| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
18 Jan 2005 04:43:08 AM |
| Object: |
Lawrence Summers |
Why women are poor at science, by Harvard president
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,11812,1392804,00.html
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Tuesday January 18, 2005
The Guardian
The president of Harvard University has provoked a furore by arguing
that men outperform women in maths and sciences because of biological
difference, and discrimination is no longer a career barrier for female
academics.
Lawrence Summers, a career economist who served as treasury secretary
under President Clinton, has a reputation for outspokenness. His tenure
at Harvard has been marked by clashes with African-American staff and
leftwing intellectuals, and complaints about a fall in the hiring of
women.
Suzanne Goldenberg
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/8add33a8d17718ad
http://snipurl.com/82n0
http://snipurl.com/82mz
women science
http://news.google.com/news?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=women+science&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=women+science&sa=N&tab=nw
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=women+science&sa=N&tab=wd&cat=gwd%2FTop
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=women%20science&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
Lawrence Summers
http://news.google.com/news?q=%22Lawrence%20Summers%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=N&tab=wn
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Lawrence+Summers%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&tab=nw&ie=UTF-8&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Lawrence+Summers%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=%22Lawrence+Summers%22&start=0&scoring=d&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&
.
|
|
| User: "Ian H Spedding" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawrence Summers |
18 Jan 2005 06:32:49 AM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106044988.588072.106240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Why women are poor at science, by Harvard president
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,11812,1392804,00.html
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Tuesday January 18, 2005
The Guardian
The president of Harvard University has provoked a furore by arguing
that men outperform women in maths and sciences because of biological
difference, and discrimination is no longer a career barrier for female
academics.
Lawrence Summers, a career economist who served as treasury secretary
under President Clinton, has a reputation for outspokenness. His tenure
at Harvard has been marked by clashes with African-American staff and
leftwing intellectuals, and complaints about a fall in the hiring of
women.
Suzanne Goldenberg
Makes me think of that line out of The West Wing: "Economists were put on
this planet to make astrologers look good."
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawrence Summers |
18 Jan 2005 02:37:26 PM |
|
|
Ian H Spedding wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106044988.588072.106240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Why women are poor at science, by Harvard president
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,11812,1392804,00.html
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Tuesday January 18, 2005
The Guardian
The president of Harvard University has provoked a furore by
arguing
that men outperform women in maths and sciences because of
biological
difference, and discrimination is no longer a career barrier for
female
academics.
Lawrence Summers, a career economist who served as treasury
secretary
under President Clinton, has a reputation for outspokenness. His
tenure
at Harvard has been marked by clashes with African-American staff
and
leftwing intellectuals, and complaints about a fall in the hiring
of
women.
Suzanne Goldenberg
Makes me think of that line out of The West Wing: "Economists were
put on
this planet to make astrologers look good."
Darwin's darling
http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,3605,268330,00.html
She's an evangelical evolutionist who runs an influential salon and
courts controversy with her views on feminism and parenting. Anne
Perkins on the philosopher who claims to have no ambition yet has
ensured that her views are at the heart of British political debate
Saturday August 28, 1999
The Guardian
She is the feminists' bete noir, the woman who argues that all women
have certain pre-set programmes of behaviour, a kind of psychological
default setting that disposes them to want a single mate whom they
select for status before devoting themselves to rearing the inevitable
offspring. Men, on the other hand, are disposed to have lots of mates,
chosen for their looks, thus making female beauty a legitimate subject
for scientific inquiry and lusting after page 3 totty nothing more than
a natural expression of the biological quest for genetic advantage.
Helena Cronin
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Helena+Cronin%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&tab=nw&ie=UTF-8&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Helena+Cronin%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=%22Helena+Cronin%22&start=0&scoring=d&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&
http://news.google.com/news?q=%22Helena%20Cronin%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=N&tab=wn
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawrence Summers |
21 Jan 2005 04:15:23 PM |
|
|
maff wrote:
Ian H Spedding wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106044988.588072.106240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Why women are poor at science, by Harvard president
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,11812,1392804,00.html
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Tuesday January 18, 2005
The Guardian
The president of Harvard University has provoked a furore by
arguing
that men outperform women in maths and sciences because of
biological
difference, and discrimination is no longer a career barrier for
female
academics.
