling 'sexism' as denying women equal ability is
pathetic.

> [Yes, indeed.  We no longer write women off by suggesting their
brains
> are smaller;  Summers loses.]

Its pathetic that mere words can 'write off' women. They shure do sound
like flacid little girls.

> [Summers was not suggesting that;  he was suggesting that women's
> abilities played a role in career paths which is a bit different. :-)
> But smart women and men see right thru that.]

So where are all the equal performing women in sci/tech again? Oh, its
"sexism" holding them back.

>
> [As I suggest, the days of sexist bigots like Summers are coming to
an
> end, and yes, they are popping up in "indignant" numbers.  There's
> nothing sexist writers (making money off of sexists telling them what
> they want to hear) can do about those numbers.]

"Sexists" are /dev/null dreary, women are absolute sexists in dissin
boys for not being jocks, and persistence pays off.

> [Intellectual freedom is for men AND WOMEN and the potential ousting
of
> Summers would be a good start.  There's nothing at all wrong with
> intellectual study of HOW women and men learn.  There IS something
> inherently wrong with blaming women by suspecting their inferior
> intellect or choices.  Women who DO the unpaid work of the world
should
> not have to pay like the Summers-Sommers twins.  :-)]

Unpaid work like volunteering to fight nature and nurture. NAH, thats
all men doing that UNPAID highly dangerous work; women are self
preserving sexists choosing the easier unpaid work.

> [Poor deluded Hoff-Sommers; boys already DO play with dolls.  The
only
> difference is that they call them action figures.  And today, girls
> also have action figures, like Wonder Woman, Cat Woman etc.  There's
> nothing the Sommers-Summers twins can do to stop equality.  All they
> can do is look foolish in the process.]

Well, I played with "dolls" like action figures buttfuck they were MEN
dolls, not useless protect me pink doll houses that are only worthy of
trashing.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/24/05 1:05:15 AM ---