Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 09/21/2006 2:56:21 PM PDT by presidio9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: presidio9
This panel report is a joke, the makeup is all biased. From "Hatemonger's Quarterly":

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 sciences—which were surely the impetus behind this “expert panel” in the first place—Ms. 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 let’s 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. It’s starting to sound as if the NAS’s 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.

2 posted on 09/21/2006 3:01:49 PM PDT by Mongeaux (''I would sooner be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone directory," W.F. Buckley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: presidio9

Bulls**t!


3 posted on 09/21/2006 3:02:11 PM PDT by Perdogg (If you stay home in November, you will elect Pelosi speaker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: presidio9

I would like to see a study about why there are so few men in elementary teaching, nursing, physical therapy, and secretarial work.


4 posted on 09/21/2006 3:03:33 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: presidio9

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.


5 posted on 09/21/2006 3:03:50 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: presidio9

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.


7 posted on 09/21/2006 3:06:13 PM PDT by Mack the knife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: presidio9
It is odd IMHO that women are not getting further in the lab or the boardroom. Almost 2 generations after they entered the work force as more than "secretaries" there have been still a very small number of CEOs or top Scientist? I wonder why? Usually in business the best and the brightest rise to the top, people wanting profits (I am a businessman not a scientist) don't care if the person is M/F white/black purple or green. If they perform they move up. Even pay discrepancies, if business could continue to increase profits and pay 20% less for labor why isn't it?
8 posted on 09/21/2006 3:06:36 PM PDT by SF Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: presidio9
Jeez, stuff like this makes me embarrassed to be a woman. These feminists need to grow up and deal with stuff like adults. Stop insulting the rest of us women who actually respect ourselves.
9 posted on 09/21/2006 3:07:31 PM PDT by The Blitherer (You were given the choice between war & dishonor. You chose dishonor & you will have war. -Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: presidio9
A committee of experts looked at all the possible excuses — biological differences in ability, hormonal influences, childrearing demands, and even differences in ambition — and found no good explanation for why women are being locked out.

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'.

10 posted on 09/21/2006 3:07:55 PM PDT by Quark2005 ("Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs." -Matthew 7:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: presidio9
Most women hate science, math, and engineering.

How do I know this? I am an exception as I have a bachelor's in physics.

11 posted on 09/21/2006 3:08:21 PM PDT by Hawkeye's Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: presidio9
Some chicks are FINE, but if you're paired with many, in lab, they'll often refuse to put their hands on the gear, but then hover over your shoulder and sharply correct you, all day long.

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...)

12 posted on 09/21/2006 3:09:28 PM PDT by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: presidio9
Most women I know don't WANT to get into senior positions or do the walk that leads to being a CEO.

They like those jobs that you walk away from at the end of the day.

13 posted on 09/21/2006 3:10:18 PM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: presidio9

Serious fabricated BS report. Has anyone seen a campus today? It is all women, 55% and up are women.


15 posted on 09/21/2006 3:15:31 PM PDT by FormerACLUmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: presidio9

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.)


17 posted on 09/21/2006 3:20:17 PM PDT by CPOSharky (Methinks the demonrats doth protest too much.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: presidio9

so, they found explanations, but they weren't considered "good" explanations....


22 posted on 09/21/2006 3:27:56 PM PDT by GodfearingTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: presidio9
Private enterprise seeks out the most competent and effective people, regardless of sex, race, or any other irrelevant factor. That's why the vast majority of NBA players are tall, male, and black. They are the most competent and effective people for the job. If the government became involved in basketball the most any fan could hope for is an occasional flash of mediocrity. That's why capitalism works and socialism doesn't work.
25 posted on 09/21/2006 3:46:25 PM PDT by layman (Card Carrying Infidel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: presidio9
Image hosted by Photobucket.com they want QUOTAS??? diversity for diversity's sake is pure bullsh!t!!!
26 posted on 09/21/2006 3:46:57 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: presidio9

And I'm up against women too, every chance I get.


35 posted on 09/21/2006 4:51:15 PM PDT by R.W.Ratikal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: presidio9

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.


42 posted on 09/21/2006 5:51:04 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (outside a good dog, a book is your best friend. inside a dog it's too dark to read)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson