Posted on 01/21/2005 10:39:10 AM PST by presidio9
The National Organization for Women has called for the resignation of Harvard University President Lawrence Summers.
Summers offended feminists last week when he suggested that "innate" differences in men and women may help explain why men dominate math, sciences and engineering.
But according to NOW, the long history of male domination in these fields is attributable to "sexism" and other social constructs.
CALMING RUFFLED FEATHERS Summers, the former US Treasury Secretary from the Clinton administration, has offered a series of increasingly contrite apologies to those whose sensitivites were upset by his observations. In his third official apology, posted Wednesday night on the Harvard website, Summers insisted that he "deeply" regreted "the impact" of his comments.
"Summers' suggestion that women are inferior to men in their ability to excel at math and science is more than an example of personal sexism, it is a clue to why women have not been more fully accepted and integrated into the tenured faculty at Harvard since he has been president," said NOW President Kim Gandy in a press release.
PRESSURE FOR POLITICAL PROMOTIONS In their press release, NOW said they planed to begin "watching" Harvard University to make sure they promote women to faculty positions in math and science regardless of their ability: "Will Harvard encourage women as students in the 'hard' sciences, promote more women in faculty positions, and step up the recruitment of women for teaching positions in math and science departments? Or will Harvard be thwarted in achieving these goals with Summers at the helm?"
UNFORGIVABLE IDEAS "Apologies are not enough," said Gandy. "Summers must go, and Harvard must start with a clean slate."
GIRLS SMARTER THAN BOYS In a related story, in Britain, Minister of Parliament and Chairman of the Commons Educational Committee Barry Sheerman insisted that women are more intelligent than men, and said that the government should not become "obsessed" with boys failing in school. "We should celebrate this, shouldn't we?" said Sheerman. "The brightest kids are coming through and they happen to be women."
NOW should shuddup until they give a better response to Bill Clintoons rape allegations.
"Well, his policies were good for women" is their current stance on that issue, I believe.
She didn't really apologise. She is basically saying, "gee, I'm sorrry that my pointing out that your nose looks like a potatoe made you eat a whole half gallon of ice cream."
They're hoping Lynn Stewart will be acquitted and they can hire her instead of Summers.
Of course there are differences between men and women. He did not say that all women who are accepted into those fields only get there because of something like "affirmative action". He did not say that men are always better at math and science. He said fewer women were in those fields. That is true. Women are better at language and art, men are better at math and science. It's a left brain-right brain thing, and it's true. Put me up against a rocket scientist on a grammar test and I guarantee I will do better.
As for NOW, they are no better than the ACLU or the NAACP. They bitch when it suits them, and it is rarely important. Used to be they complained about the treatment of women in Afghanistan as one of the worst human rights violations on the face of the planet. Now that women have actually been able to vote, and even hold office, they don't mention it. God forbid they would have to admit that Bush has done something good. Methinks they are one of the many vocal minority groups, when in truth they represent very few of the people for whom they claim to be fighting. They certainly do not speak for me. I think they even went so far as to assist in the defense of that horrifying excuse for a human in Texas who murdered all of her children.
It would be a great injustice if the feminist thought police succeed in stifling freedom of academic inquiry and expression.
She? I meant Summers should never have apologised (hence the "he"). I could care less what a NAG has to say.
Silly me, and here I thought it was because he lied to a Federal Grand Jury while under oath (perjury) thus committing a felony.
Regards,
GtG
PS That that is, is, that that is not, is not. Is that it? It is!
Too bad that he just didn't perjure himself in testimony as a defendant in a sexual harrassment suit. NOW's demonstrated standards suggest that if he did, they would support him as a qualified candidate for president of the US.
What Fred sez about this (and a very good read). It even contains statistics:
Teacheresses Against Boy Children
Take Away Reason And Accountability...
I've been consulting with the National Football League. I want to learn how to dropkick a radical feminist. It's harder than it looks. They aren't real aerodynamic, so it's a bear to get a good spiral. Hang time is better with the scrawny ones, but you don't get much velocity.
I'm prepared to practice.
What put a bur in my sock was some hair-ball teacher lady in California who I found on the Web. She was doing her level best, which was probably pretty good, to make being a schoolboy into a social defect and a treatable condition. This is the default position in schools today. One hears constantly that boys don't do well in school. They don't sit still. They aren't worth a damn. Maleness is a condition to be cured, and probably a Personality Disorder.
A while back I encountered a teacher wearing a button, "So many men, so little intelligence." (Clever, Sweet Potato. Maybe you'll be the first female chess grandmaster since Newton's wife invented calculus.) Want her teaching your son?
This hostility to boys comes out of feminism, which is the belief that if you can't do squat yourself, keep anybody else from succeeding, and that way you'll look good by comparison.
I'm serious as infected melanoma about the default hostility. The teacheresses do not like boys. Here's a typical example from the schools of Fairfax Country, right outside of the Yankee Capital:
"Various studies indicate that boys are less likely than girls to go to college and have lower educational aspirations. Boys receive lower grades, are more likely than girls to be disengaged from school, and are more likely to view school as a hostile environment. . . Boys are more likely to be suspended or expelled. Boys are more likely to be held back or to drop out of school. Boys are much more likely than girls to be placed on drugs like Ritalin. Boys are more likely to be disciplined by teachers and administrators."
All true. As it happens, the academic sisterhood does forget to tell you a few things about the stupidity of boys. Let me give Sweet Potato something to ponder while she chews her cud.