Lawrence Summers, a career economist who served as treasury
secretary
under President Clinton, has a reputation for outspokenness. His
tenure
at Harvard has been marked by clashes with African-American staff
and
leftwing intellectuals, and complaints about a fall in the hiring
of
women.
Suzanne Goldenberg
Makes me think of that line out of The West Wing: "Economists were
put on
this planet to make astrologers look good."
Darwin's darling
http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,3605,268330,00.html
She's an evangelical evolutionist who runs an influential salon and
courts controversy with her views on feminism and parenting. Anne
Perkins on the philosopher who claims to have no ambition yet has
ensured that her views are at the heart of British political debate
Saturday August 28, 1999
The Guardian
She is the feminists' bete noir, the woman who argues that all women
have certain pre-set programmes of behaviour, a kind of psychological
default setting that disposes them to want a single mate whom they
select for status before devoting themselves to rearing the
inevitable
offspring. Men, on the other hand, are disposed to have lots of
mates,
chosen for their looks, thus making female beauty a legitimate
subject
for scientific inquiry and lusting after page 3 totty nothing more
than
a natural expression of the biological quest for genetic advantage.
Helena Cronin
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/40dca29b95c84d8b
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawrence Summers |
22 Jan 2005 05:10:04 AM |
|
|
maff wrote:
Ian H Spedding wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106044988.588072.106240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Why women are poor at science, by Harvard president
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,11812,1392804,00.html
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Tuesday January 18, 2005
The Guardian
The president of Harvard University has provoked a furore by
arguing
that men outperform women in maths and sciences because of
biological
difference, and discrimination is no longer a career barrier for
female
academics.
Lawrence Summers, a career economist who served as treasury
secretary
under President Clinton, has a reputation for outspokenness. His
tenure
at Harvard has been marked by clashes with African-American staff
and
leftwing intellectuals, and complaints about a fall in the hiring
of
women.
Suzanne Goldenberg
Makes me think of that line out of The West Wing: "Economists were
put on
this planet to make astrologers look good."
Darwin's darling
http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,3605,268330,00.html
She's an evangelical evolutionist who runs an influential salon and
courts controversy with her views on feminism and parenting. Anne
Perkins on the philosopher who claims to have no ambition yet has
ensured that her views are at the heart of British political debate
Saturday August 28, 1999
The Guardian
She is the feminists' bete noir, the woman who argues that all women
have certain pre-set programmes of behaviour, a kind of psychological
default setting that disposes them to want a single mate whom they
select for status before devoting themselves to rearing the
inevitable
offspring. Men, on the other hand, are disposed to have lots of
mates,
chosen for their looks, thus making female beauty a legitimate
subject
for scientific inquiry and lusting after page 3 totty nothing more
than
a natural expression of the biological quest for genetic advantage.
[...]
--
groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/40dca29b95c84d8b
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawrence Summers |
22 Jan 2005 02:31:45 AM |
|
|
maff wrote:
Ian H Spedding wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106044988.588072.106240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Why women are poor at science, by Harvard president
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,11812,1392804,00.html
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Tuesday January 18, 2005
The Guardian
The president of Harvard University has provoked a furore by
arguing
that men outperform women in maths and sciences because of
biological
difference, and discrimination is no longer a career barrier for
female
academics.
Lawrence Summers, a career economist who served as treasury
secretary
under President Clinton, has a reputation for outspokenness. His
tenure
at Harvard has been marked by clashes with African-American staff
and
leftwing intellectuals, and complaints about a fall in the hiring
of
women.
Suzanne Goldenberg
Makes me think of that line out of The West Wing: "Economists were
put on
this planet to make astrologers look good."
Darwin's darling
http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,3605,268330,00.html
She's an evangelical evolutionist who runs an influential salon and
courts controversy with her views on feminism and parenting. Anne
Perkins on the philosopher who claims to have no ambition yet has
ensured that her views are at the heart of British political debate
Saturday August 28, 1999
The Guardian
She is the feminists' bete noir, the woman who argues that all women
have certain pre-set programmes of behaviour, a kind of psychological
default setting that disposes them to want a single mate whom they
select for status before devoting themselves to rearing the
inevitable
offspring. Men, on the other hand, are disposed to have lots of
mates,
chosen for their looks, thus making female beauty a legitimate
subject
for scientific inquiry and lusting after page 3 totty nothing more
than
a natural expression of the biological quest for genetic advantage.
