Discussion:
Fear and Intimidation at Harvard
(too old to reply)
Little Dionysos
2005-03-25 11:50:45 UTC
Permalink
More artciles on Larry Summers

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5297&R=C4322F152
by Havard Professor Mansfield

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=IZMZoxUzwPMhvmZIyM6y9R%3D%3D
by Havard Professor Steven Pinker

D.
Rob
2005-03-25 22:10:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Little Dionysos
More artciles on Larry Summers
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5297&R=C4322F152
by Havard Professor Mansfield
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=IZMZoxUzwPMhvmZIyM6y9R%3D%3D
by Havard Professor Steven Pinker
D.
Nice links, ta.
Professor Mansfield got one of his paragraphs straight from soc.men :)

Quote:
It takes one's breath away to watch feminist women at work. At the
same time that they denounce traditional stereotypes they conform to
them. If at the back of your sexist mind you think that women are
emotional, you listen agape as professor Nancy Hopkins of MIT comes
out with the threat that she will be sick if she has to hear too much
of what she doesn't agree with. If you think women are suggestible,
you hear it said that the mere suggestion of an innate inequality in
women will keep them from stirring themselves to excel. While
denouncing the feminine mystique, feminists behave as if they were
devoted to it. They are women who assert their independence but still
depend on men to keep women secure and comfortable while admiring
their independence. Even in the gender-neutral society, men are
expected by feminists to open doors for women. If men do not, they are
intimidating women.
End Quote.

Strangely both professors profess :p to some overall benefits from
feminism but profer :( no scientific evidence. Such evidence would
require a control group. As soon as that research starts I'm
volunteering. Bagsee me. So, now that's settled, the only thing I'll
need to do is live for never.
Hyerdahl
2005-03-25 23:50:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob
Post by Little Dionysos
More artciles on Larry Summers
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5297&R=C4322F152
Post by Rob
Post by Little Dionysos
by Havard Professor Mansfield
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=IZMZoxUzwPMhvmZIyM6y9R%3D%3D
by Havard Professor Steven Pinker
D.
Nice links, ta.
Professor Mansfield got one of his paragraphs straight from soc.men :)
It takes one's breath away to watch feminist women at work. At the
same time that they denounce traditional stereotypes they conform to
them. If at the back of your sexist mind you think that women are
emotional, you listen agape as professor Nancy Hopkins of MIT comes
out with the threat that she will be sick if she has to hear too much
of what she doesn't agree with.
Well, you must count Jeb Bush quite the fool too, since he also said
something to that effect about the woman who's deprived of her feeding
tube. I guess it isn't that a person can feel sickened by crap that's
going on is simply not available to women, eh? So, it would appear
that feeling "sickened" by words is not necessarily a female trait.
And Nancy Hopkins, like me, is SICK to death of arrogant men trying to
explain away discrimination agaisnt women by parsing it off as some
inferior brain functioning instead of the sexism it is.

If you think women are suggestible,> you hear it said that the mere
suggestion of an innate inequality in women will keep them from
stirring themselves to excel.

The president of an institution is supposed to represent ALL THE
STUDENTS, even the women, in that institution; if Summers believes
women inferior, he cannot and should not try to represent them. It's
just that simple. Every female student in that school should look at
him with suspicion

While> denouncing the feminine mystique, feminists behave as if they
were
Post by Rob
devoted to it.
Except that there is nothing at all mysterious about sexism; it's
pretty much the same as it has always been. Men feel insecure and try
to prevent women from continuing forward, so they throw up road blocks
wherever they can. Today, however, women aren't accepting even the
notion of such a road block and, instead of ignoring them or going
around them, are knocking down those who place them there.

