Who makes up this expert panel? Well, its head was Donna E. Shalala, a former secretary of health and human services in the Clinton administration and a well-known feminist.
Also on board was Elizabeth Spelke, a professor of psychology at Harvard whose views on this matter should already be crystal clear. In regard to Larry Summers purportedly sexist remarks on women in the hard scienceswhich were surely the impetus behind this expert panel in the first placeMs. Spelke said: I disagree point for point. Ah, so Ms. Spelke already knew the conclusions the expert panel would come to before she became one of its experts.
And lets not forget panelist Ana Mari Cauce, a University of Washington psychologist and contributor to the tome Bringing Cultural Diversity to Feminist Psychology. Nor should we leave out Ruth J. Simmons, the president of Brown University and a board member of the radical feminist journal Meridians. Gee, can anyone say ringers?
Hmmm. Its starting to sound as if the NASs study was something of a foregone conclusion.
But wait, dear reader, it gets even more pathetic. The obviously dispassionate and objective panel of experts dedicated its work to Denice Denton, the deceased chancellor of UC Santa Cruz who was a lesbian crusader for feminist causes. Huh: Perhaps the only thing this panel is expert in is fooling dimwitted journalists into spreading its propaganda.
I would like to see a study about why there are so few men in elementary teaching, nursing, physical therapy, and secretarial work.
Did they test for intelligence? I doubt it.
It is well-accepted that men tend to the extremes of the intelligence scale. Being a hard science professor requires more intelligence than just about anything. (We can ignore the softer fields of academia where politics play a larger role.)
I'd like to see what the results are when one controls for conventional IQ measures. If they are as I suspect (that people tend to advance regardless of gender based mostly on IQ) then that would also tend to validate the IQ test itself.
Given that the report writing was headed by Donna Shalala, of Clinton Administration fame, I would believe that even a 20% difference in IQ and a 20% difference in number of hours worked between men and women would not be a "good enough reason" in her judgement.
Is this prejudice? You bet, based on her previous performance.
Perhaps they should find a good explanation (i.e. positive data) before generating a press release, rather than leaving the open-ended, backhanded implication that 'inherent prejudice' is somehow responsible for this 'problem'.
How do I know this? I am an exception as I have a bachelor's in physics.
Oh I'm doing it wrong...! (taking gloved hands out of hood --chick recoils in horror at prospect of doing it, backing up 5 meters...)
They like those jobs that you walk away from at the end of the day.
Serious fabricated BS report. Has anyone seen a campus today? It is all women, 55% and up are women.
How many world class chess players are there? And why were they shut out?
(Does pure ability have anything to do with it?)
(From a Laura Ingram interview.)
so, they found explanations, but they weren't considered "good" explanations....
And I'm up against women too, every chance I get.
This cannot possibly be true. Freepers on Crevo threads have assured me that Scientists are TOTALLY objective and only care about facts and truth. They have no bias. They are not driven by emotion or animosity. They are, apparently, all like Commander Data. This must be a bogus study.