[...]
--
Helena Cronin
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/40dca29b95c84d8b
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jayne Kulikauskas" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawrence Summers |
18 Jan 2005 11:45:48 AM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106044988.588072.106240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Why women are poor at science, by Harvard president
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,11812,1392804,00.html
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Tuesday January 18, 2005
The Guardian
The president of Harvard University has provoked a furore by arguing
that men outperform women in maths and sciences because of biological
difference, and discrimination is no longer a career barrier for female
academics.
Great example of biased reporting here. What Summers really said was that
one of the possibilities to be considered in women's under representation in
science was whether there were innate differences between men and women. At
this point, Nancy Hopkins, a female "scientist" made a big production of
leaving the room in a snit. Just shows that creationists aren't the only
ones who let ideology control science. Hopkins will not even think about
the possibility of innate differences, stating, "When he started talking
about innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn't
breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill."
A more even-handed report is at:
http://www.marinij.com/Stories/0,1413,234~24410~2659688,00.html
<bq>He discussed several factors that could help explain the
underrepresentation of women. The first factor, he said, according to
several participants, was that top positions on university math and
engineering faculties require extraordinary commitments of time and energy,
with many professors working 80-hour weeks in the same punishing schedules
pursued by top lawyers, bankers and executives. Few married women with
children are willing to accept such sacrifices, he said.
Hopkins said yesterday, "I didn't disagree, but didn't like the way he
presented that point, because I like to work 80 hours a week, and I know a
lot of women who work that hard."
In citing a second factor, Summers cited research showing that more high
school boys than girls tend to score at very high and very low levels on
standardized math tests, and that it was important to consider the
possibility that such differences may stem from biological differences
between the sexes.<eq>
Lawrence Summers, a career economist who served as treasury secretary
under President Clinton, has a reputation for outspokenness. His tenure
at Harvard has been marked by clashes with African-American staff and
leftwing intellectuals, and complaints about a fall in the hiring of
women.
The reporter certainly wants the readers to take a negative view of Summers,
doesn't she?
Jayne
.
|
|
|
| User: "A. Carlson" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawrence Summers |
18 Jan 2005 02:15:53 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:45:48 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106044988.588072.106240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Why women are poor at science, by Harvard president
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,11812,1392804,00.html
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Tuesday January 18, 2005
The Guardian
The president of Harvard University has provoked a furore by arguing
that men outperform women in maths and sciences because of biological
difference, and discrimination is no longer a career barrier for female
academics.
Great example of biased reporting here. What Summers really said was that
one of the possibilities to be considered in women's under representation in
science was whether there were innate differences between men and women. At
this point, Nancy Hopkins, a female "scientist" made a big production of
leaving the room in a snit. Just shows that creationists aren't the only
ones who let ideology control science. Hopkins will not even think about
the possibility of innate differences, stating, "When he started talking
about innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn't
breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill."
A more even-handed report is at:
http://www.marinij.com/Stories/0,1413,234~24410~2659688,00.html
<bq>He discussed several factors that could help explain the
underrepresentation of women. The first factor, he said, according to
several participants, was that top positions on university math and
engineering faculties require extraordinary commitments of time and energy,
with many professors working 80-hour weeks in the same punishing schedules
pursued by top lawyers, bankers and executives. Few married women with
children are willing to accept such sacrifices, he said.
Hopkins said yesterday, "I didn't disagree, but didn't like the way he
presented that point, because I like to work 80 hours a week, and I know a
lot of women who work that hard."
In citing a second factor, Summers cited research showing that more high
school boys than girls tend to score at very high and very low levels on
standardized math tests, and that it was important to consider the
possibility that such differences may stem from biological differences
between the sexes.<eq>
I seem to recall at the time that one of the specific reasons
suggested was that females tended not to be as agressive as males in
class and this perhaps played a factor with their progress, not
because of any innate lack of ability in the subject matter but
because of teaching styles that were unintentionally biased against
the less agressive females. If this were so, this would still fit the
observation and suggested reason given above.