They are women who assert their independence but still
Post by Rob
depend on men to keep women secure and comfortable while admiring
their independence. Even in the gender-neutral society, men are
expected by feminists to open doors for women. If men do not, they are
intimidating women.
Hahahahah...Men can't "intimidate women" in this day and age; they are
still trying tho, and one way for women to handle that is to expose
them for what they are. That's what Summers is experiencing right now.
Perhaps it's turn about fair play.
r***@pdq.net
2005-03-26 01:30:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by Rob
Post by Little Dionysos
More artciles on Larry Summers
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5297&R=C4322F152
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by Rob
Post by Little Dionysos
by Havard Professor Mansfield
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=IZMZoxUzwPMhvmZIyM6y9R%3D%3D
by Havard Professor Steven Pinker
D.
Nice links, ta.
Professor Mansfield got one of his paragraphs straight from soc.men
:)
Post by Rob
It takes one's breath away to watch feminist women at work. At the
same time that they denounce traditional stereotypes they conform to
them. If at the back of your sexist mind you think that women are
emotional, you listen agape as professor Nancy Hopkins of MIT comes
out with the threat that she will be sick if she has to hear too much
of what she doesn't agree with.
Well, you must count Jeb Bush quite the fool too, since he also said
something to that effect about the woman who's deprived of her
feeding
Post by Hyerdahl
tube. I guess it isn't that a person can feel sickened by crap that's
going on is simply not available to women, eh? So, it would appear
that feeling "sickened" by words is not necessarily a female trait.
And Nancy Hopkins, like me, is SICK to death of arrogant men trying to
explain away discrimination agaisnt women by parsing it off as some
inferior brain functioning instead of the sexism it is.
Clever inversion noted. If women have not achieved something, it
must only be mens fault.
Your permanent claim on victimhood will backfire eventually. People
will begin to ask why bother to invest so much in the education and
advancement of such frail vessels.
Post by Hyerdahl
If you think women are suggestible,> you hear it said that the mere
suggestion of an innate inequality in women will keep them from
stirring themselves to excel.
A recent and very excellent book on the business of guiding climbers
up Mt. Everest made an interesting point: If a guide does too much and
makes it too easy for a climber to get way high up the mountain that
does not mean that the climber can be kept alive unless he or she is
pretty damn good on their own. Beyond a certain altitude, the realities
of wind and snow and hardship tend to overcome every effort to create
an artificially safe environment for a weaker climber. So, ultimately,
no one really benefits from this sort of hand-holding and often people
die because of it.
I think of this when I hear of a full Prof. at Harvard (supposedly
the main arena) who starts to cry and wimper for someone to help her
from the room when confronted by ideas she does not like.
Post by Hyerdahl
The president of an institution is supposed to represent ALL THE
STUDENTS, even the women, in that institution; if Summers believes
women inferior, he cannot and should not try to represent them. It's
just that simple. Every female student in that school should look at
him with suspicion
While> denouncing the feminine mystique, feminists behave as if they
were
Post by Rob
devoted to it.
Except that there is nothing at all mysterious about sexism; it's
pretty much the same as it has always been. Men feel insecure and try
to prevent women from continuing forward, so they throw up road blocks
wherever they can. Today, however, women aren't accepting even the
notion of such a road block and, instead of ignoring them or going
around them, are knocking down those who place them there.
They are women who assert their independence but still
Post by Rob
depend on men to keep women secure and comfortable while admiring
their independence. Even in the gender-neutral society, men are
expected by feminists to open doors for women. If men do not, they
are
Post by Rob
intimidating women.
Hahahahah...Men can't "intimidate women" in this day and age; they are
still trying tho, and one way for women to handle that is to expose
them for what they are. That's what Summers is experiencing right now.
Perhaps it's turn about fair play.
What Summers is experiencing is a relentless barrage of lies and
distortions regarding what he actually said, much less what he actually
meant.
Not that you care, but the direction of discovery in the field of
neuroscience is exactly as Summers mentioned. Over time, in the view of
future histories, his persecutors will look like the fanatics who went
after Galileo. They were the kind of people afterall who wanted to put
their fingers in their ears and then torture anyone who said things
that threatened their entrenched, profitable orthodoxies.
Hyerdahl
2005-03-26 02:43:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob
Post by Rob
Post by Little Dionysos
More artciles on Larry Summers
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5297&R=C4322F152
Post by Rob
Post by Rob
Post by Little Dionysos
by Havard Professor Mansfield
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=IZMZoxUzwPMhvmZIyM6y9R%3D%3D
by Havard Professor Steven Pinker
D.
Nice links, ta.
Professor Mansfield got one of his paragraphs straight from soc.men
:)
It takes one's breath away to watch feminist women at work. At the
same time that they denounce traditional stereotypes they conform
to
Post by Rob
Post by Rob
them. If at the back of your sexist mind you think that women are
emotional, you listen agape as professor Nancy Hopkins of MIT comes
out with the threat that she will be sick if she has to hear too
much
Post by Rob
Post by Rob
of what she doesn't agree with.
Well, you must count Jeb Bush quite the fool too, since he also said
something to that effect about the woman who's deprived of her
feeding> tube. I guess it isn't that a person can feel sickened by
crap
that's going on is simply not available to women, eh? So, it would
appear
Post by Rob
that feeling "sickened" by words is not necessarily a female trait.
And Nancy Hopkins, like me, is SICK to death of arrogant men trying
to > explain away discrimination agaisnt women by parsing it off as
some
Post by Rob
inferior brain functioning instead of the sexism it is.
Clever inversion noted.
"Clever" and true.


If women have not achieved something, it
must only be mens fault.
Men are only "at fault" where they are using discrimination to either
exclude women or to explain why others are excluding them. Trying to
say that women have lesser brains is what they used to do to African
Americans as well. It's not a particularly new tactic.
Your permanent claim on victimhood will backfire eventually. People
will begin to ask why bother to invest so much in the education and
advancement of such frail vessels.
There was nothing "frail" about African Americans pointing out the
foolishness of using brain differences (racism) to discriminate and it
is not a frailty for women to point it out as sexism either.
Post by Rob
If you think women are suggestible,> you hear it said that the mere
suggestion of an innate inequality in women will keep them from
stirring themselves to excel.
The female students under Summers tuteledge should certainly not expect
to excel as much as their male counterparts since Summers already has
them categorized. How can a man who finds just over half of society
inferior represent his female students?
A recent and very excellent book on the business of guiding
climbers
up Mt. Everest made an interesting point: If a guide does too much and
makes it too easy for a climber to get way high up the mountain that
does not mean that the climber can be kept alive unless he or she is
pretty damn good on their own.
That is so true. Oh Eun-sun is one such famous mountain climber and
I'm sure she paid her dues.

Beyond a certain altitude, the realities> of wind and snow and
hardship tend to overcome every effort to create an artificially safe
environment for a weaker climber. So, ultimately, no one really
benefits from this sort of hand-holding and often people
die because of it.
Not treating women with sexism is hardly "handholding"; women are not
asking that you bitter boys lead them up the mountain; they simply
want you the move the fuck out of their way. :-)
I think of this when I hear of a full Prof. at Harvard (supposedly
the main arena) who starts to cry and wimper for someone to help her
from the room when confronted by ideas she does not like.
She didn't cry or wimper; she was "sickened" much like Jeb Bush feels
at the demise of the woman on the feeding tube. It seems that men can
feel sickened. :-)
Post by Rob
The president of an institution is supposed to represent ALL THE
STUDENTS, even the women, in that institution; if Summers believes
women inferior, he cannot and should not try to represent them.
It's
Post by Rob
just that simple. Every female student in that school should look at
him with suspicion
While> denouncing the feminine mystique, feminists behave as if they
were > > devoted to it.
Except that there is nothing at all mysterious about sexism; it's
pretty much the same as it has always been. Men feel insecure and
try> to prevent women from continuing forward, so they throw up road
blocks> wherever they can. Today, however, women aren't accepting
even the
Post by Rob
notion of such a road block and, instead of ignoring them or going
around them, are knocking down those who place them there.
They are women who assert their independence but still
Post by Rob
depend on men to keep women secure and comfortable while admiring
their independence.
Nonsense! Women already ARE independent; they can vote, own property,
control their own bodies and work outside the home for equal pay. Now
they're just enforcing those things which is why dickdorks like Summers
is bellyaching. It's easier for him to explain why there are more men
than women hired if he makes unscientifically proven statements about
women's ineptitude. No one there is keeping women "secure and
comfortable".