In 1999, the male average on the math SATs was 531. The female was 495. That's not a trivial difference, sisterhood.
Verbal scores? Males 509, females 502. The boys are ahead in both, despite fidgeting, skipping school, and fighting.
A case, at least partly legitimate, can be made that, because more girls than boys take the tests, (563,000 boys and 657,000 girls) more dumb girls take it and bring down the female average.
OK. Let's look at the numbers of kids in 1999 making 800s, the highest possible score.
In math: Boys, 4815. Girls, 1611.
Now, Sweet Potato, is one of those numbers larger than the other? Think carefully. Take your time. Stomp once for yes. . . .
Ah, but girls, we all think we know, are better verbally, so it shouldn't surprise one to find far more girls than boys making Verbal 800s.
Boys with 800 Verbals: 3087. Girls: 2828. And more girls take the test.
So many men, so little. . .
Do you suspect that the SATs are crooked? Biased against girls? Well, let's look at the Graduate Record Exams. Here is a list of intended subjects in grad school in which men have a higher combined math and verbal score than women: Business, Education, Engineering, Humanities and Arts, Life Science, Physical Science, Social Science, Other Fields.
Here is a list of intended subjects in which women have the higher combined scores:
Uh. . . heh. . .ahhh. . .
Urg.
Not one field.
Putting it simply enough for the purplest-haired Lesbian, in the higher ranges of intelligence, boys blow girls out of the water. It isn't even close. And everyone who works in the field knows it.
Now, the polite thing would be not to mention these awkwardnesses. Why offend women?
If this increasingly sorry country decided things honestly, on individual merit, and didn't give in to ratbag feminists who want to stick their knives in anything male, including children, I'd keep my mouth diplomatically shut. But the ratbags are there. And they're doing all they can to turn boys into sexless, drugged-up, academically crippled zombies.
Why the dislike of boys? Simple. Feminism isn't about fairness. Sure, once it was, when the questions were equal pay and opportunity and so on. Today, feminism is about (1) revenge and (2) power. Men, always fools where women are involved, make the mistake of thinking that reason and good will must be in there somewhere. They aren't. Feminists want to win. Period.
Do they really think women can hack it in ground combat? Of course they don't. They're zealots, not fools. They resent hell out of what was a masculine culture that didn't want women around, and in fact regarded them as militarily useless. They hate the military, hate its attitudes, and delight in shoving women down the throats of the generals.
The pattern never fails. When they want to persecute "deadbeat dads," and humiliate them, and bankrupt them, do you think they're really concerned about "the best interest of the children"? Be serious. Ever hear a feminist criticize unmarried brood mares who drop kids by the dozen and can't raise them?
No. They glorify illegitimacy, which is death to kids, especially in the ghetto, and advocate every measure to promote it -- because illegitimacy reduces the role of men. They don't care about kids. The vast majority belong in Holland, holding back water, and figure the only good father is a turkey baster. They hate men. With whom, in a fair fight, they can't compete. And they know it. Which is why they hate them.
Why do heterosexual teachers buy into hurting boys? Intellectually, teachers fall between education theorists and bright cocker spaniels. (Probably closer to the education theorists. The AKC has been doing wonders with spaniels.) If you think I'm kidding look at the GREs for education majors, whose scores are the lowest of all fields, and remember that these are the smart ones.
Not being terribly bright, they are susceptible to progressive thought, which they understand no better than do progressives. They are not well educated, have little notion what education really is, but dimly resent it. The rambunctiousness of boys is merely a nuisance to them, not a part of the human condition -- and do you have any idea of the withering scorn a boy kid of fifteen, with an IQ of 160, directs toward a teacher with an IQ of 95? A bright girl will disguise her scorn. A boy's stands out like a weasel in a punch bowl.
Resentment and revenge. Bye. I've got dropkicking practice.
Eventually everybody {even Liberals} will employ the Hootie Johnson technique of dealing with these extortionists. Then, at long last, we'll put an end to the plague of political correctness.
For once, I agree with NOW.
This man is a neanderthal - period.
Are women less capable in math or less interested in it? He doesn't clarify ...
No, I have it on good confidence that it was just about sex. Bill Mahr and Whoopie Goldberg both told me so.
I couldn't do this now, but it was funny in 1984:
I worked at Boeing and I was in a conference room of about 8 workmates waiting for a guy to show up at the meeting. We were five minutes late and you could look out the window (we were three stories up) and see him walking into the building.
Anyway, there was this middle aged "man-hater" type lesbian on the team, complete with 'I support the ERA' bumper sticker on her hatchback, and we all sort of discussed whether we should start or wait for him. She wanted to start and I wanted to wait.
Very little debate happened and I just said, "we'll wait for him." S
She sait to me, "why should you decide."
I said, "Because I am the man."
Ah, the good old days, when men were men, without the fear of the nanny state. 'Come to think of it, I still don't have that fear.
Oh, it got some good laughs, but people were already learning to sound "nervous" about some things. Not me, not yet.
I wouldn't try that in one of my meetings....
>>This man is a neanderthal - period.
He may just be a "reasonable" man.
Read my post 30...
>> Are women less capable in math or less interested in it? He doesn't clarify ...<<
Post 30 does.
LOL....I was going to write Summers a letter and suggest he get some B*LLS....but, hey, may as well let them destroy themselves!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.