Lawrence Summers, a career economist who served as treasury secretary
under President Clinton, has a reputation for outspokenness. His tenure
at Harvard has been marked by clashes with African-American staff and
leftwing intellectuals, and complaints about a fall in the hiring of
women.
The reporter certainly wants the readers to take a negative view of Summers,
doesn't she?
Jayne
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jayne Kulikauskas" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawrence Summers |
18 Jan 2005 02:27:43 PM |
|
|
"A. Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:38rqu09jaca7uina0fhje04pkc8ovmh77a@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:45:48 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
quoting:
http://www.marinij.com/Stories/0,1413,234~24410~2659688,00.html
[]
In citing a second factor, Summers cited research showing that more high
school boys than girls tend to score at very high and very low levels on
standardized math tests, and that it was important to consider the
possibility that such differences may stem from biological differences
between the sexes.<eq>
I seem to recall at the time that one of the specific reasons
suggested was that females tended not to be as agressive as males in
class and this perhaps played a factor with their progress, not
because of any innate lack of ability in the subject matter but
because of teaching styles that were unintentionally biased against
the less agressive females. If this were so, this would still fit the
observation and suggested reason given above.
How would one reconcile this theory with girls outperforming boys in all the
other subjects? It seems unlikely that male aggressiveness would have this
effect in some subjects but not others.
Jayne
.
|
|
|
| User: "Theo Bromine" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawrence Summers |
18 Jan 2005 08:21:07 PM |
|
|
Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
"A. Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:38rqu09jaca7uina0fhje04pkc8ovmh77a@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:45:48 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
quoting:
http://www.marinij.com/Stories/0,1413,234~24410~2659688,00.html
[]
In citing a second factor, Summers cited research showing that more high
school boys than girls tend to score at very high and very low levels on
standardized math tests, and that it was important to consider the
possibility that such differences may stem from biological differences
between the sexes.<eq>
I seem to recall at the time that one of the specific reasons
suggested was that females tended not to be as agressive as males in
class and this perhaps played a factor with their progress, not
because of any innate lack of ability in the subject matter but
because of teaching styles that were unintentionally biased against
the less agressive females. If this were so, this would still fit the
observation and suggested reason given above.
How would one reconcile this theory with girls outperforming boys in all the
other subjects? It seems unlikely that male aggressiveness would have this
effect in some subjects but not others.
The question is: What are the implications if there *are* proven to be
innate biological differences contributing to academic performance and
career choices for males and females? Even if it can be proven that
there are differences between the norm/mean/median/average for males and
females, I think it is clear that there is significant overlap, and the
range of differences between individual males and females is far
greater. It doesn't make sense to steer girls away from career choices
in math and sciences because boys score better on standardized math
tests, or to steer boys away from language arts because girls score
better on standardized language tests. On the other hand, a *proven*
innate difference in some areas might indicate that the objective of
gender parity in those areas would be a bad idea.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawrence Summers |
19 Jan 2005 01:51:58 PM |
|
|
"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:356030F4fled7U1@individual.net...
"Theo Bromine" <the0br0mine@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:355ugpF4hltjsU1@individual.net...
[]
The question is: What are the implications if there *are* proven to be
innate biological differences contributing to academic performance and
career choices for males and females? Even if it can be proven that
there are differences between the norm/mean/median/average for males and
females, I think it is clear that there is significant overlap, and the
range of differences between individual males and females is far
greater. It doesn't make sense to steer girls away from career choices
in math and sciences because boys score better on standardized math
tests, or to steer boys away from language arts because girls score
better on standardized language tests.
Obviously, a statistical likelihood of greater math ability should not
affect how we treat individuals. Most people can grasp this by analogy to
height. Just because men are likely to be taller than women, we can't say
there are no tall women.
On the other hand, a *proven*
innate difference in some areas might indicate that the objective of
gender parity in those areas would be a bad idea.