Even in the gender-neutral society, men are> > > expected by feminists
to open doors for women. If men do not, they are> intimidating women.
Post by Rob
Hahahahah...Men can't "intimidate women" in this day and age; they
are still trying tho, and one way for women to handle that is to
expose
Post by Rob
them for what they are. That's what Summers is experiencing right
now. Perhaps it's turn about fair play.
What Summers is experiencing is a relentless barrage of lies and
distortions regarding what he actually said, much less what he
actually
meant.
I don't give a shit about what he "meant"; it's what he SAID that folks
are judging. He slipped up; for just one second he was honest about
what he thought, and a university president who finds women inferior
CANNOT represent those female students. It's just that simple.

Not that you care, but the direction of discovery in the field of
neuroscience is exactly as Summers mentioned.
Neuroscience is a fascinating study. Right now I'm reading an
interesting novel about the differences between Neanderthals and
Cro-Magnon. The author uses science to create a fantasy about what he
believes is one of three scenerios as to why what we call Neanderthals
dissapeared. However, studying brain science is nowhere near as sexist
or racist than pretending that one social group is better than the
other. That's just bigotry. When we use brain science to find better
ways to teach people or better ways to implement peace, etc. then it
becomes a worthy tool for civilization. When we just use it to explain
why we didn't hire and promote women ...we're just bigots.
r***@pdq.net
2005-03-26 10:54:24 UTC
Permalink
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.
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. It is all over
the place even now that men and women resemble each other genetically
LESS than humans resemble chimps. Silly people like feminists at
Harvard are on the run with their blinkered doctrinaire self-taught
lies.
No wonder they are resorting to crude intimidation and
terrorism-by-tears. They know that if a clear, open, free exploration
of the issues continues they will have to get an honest job.
Post by Rob
Post by Rob
Post by Rob
Post by Little Dionysos
More artciles on Larry Summers
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5297&R=C4322F152
Post by Rob
Post by Rob
Post by Rob
Post by Little Dionysos
by Havard Professor Mansfield
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=IZMZoxUzwPMhvmZIyM6y9R%3D%3D
by Havard Professor Steven Pinker
D.
Nice links, ta.
Professor Mansfield got one of his paragraphs straight from
soc.men
Post by Rob
:)
It takes one's breath away to watch feminist women at work. At the
same time that they denounce traditional stereotypes they conform
to
Post by Rob
Post by Rob
them. If at the back of your sexist mind you think that women are
emotional, you listen agape as professor Nancy Hopkins of MIT
comes
Post by Rob
Post by Rob
out with the threat that she will be sick if she has to hear too
much
Post by Rob
Post by Rob
of what she doesn't agree with.
Well, you must count Jeb Bush quite the fool too, since he also
said
Post by Rob
something to that effect about the woman who's deprived of her
feeding> tube. I guess it isn't that a person can feel sickened by
crap
that's going on is simply not available to women, eh? So, it would
appear
Post by Rob
that feeling "sickened" by words is not necessarily a female trait.
And Nancy Hopkins, like me, is SICK to death of arrogant men trying
to > explain away discrimination agaisnt women by parsing it off as
some
Post by Rob
inferior brain functioning instead of the sexism it is.
Clever inversion noted.
"Clever" and true.
If women have not achieved something, it
must only be mens fault.
Men are only "at fault" where they are using discrimination to either
exclude women or to explain why others are excluding them. Trying to
say that women have lesser brains is what they used to do to African
Americans as well. It's not a particularly new tactic.
Your permanent claim on victimhood will backfire eventually.
People
will begin to ask why bother to invest so much in the education and
advancement of such frail vessels.
There was nothing "frail" about African Americans pointing out the
foolishness of using brain differences (racism) to discriminate and it
is not a frailty for women to point it out as sexism either.
Post by Rob
If you think women are suggestible,> you hear it said that the
mere
Post by Rob
suggestion of an innate inequality in women will keep them from
stirring themselves to excel.
The female students under Summers tuteledge should certainly not expect
to excel as much as their male counterparts since Summers already has
them categorized. How can a man who finds just over half of society
inferior represent his female students?
A recent and very excellent book on the business of guiding
climbers
up Mt. Everest made an interesting point: If a guide does too much
and
makes it too easy for a climber to get way high up the mountain that
does not mean that the climber can be kept alive unless he or she is
pretty damn good on their own.
That is so true. Oh Eun-sun is one such famous mountain climber and
I'm sure she paid her dues.
Beyond a certain altitude, the realities> of wind and snow and
hardship tend to overcome every effort to create an artificially safe
environment for a weaker climber. So, ultimately, no one really
benefits from this sort of hand-holding and often people
die because of it.
Not treating women with sexism is hardly "handholding"; women are not
asking that you bitter boys lead them up the mountain; they simply
want you the move the fuck out of their way. :-)
I think of this when I hear of a full Prof. at Harvard
(supposedly
Post by Rob
the main arena) who starts to cry and wimper for someone to help her
from the room when confronted by ideas she does not like.
She didn't cry or wimper; she was "sickened" much like Jeb Bush feels
at the demise of the woman on the feeding tube. It seems that men can
feel sickened. :-)
Post by Rob
The president of an institution is supposed to represent ALL THE
STUDENTS, even the women, in that institution; if Summers
believes
Post by Rob
Post by Rob
women inferior, he cannot and should not try to represent them.
It's
Post by Rob
just that simple. Every female student in that school should
look
Post by Rob
at
Post by Rob
him with suspicion
While> denouncing the feminine mystique, feminists behave as if
they
Post by Rob
were > > devoted to it.
Except that there is nothing at all mysterious about sexism; it's
pretty much the same as it has always been. Men feel insecure and
try> to prevent women from continuing forward, so they throw up road
blocks> wherever they can. Today, however, women aren't accepting
even the
Post by Rob
notion of such a road block and, instead of ignoring them or going
around them, are knocking down those who place them there.
They are women who assert their independence but still
Post by Rob
depend on men to keep women secure and comfortable while
admiring
Post by Rob
Post by Rob
Post by Rob
their independence.
Nonsense! Women already ARE independent; they can vote, own
property,
Post by Rob
control their own bodies and work outside the home for equal pay.
Now
Post by Rob
they're just enforcing those things which is why dickdorks like Summers
is bellyaching. It's easier for him to explain why there are more men
than women hired if he makes unscientifically proven statements about
women's ineptitude. No one there is keeping women "secure and
comfortable".
Even in the gender-neutral society, men are> > > expected by
feminists
Post by Rob
to open doors for women. If men do not, they are> intimidating women.
Post by Rob
Hahahahah...Men can't "intimidate women" in this day and age;
they
Post by Rob
are still trying tho, and one way for women to handle that is to
expose
Post by Rob
them for what they are. That's what Summers is experiencing right
now. Perhaps it's turn about fair play.
What Summers is experiencing is a relentless barrage of lies and
distortions regarding what he actually said, much less what he
actually
meant.
I don't give a shit about what he "meant"; it's what he SAID that folks
are judging. He slipped up; for just one second he was honest about
what he thought, and a university president who finds women inferior
CANNOT represent those female students. It's just that simple.
Not that you care, but the direction of discovery in the field of
neuroscience is exactly as Summers mentioned.
Neuroscience is a fascinating study. Right now I'm reading an
interesting novel about the differences between Neanderthals and
Cro-Magnon. The author uses science to create a fantasy about what he
believes is one of three scenerios as to why what we call
Neanderthals
Post by Rob
dissapeared. However, studying brain science is nowhere near as sexist
or racist than pretending that one social group is better than the
other. That's just bigotry. When we use brain science to find better
ways to teach people or better ways to implement peace, etc. then it
becomes a worthy tool for civilization. When we just use it to explain
why we didn't hire and promote women ...we're just bigots.
Hyerdahl
2005-03-26 16:01:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@pdq.net
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.
Post by r***@pdq.net
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. Obviously, a president of a university who operates
under sexist notions that remain unsupported by science cannot
represent the women students 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. 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.

