"Hyerdahl"  wrote in message
news:1111602715.306695.312640{at}z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> MCP wrote:
> > http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/sommers200503220754.asp
> >
> > March 22, 2005, 7:54 a.m.
> > Who Stole Harvard?
> > Big Sisters and Larry Summers.
> >
> > By Christina Hoff Sommers
> > (edit)>
> >
> > To an outsider, the controversy must look very strange. Nothing
> Summers said
> > was a threat to the advancement of a single competent woman in any of
> the
> > sciences.
>
> [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.]
>
> The statistical fact that more men tend to score in the top-five
> percent of math-aptitude tests makes no predictions whatsoever about
> the
> abilities of any particular man or woman.
>
> [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.]
>
> Far from being outrageous or> sexist, Summers's comments were
> completely respectable and altogether> mainstream.
>
> [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

No you don't. It's just female HERsteria.


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.]

They get to see female nature and abilities close up now. Before we used to
just imagine that females were incompetent, now we know for sure  lol



>
> But not in the academy. As one outraged Harvard feminist
> > professor of ethics, Mahzarin Banaji, told the Harvard Crimson, "In
> this day
> > and age to believe that men and women differ in their basic
> competence for
> > math and science is as insidious as believing that some people are
> better
> > suited to be slaves than masters."

Erm, some people are leaders (masters) most are followers(slaves or workers)



>
> [Yes, indeed.  We no longer write women off by suggesting their brains
> are smaller;  Summers loses.]
> >
> > The January 14 conference where Summers spoke was organized by the
> National
> > Bureau of Economic Research. While many members of the audience found
> his
> > remarks measured and thought-provoking, a few were deeply offended
> that he
> > entertained the idea that natural differences between men and women
> played a
> > role in career paths.

We all know that men are superior in every field on average not just math
and science. The only people who don't know this are the masses who work at
drone jobs where there is little difference between the sexes. But in every
field, even those usually associated with females like cooking, fashion,
interior decorating etc etc the top people are invariably MEN.



>
> [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.]
>
> (edit)>
> > Think of these women: Nancy Hopkins, Natalie Angier, Megan Urry, and
> > Virginia Valian. It is rare to meet such people in everyday life -
> but the
> > academy is their natural habitat and there you find them in
> dismayingly
> > large and indignant numbers. A few Harvard women have come to
> Summers's
> > defense: the literary scholar, Ruth Wisse, the economist Claudia
> Goldin. But
> > few women and even fewer men stand up to the hard-liners in the
> academy, who
> > are ever eager to show that "men just don't get it." Some male
> faculty have
> > openly supported Summers (most notably, Steven Pinker and Stephan
> > Thernstrom) but it appears that most have run for cover, or joined
> the pack
> > of Summers's tormenters.
>
> > > The Harvard faculty is in very bad shape right now. Summers could be
> forced
> > out and replaced by a right-thinking woman. The forces of resentment
> have
> > the power to do that. But, what they do not have is the power to
> repeal the
> > laws of nature. Mother Nature does not play by the rules of political
> > correctness. And not even Harvard can flourish when intellectual
> freedom is
> > forced to play by twisted feminist rules.
>
> > > And speaking of play, boys are not going to play with dolls: They
> will
> > continue to resist all and every efforts to resocialize them in
> accordance
> > with specifications worked out by Virginia Valian and her sister
> ideologues.

The twisted sisterhood will be defeated by nature.


>
> [Poor deluded Hoff-Sommers; boys already DO play with dolls.
blah blah blah




>
A doll  represents a baby, even 3 year old girls know this and know it's the
females who have them. They're merely practising for their role in life,
just as boys practise for theirs with action figures.


>
> >
>




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/24/05 1:05:17 AM ---