"I appears you are one of the many with reading comprehension problems."
I just thought I'd repeat your post. It's just reflective of the tenor of debate of conservatives on this one.
And no, I won't answer your silly "test" for you to determine whether I'm a radical feminist. Pshaw -- I kinda assume that just by suggesting that conservatives should rush to defend a Clintonista who is speaking out against *equality of opportunity* and speaking contrary to raw facts such as the SAT stats that show socialization is still a potent force in math and physics -- that you've already made your call.
Well, no matter. America is a great country. 30 years ago we were discussing whether women should major in math at elite schools. 15 years ago, it was whether they could go to graduate school in math and physics. now it's whether they can get tenure at elite universities at anything other than a drip-drip rate. always, the concern raised by elitist, democratic men has been treating women as "groups" and ignoring individual female performance. one would hope better of conservative men, but you guys aren't delivering.
ultimately, I'm with Ken21 -- Harvard's just one school, and seriously why should anyone care just because the Harvard-educated elite thinks Harvard's important. best math and physics isn't happening at Harvard anyway
oh, and sweetie, next time you such that I have intellectual limitations which prevent me from grasping your point, you might want to be forewarned that you have no idea who you're talking to. It might -- gasp!! -- be a female who's a whole lot smarter than you.
there's a frightening thought. go lose sleep over it
"It might -- gasp!! -- be a female who's a whole lot smarter than you."
Possible, but I'll go with the odds and say that it is unlikely.
Yeah baby, you got the winning debating style down pat.
How do you stand up with that boulder on your shoulder?
Look, no one would dare deny that there has been discrimination against women in certain fields in the past, nor that there is still probably some of that going on today (though not nearly as much as before or as currently promulgated by the PC types). But your seemingly deliberate obtuseness in understanding the issue here is annoying. "Clintonista" or not, Summers is being vilified by the usual suspects for noting that, just possibly, there are inherent differences in the physiologies of men and women that mean there will never be even close to a 50/50 split between men and women at all levels of various math and science related disciplines. This clearly doesn't mean a woman can't be the top person in one of these fields, it doesn't mean women should be prohibited from these fields and it certainly doesn't mean true discrimination in any of these fields should be tolerated.
Unfortunately, the current mind-set seems to believe this, i.e., if there is anything other than proportional representation between the sexes, races, religions, etc in any field, than it MUST be because of discrimination. I'm sorry, but this is blatantly faulty logic! And if we are going to disagree on this point, then yes, unfortunately we might as well say "agree to disagree" and end this right now. (But don't hold your breath waiting for there to be equal representation on the LA Lakers between men and women).
Also, you cannot deny that the "equal proportion or it must be discrimination" ideal is a matter of faith amongst the radical feminist set. Do I think (or have I ever written) that you are one? No. But the opinions you are expressing here are right in step with this facet of their belief system, and that's what I have been clearly implying in previous messages.
BTW, concerning:
"2.4 percent of all Asian American women score about 750 on the SAT 1.2 percent of all white males do "
What percent of all Asian American MEN score about 750 (I assume this is just on the math portion)? Also, under your logic, this means that white men are being discriminated against in favor of Asian women, right?