It is all over the place even now that men and women resemble each
other genetically
Post by r***@pdq.net
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. :-)
(edit)
r***@pdq.net
2005-03-26 18:28:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by r***@pdq.net
Hey Hyerdahl
You snipped the part where I pointed out that Summers
persecuters
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by r***@pdq.net
will soon enough be seen by history as no different than the thugs
who
Post by r***@pdq.net
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.
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by r***@pdq.net
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
Post by Hyerdahl
under sexist notions that remain unsupported by science
the opposite of the truth

cannot
Post by Hyerdahl
represent the women students
he is not there to represent them . The students did not elect him.

who attend that university.
Post by Hyerdahl
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
Post by Hyerdahl
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.
Post by Hyerdahl
It is all over the place even now that men and women resemble each
other genetically
Post by r***@pdq.net
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.


:-)
Post by Hyerdahl
(edit)
Hyerdahl
2005-03-26 22:07:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@pdq.net
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by r***@pdq.net
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.
Post by r***@pdq.net
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.
Post by r***@pdq.net
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. True aptitude is measured by what
people actually DO. 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. Even if the Bell Curve were not
more about test taking than it was about 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
Post by r***@pdq.net
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.

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
Post by r***@pdq.net
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.
Post by r***@pdq.net
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
Post by r***@pdq.net
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.
Post by r***@pdq.net
Post by Hyerdahl
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 to be about
abilities, but rather sexism.
Post by r***@pdq.net
Obviously, a president of a university who operates
Post by Hyerdahl
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.
Post by r***@pdq.net
who attend that university.
Post by Hyerdahl
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)
Post by r***@pdq.net
Women already ARE scientists with or without> > brain differences and
with or without Summers permission and whether> or
Post by r***@pdq.net
Post by Hyerdahl
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. 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.
Post by r***@pdq.net
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.
Post by r***@pdq.net
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.
Post by r***@pdq.net
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.
Post by r***@pdq.net
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.
Post by r***@pdq.net
Post by Hyerdahl
It is all over the place even now that men and women resemble each
other genetically
Post by r***@pdq.net
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
Post by r***@pdq.net
g to what kind of person makes a good university leader.
r***@pdq.net
2005-03-27 03:25:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by r***@pdq.net
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by r***@pdq.net
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.
Post by Hyerdahl
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.
Post by r***@pdq.net
The situation at Harvard is hardly unique nor was it the subject of
the
Post by r***@pdq.net
conference.
The situation created by President Summers didn't need any particular
venue to get him into hot water. He said what he said.
Post by r***@pdq.net
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
Post by r***@pdq.net
curved distribution of math abilities is shaped differently for men
and
Post by r***@pdq.net
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
Post by Hyerdahl
people actually DO.
Unless they claim that they were discouraged from doing something,
right?

For example, Bill Gates might not be able to test
Post by Hyerdahl
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
Post by Hyerdahl
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
Post by r***@pdq.net
beneath this fact is the observation that many more guys than women
have weak math skills. But the average performance is the same,
because
Post by r***@pdq.net
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.
Post by Hyerdahl
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?
Post by Hyerdahl
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
Post by r***@pdq.net
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.
Post by r***@pdq.net
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
Post by Hyerdahl
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',
Post by Hyerdahl
you may not notice that your female peers were not invited. Hmmmmm
Also, his job as college President is not to "represent" the
student
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by r***@pdq.net
body. His job is to uphold the standards and integrity the
university
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by r***@pdq.net
in its search for truth.
You are incorrect. His job is as the representative of the
university
Post by Hyerdahl
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
Post by Hyerdahl
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.
Post by r***@pdq.net
Post by Hyerdahl
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"
Post by Hyerdahl
to
Post by r***@pdq.net
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
Post by Hyerdahl
abilities, but rather sexism.
Post by r***@pdq.net
Obviously, a president of a university who operates
Post by Hyerdahl
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.
Post by r***@pdq.net
who attend that university.
Post by Hyerdahl
AND, based on the notion that both sexes should have equal
rights,
Post by Hyerdahl
I
Post by r***@pdq.net
Post by Hyerdahl
have no need to make women fit into some male-drawn box so that
women
Post by r***@pdq.net
Post by Hyerdahl
can become scientists.
Do you think that women who have climbed Mt. Everest were
"forced
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by r***@pdq.net
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
Post by Hyerdahl
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
Post by Hyerdahl
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)
Post by r***@pdq.net
Women already ARE scientists with or without> > brain differences and
with or without Summers permission and whether> or
Post by r***@pdq.net
Post by Hyerdahl
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
Post by r***@pdq.net
Post by Hyerdahl
that women have lesser ability nor does it mean that policies are
not
Post by r***@pdq.net
Post by Hyerdahl
in place that serve to punish women's gestational choices.
Summers
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by r***@pdq.net
Post by Hyerdahl
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,
Post by Hyerdahl
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.
Post by r***@pdq.net
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.
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by r***@pdq.net
2. The choices often have the effect of limiting their role outside
the
Post by r***@pdq.net
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.
Post by r***@pdq.net
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.
Post by r***@pdq.net
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.
Post by r***@pdq.net
Post by Hyerdahl
It is all over the place even now that men and women resemble each
other genetically
Post by r***@pdq.net
LESS than humans resemble chimps.
That's ridiculous. I won't even comment on that. It's sort of
like
Post by r***@pdq.net
Post by Hyerdahl
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
Post by r***@pdq.net
g to what kind of person makes a good university leader.
Society
2005-03-26 12:43:20 UTC
Permalink
Hyerdahl the Parg whined...
Post by Hyerdahl
Little Dionysos reported...
More articles on Larry Summers
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5297&R=C4322F152
by Havard Professor Mansfield
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=IZMZoxUzwPMhvmZIyM6y9R%3D%3D
by Havard Professor Steven Pinker
Nice links, ta.
Professor Mansfield got one of his paragraphs
straight from soc.men :)
Good point, Rob. Having feral, free-roaming
feminists such as Parg and Aggy at hand for
behavioral observations of such creatures keeps
the scientists of the soc.men news group community
at the leading edge of knowledge about feminists.
Our Harvard counterparts have to make do with
observations of the domesticated, captive feminists
of a university womens studies program. This sets
their opportunities to make discoveries of the real
behavior of feminists well behind the soc.men
state-of-the-art.
Post by Hyerdahl
It takes one's breath away to watch feminist
women at work. At the same time that they
denounce traditional stereotypes they conform
to them. If at the back of your sexist mind
you think that women are emotional, you listen
agape as professor Nancy Hopkins of MIT
comes out with the threat that she will be sick
if she has to hear too much of what she doesn't
agree with.
Well, you must count Jeb Bush quite the fool too,
This is Parg indulging in the typical hysterical
hallucinatory femmohroid barking. As I noted,
soc.men enjoys easy observations of a rich
repertoire of wild feminist behavoir.
Post by Hyerdahl
since he also said something to that effect
about the woman who's deprived of her
feeding tube.
You see folks, the femmohroid barks but cannot
supply any objective evidence to support her
hysteria-induced claims. This occurs daily here
in the soc.men Center for the Study of Feminist
MS-Behavior and is easily noticed by the many
experienced observers here. In contrast, at
Harvard, the scientists there were not able to
obtain a recorded example of a feminist fully in
the throes of the feminist's ideology-induced
hysteria until the recent case of Nancy Hopkins'
swoon.
Post by Hyerdahl
I guess [...]
Here at the soc.men Center for the Study of
Feminist MS-Behavior we have many examples
of a feminist attempting to overcome her cognitive
dissonance caused by the gap between her
ideology's claims about the world and reality.
To "guess" (Parg's word) about the existence
of unobservables as explanatory mechanisms
to patch up the feminist's gap between reality and
the world as the feminist wishes it to be is a
common feminist behavior. Such anti-intellectual
and magical thinking is also common among
other true-believers, such as those who claim
that UFOs are flying saucers piloted by beings
from other planets.

Sheesh!
Post by Hyerdahl
it isn't that a person can feel sickened by crap
that's going on
Notice the feminist confusing what's "going on"
(Parg's phrase) with the imaginary sexism attributed
to Harvard President Lawrence Summers that
exists only in the minds of feminists like Nancy
Hopkins. Confusion between reality and fantasy
occurs often among feminists and thanks to the
recording facilities available here in the soc.men
and alt.feminism news groups, those fantasy
episodes of feminists are retained and available
for further study at the convenience of the
scientists here at the soc.men Center for the
Study of Feminist MS-Behavior.
Post by Hyerdahl
is simply not available to women, eh?
So, it would appear
"Appear", like "seems" (words Parg has used often)
have been found to be feminist code for signalling
that the feminist is about to be untruthful.
Post by Hyerdahl
that feeling "sickened" by words is not necessarily
a female trait.
As if right on cue, Parg performs. <giggle>

Notice that Nancy Hopkins was "sickened" by
a scientist's fact-based speculations about the
typical behavior of women while if Florida Gov.
Jeb Bush said he was "sickened by words", those
were likely the "words" of those who coldly
rationalized the deliberate killing of an innocent
person -- specifically, a helpless woman person.
Thus, to maintain her ideologically-based distortions
of the world, we see the feminist Parg trying to
equate a woman's lifestyle choices with the death
by starvation and thirst of a woman. Such bizarre
behavior by feminists is often observed and recorded
at the soc.men Center for the Study of Feminist
MS-Behavior.
Post by Hyerdahl
And Nancy Hopkins, like me, is SICK to death
of arrogant men trying to explain away discrimination
agaisnt women by parsing it off as some inferior
brain functioning instead of the sexism it is.
Clever inversion noted. If women have not achieved
something, it must only be mens fault.
Yeah, men are hoarding all the valuable Y chromosomes!

<giggle>

More seriously, notice how the feminist true-believers,
our laboratory's Parg and MIT's Nancy Hopkins,
assumed "discrimination" exists then use this imagined
discrimination as their explanatory principle. When
anyone notes that reality does not support the feminist
claims of "discrimination" and therefore, logically,
claims of "discrimination" can explain nothing, the
feminists routinely bark "sexism". Sheesh.
Your permanent claim on victimhood will backfire
eventually. People will begin to ask why bother
to invest so much in the education and advancement
of such frail vessels.
Good point, rdubose. Many other examples of
feminist ideology being pregnant with internal
contradictions, traditionalist assumptions about
women ("frail vessels"), and even the fertile soil
from which the claimed misogyny so many feminists
like Parg and Aggy fret about abound here in
words of feminists who are under observation
here at the the soc.men Center for the Study
of Feminist MS-Behavior.

<chuckle>
Post by Hyerdahl
If you think women are suggestible,
Parg is "suggestible" enough to succumb to feminism!
Case closed.
Post by Hyerdahl
you hear it said that the mere suggestion of an
innate inequality in women will keep them from
stirring themselves to excel.
A recent and very excellent book on the business
of guiding climbers up Mt. Everest made an
interesting point: If a guide does too much and
makes it too easy for a climber to get way high up
the mountain that does not mean that the climber
can be kept alive unless he or she is pretty damn
good on their own. Beyond a certain altitude,
the realities of wind and snow and hardship
tend to overcome every effort to create an
artificially safe environment for a weaker climber.
So, ultimately, no one really benefits from this sort
of hand-holding and often people die because of it.
I think of this when I hear of a full Prof. at Harvard
(supposedly the main arena) who starts to cry and
whimper for someone to help her from the room
when confronted by ideas she does not like.
Ahh, an excellent analogy, rdubose! And your
analogy raises possibilities for further research
regarding sex-roles and their maintenance in
cultures. For example, as the costs of making
artificially safe environments for weakling women
like Nancy Hopkins soar, greater burdens accrue
to strong women who must put more and more
effort into proving they are not such weaklings.
Thus, as weakling women like Nancy Hopkins
fail to self-select themselves out of fields that
require honesty and intellectual rigor, institutional
means of explicitly weeding out the weaklings
develop. Because the weeding out process is
not perfect and, more importantly, adds costs
(monetary and otherwise) to those who are not
weaklings who seek to enter such fields, at the
margin, strong women able to master the demanding
work in those fields end up deterred from pursuing
such work.
Post by Hyerdahl
The president of an institution is supposed to
represent ALL THE STUDENTS, even the
women, in that institution;
Parg is worng* again. "The president of an
(educational) institution" is NOT "supposed to
represent all the students...". Or even ANY of
the students. Rather, the president of Harvard
is supposed to work toward furthering that
institution's goals of excellence in education
and research. (Duh.)

NOTE:
* Not just wrong, she's _metaphysically_ wrong. ;-)
Post by Hyerdahl
if Summers believes women inferior,
"If". Notice the ease with which Parg begins to
babble in counterfactuals and/or speculations
unsupported by the facts of reality. This is common
behavior by the feminists under observation here
at soc.men Center for the Study of Feminist MS-
Behavior. At no time has Dr. Lawrence Summers
said "women are inferior to men". Rather, he has
on many occasions made the opposite claim.
However, the easy suggestibility of feminists like
Parg has led many feminists to falsely believe that
Dr. Summers holds such a belief.
Post by Hyerdahl
he cannot and should not try to represent them.
It's just that simple.
"Simple" for the simple-minded femmohroid, perhaps.
However, in the Real World (tm) the job of Harvard
president is NOT to "try to represent them", the
"them" being Harvard's students. Instead, his job
is to PUSH THEM to work hard, think hard,
question the heretofore unquestioned, and challenge
assumptions accepted without evidence. What
simple-minded feminist weakling women like Parg
and Nancy Hopkins are bawling about is that
(for a moment, at least) Harvard President Dr.
Lawrence Summers DID do his job and that
weakling feminists DON'T want to do meet the
challenge of excellence at Harvard. Sheesh!
Post by Hyerdahl
Every female student in that school should
look at him with suspicion.
"Every female student" who is a weakling, that is.
Strong women are applauding Dr. Summers AND
scolding him when he goes soft on weakling
feminists by indulging them in their whims.

Feminism, as has been repeatedly noted here
at soc.men Center for the Study of Feminist
MS-Behavior, is an ideology that appeals to
weakling women. The self-image of being a
perpetual victim is commonly adopted by
feminists (of all sexes) and this has an attraction
to mentally and morally weak women.
Post by Hyerdahl
While denouncing the feminine mystique,
feminists behave as if they were devoted to it.
Except that there is nothing at all mysterious
about sexism; it's pretty much the same as
it has always been.
"It (sexism) has always been" promoted by WOMEN!
And sexism is now promoted by FEMINIST WOMEN
as Parg's frequent whining AND the Nancy Hopkins
fiasco demonstrate.
Post by Hyerdahl
Men feel insecure and try to prevent women
from continuing forward, so they throw up road
blocks wherever they can.
Again, Parg is resorting to a lie. Telling lies,
especially lies that defame men as-a-class, is a
common sexist behavior exhibited by the feminists
under observation here at the soc.men Center
for the Study of Feminist MS-Behavior. Feminism
is a birthplace of man-bashing sexism and much of
the whining from feminists about "sexism" is mere
projection of their own dark motives onto their
betters.

When women preferred to make the home their
domain, men took on the burdens and hard work
that made possible the exercise of their preferences
by so many women. After men had made the
world outside the home safer and more comfortable,
women wished to expand their domain to include
the world outside the home and men opened those
doors to women too. Had men, as Parg hallucinates,
worked to "throw up road blocks (to women)
wherever they can" would women like Parg have
the privilege of voting in government elections?
Other examples that demonstrate Parg is lying
about men abound but to keep this post from
going even more over-long than it already has,
I leave their detection to the student.
Post by Hyerdahl
They [feminists] are women who assert
their independence but still depend on men
to keep women secure and comfortable
while admiring their independence.
Ahh, yes, another of the Impossible Things we
strong people are supposed to Believe Before
Breakfast in order that the illusions of weaklings
may go unchallenged. In Parg-speak, refusing
to go along with any feminist Big Lie campaign
is to put up "roadblocks" to women. Among
the many criticisms of this feminist behavior
Parg is illustrating here, I note that this is an
example of Parg's feminist sexism: She assumes
that all women are feminists.
Post by Hyerdahl
Even in the gender-neutral society, men are
expected by feminists to open doors for
women. If men do not, they are intimidating
women.
Hahahahah...
The joke is on Parg. Her lying that men "put up
roadblocks" is just another spin on the old feminist
(and traditionalist!) demand that "men are expected...
to open doors for women". And when men don't
behave according to that feminist sexist demand,
feminists pout about "roadblocks" -- as Parg herself
illustrated here at the soc.men Center for the Study
of Feminist MS-Behavior.
Post by Hyerdahl
Men can't "intimidate women" in this day and age;
<giggle>

"Men" don't "intimidate women". Weakling women
like Parg and Nancy Hopkins have such a poor
self-image that they create out of their own minds
feelings of being intimidated by men.
Post by Hyerdahl
they are still trying tho, and one way for women
to handle that is to expose them for what they are.
That's what Summers is experiencing right now.
Perhaps it's turn about fair play.
What Summers is experiencing is a relentless barrage
of lies and distortions regarding what he actually said,
much less what he actually meant.
Yup, rdubose, and that illustrates what the scientists
here at the soc.men Center for the Study of Feminist
MS-Behavior learned long ago: All excuses for
feminism depend on lies.
Not that you care, but the direction of discovery
in the field of neuroscience is exactly as Summers
mentioned. Over time, in the view of future histories,
his persecutors will look like the fanatics who went
after Galileo. They were the kind of people after all
who wanted to put their fingers in their ears and then
torture anyone who said things that threatened their
entrenched, profitable orthodoxies.
That's a good illustration of feminism-as-religion
you've got there, rdubose. Ironic, isn't it, that
what is today called Harvard University started
out as a divinity school.
--
Feminism is misogyny cloaked by a name
that is its perfect disguise.
r***@yahoo.co.uk
2005-03-26 19:03:16 UTC
Permalink
Sign me up for the soc.men Center for the Study of Feminist
MS-Behavior, please, Society.
What's the task for the initiation ceremony?
Andre Lieven
2005-03-26 19:43:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Sign me up for the soc.men Center for the Study of Feminist
MS-Behavior, please, Society.
What's the task for the initiation ceremony?
You have to spank a Baby Feminist.

Fortunately, theres plenty of the little slugs around, so pick
one and fire away ! <g>

Andre



--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Viking
2005-03-27 20:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hyerdahl
And Nancy Hopkins, like me, is SICK to death of arrogant men trying to
explain away discrimination agaisnt women by parsing it off as some
inferior brain functioning instead of the sexism it is.
You are utterly clueless, as usual. If you knew anything about the
academic environment, you'd know that most hard sciences depts have
been totally frantic to recruit females for 25 years now.

There just are so few, so very few.
Hyerdahl
2005-03-27 20:41:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viking
Post by Hyerdahl
And Nancy Hopkins, like me, is SICK to death of arrogant men trying to
explain away discrimination agaisnt women by parsing it off as some
inferior brain functioning instead of the sexism it is.
You are utterly clueless, as usual. If you knew anything about the
academic environment, you'd know that most hard sciences depts have
been totally frantic to recruit females for 25 years now.
There just are so few, so very few.
Well, think about what happened to the one lone woman placed at VMI;
she couldn't hack it. Men hated her; they threated to harm her and her
family; they humiliated her at every turn. If women are to open the
doors to any patriarchal organization, they can't do it alone. Here's
one female scientist's statement about that:

http://www.csmonitor.com/atcsmonitor/specials/women/work/work083100.html

"Today, almost 25 percent of astronomy graduate students are women. But
unfortunately, the number of women in science takes a real beating
right after graduate school. Women in grad school have only a 26
percent chance of landing that first job after they get their PhDs, as
opposed to a 43 percent chance for their male colleagues.

The trend continues for each level of promotion. As Urry puts it, "the
progress of women lags behind at all levels. Women are less likely to
be hired, are less likely to be given tenure, and spend longer at lower
levels than their male colleagues."

To make matters worse, this lag is happening at a time when the field
of astronomy is expanding. In the last five years, the number of
assistant professorships has increased by 50 percent, and full
professorships by 20 percent.

Yet, I feel that I have never been deliberately discriminated against.
I was never told that "girls can't do science." I was never sexually
harassed by a professor, or had so much as an honestly unkind word from
a co-worker.

I could never regret the wonderful career this has been. But think hard
about this, Scarlet. You may never feel like you really belong.
Michelle Thaller is an astrophysicist who works for NASA in Los
Angeles."


If getting into the male bastians of science were so equitable, I
suggest that there'd be many, many women pounding at the doors. If
women have to try twice as hard to get half so far, why wouldn't they
migrate to other careers?


Here's what they say is the problem for tenured women at MIT:

http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html

After tenure, many senior women faculty begin to feel marginalized,
including those who felt well supported as junior faculty. They sense
that they and their male colleagues may not be treated equally after
all. Incidents in their own professional lives or differential
treatment of their male and female colleagues may open their eyes to
this reality. The Committee obtained strong evidence to support their
perception, although considerable variation in departments was found.
One department has no tenured women faculty, one had only one at the
time of this analysis and she had not experienced difficulties, while a
third department has several tenured women who feel involved and
represented, although they have seen or experienced problems of
marginalization and exclusion of women faculty from time to time in the
past. Within three departments the Committee obtained evidence of
subtle differences in the treatment of men and women faculty, evidence
of exclusion, and, in some cases, evidence of apparent discrimination
against women faculty. The Committee documented differences in salary
in the recent past, in amount of 9-month salary paid from grants, in
access to space, resources, and inclusion in positions of power and
administrative responsibility within departments or within the broader
MIT community. Differences resulted in women having less or in their
being excluded from important professional opportunities. Interviews
with women faculty revealed the tremendous toll that exclusion and
marginalization take on their professional and personal lives. Problems
appear to increase progressively as women approach the same age as
their administrators. The Committee believes that problems flourish in
departments where non-democratic practices, including administrative
procedures whose basis is known only to a few, lead inevitably to
cronyism and unequal access to the substantial resources of MIT."

So, basically, you seem to think women should have to try twice as hard
to get half as far. Some few women will do that anyway, but it isn't
right nor is it equality.
c***@hotmail.com
2005-03-28 00:03:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hyerdahl
So, basically, you seem to think women should have to try twice as hard
to get half as far. Some few women will do that anyway, but it isn't
right nor is it equality.
Well then, according to feministas we can easily resolve the "less
chick in upper class career flicks" by promoting all female
environments, therefore no patriarchal hazzards, all pro-feminist
curriculums, huggy huggy feel good non competitive environments.

Sounds like a winner, eh?

NAH. It won't matter because women are socialised and therefore choose
to take the easy road in life rather than risk dropping out of college
to pioneer for the world like the 2 google billionares, gates, wozniak,
and the startup Amazonian just to name a few.
Hyerdahl
2005-03-28 02:34:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hyerdahl
So, basically, you seem to think women should have to try twice as
hard> to get half as far. Some few women will do that anyway, but
it
Post by Hyerdahl
isn't> right nor is it equality.
Well then, according to feministas we can easily resolve the "less
chick in upper class career flicks" by promoting all female
environments, therefore no patriarchal hazzards, all pro-feminist
curriculums, huggy huggy feel good non competitive environments.
Some women certainly go that route, and I applaud them if that floats
their boats. However, equal rights doesn't demand that women go their
own way; it just demands inclusion for the sake of equality.
Post by Hyerdahl
Sounds like a winner, eh?
NAH. It won't matter because women are socialised and therefore choose
to take the easy road in life rather than risk dropping out of
college
Post by Hyerdahl
to pioneer for the world like the 2 google billionares, gates,
wozniak,
Post by Hyerdahl
and the startup Amazonian just to name a few.
There are women business folks just like there are men. There are
women in every walk of life these days. The point being, that some
women go that route while other women seek equality in present society.
Viking
2005-03-28 00:52:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by Viking
There just are so few, so very few.
Well, think about what happened to the one lone woman placed at VMI;
she couldn't hack it. Men hated her; they threated to harm her and her
family; they humiliated her at every turn.
*VMI*? The military academy?? Oh yeah, good example.
Society
2005-03-28 04:40:52 UTC
Permalink
Parg, the short-hair Hyerdahl whimpered...
Post by Hyerdahl
There just are so few, so very few [women
who can perform at the top levels of
academic achievement expected at Harvard].
Well, think about what happened to the
one lone woman placed at VMI;
she couldn't hack it.
I notice that the feminist true-believer Parg
is robotically changing the subject after her
excuse-making nonsense in earlier posts
about HARVARD got her spanked.
Post by Hyerdahl
Men hated her; they threated to harm her and her
family; they humiliated her at every turn.
*VMI*? The military academy??
Oh yeah, good example.
Parg is (again) bawling about a case in which the
women were treated as badly as the men -- giving
herself away as another female Protect Me Pink
sexist pig (again). First year cadets -- known as
"rats" -- were always treated badly at VMI. But
when a woman arrived, she wanted special soft
treatment 'cause she's a GIRL. Sheesh!
--
Women can have equality with men the instant
women give up their privileges.
Avenger
2005-03-28 02:19:56 UTC
Permalink
Cut the bullshit bitter girl. You'd have a hard time just getting into the
local community college in Podunk, let alone Harvard haha
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...