Exactly. The implication of showing innate differences exist is that the
"socialization only" theories are wrong. These theories lead people to
assume that women are being held back by unfair treatment. They do things
like impose quota systems to redress the supposed unfairness. If only 20%
of women are suited to be engineers and the university has to accept 50%
female engineering students, then something very wrong is happening. Right
now, policies are based on the assumption that innate differences do not
exist. If this assumption is false, then these policies are mistaken and
unjust.
Jayne
Jayne. If 50% of the students accepted by an engineering school are women, then
obviously those woman want to be there or they would not have applied for
acceptance. So why is accepting them "wrong", in your view? Are you saying
that men have a right to try to succeed and then fail, but not women? Deciding
on admissions policy is one thing, but are we now to decide who has a right to
an education,who doesn't, and what education they will get? And who are we to
decide for any adult what kind of education they should or should not have? The
last time I checked, we still lived in a free country where we as individuals
have a right to make the decisions which most affect our lives.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jayne Kulikauskas" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawrence Summers |
19 Jan 2005 02:28:28 PM |
|
|
"George" <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote in message
news:yTyHd.14894$IV5.11792@attbi_s54...
"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:356030F4fled7U1@individual.net...
"Theo Bromine" <the0br0mine@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:355ugpF4hltjsU1@individual.net...
[]
The question is: What are the implications if there *are* proven to be
innate biological differences contributing to academic performance and
career choices for males and females? Even if it can be proven that
there are differences between the norm/mean/median/average for males
and
females, I think it is clear that there is significant overlap, and the
range of differences between individual males and females is far
greater. It doesn't make sense to steer girls away from career choices
in math and sciences because boys score better on standardized math
tests, or to steer boys away from language arts because girls score
better on standardized language tests.
Obviously, a statistical likelihood of greater math ability should not
affect how we treat individuals. Most people can grasp this by analogy
to
height. Just because men are likely to be taller than women, we can't
say
there are no tall women.
On the other hand, a *proven*
innate difference in some areas might indicate that the objective of
gender parity in those areas would be a bad idea.
Exactly. The implication of showing innate differences exist is that the
"socialization only" theories are wrong. These theories lead people to
assume that women are being held back by unfair treatment. They do
things
like impose quota systems to redress the supposed unfairness. If only
20%
of women are suited to be engineers and the university has to accept 50%
female engineering students, then something very wrong is happening.
Right
now, policies are based on the assumption that innate differences do not
exist. If this assumption is false, then these policies are mistaken
and
unjust.
Jayne
Jayne. If 50% of the students accepted by an engineering school are
women, then
obviously those woman want to be there or they would not have applied for
acceptance. So why is accepting them "wrong", in your view?
Consider the hypothetical situation in which we know that men have greater
math ability than women. (Recall that my comments were in the context of
considering the implications of establishing that innate differences exist.)
If there is a quota then the school accepts the top 50% of the women who
apply. Let's say their marks range from 70% up. Meanwhile, the top 50% of
the men who apply have marks ranging from 85% up. What is happening in this
case is that women are having to meet a much lower standard to be admitted.
Do you think this would be fair?
Are you saying
that men have a right to try to succeed and then fail, but not women?
Deciding
on admissions policy is one thing, but are we now to decide who has a
right to
an education,who doesn't, and what education they will get? And who are
we to
decide for any adult what kind of education they should or should not
have? The
last time I checked, we still lived in a free country where we as
individuals
have a right to make the decisions which most affect our lives.
I am saying that men and women should have to meet the same admission
standards. People should be accepted into college based on merit rather
than quotas.
I do not want people to be firefighters if they cannot lift enough weight to
carry an injured person. If this mean that less than 50% of firefighters
are women, this is not oppresion of women. Most people accept this because
we know that on average women are not as strong as men. If differences in
mathematical ability are innate, we can expect a distribution similar to
differences in physical strength. It would not mean that no women can do
math and science (which is why it is irrelevant to give examples of great
women scientists). It means that fewer women than men would succeed in math
and sciences.
Jayne
.
|
|
|
| User: "George" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawrence Summers |
19 Jan 2005 04:49:37 PM |
|
|
"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:357u66F4h12a3U1@individual.net...
"George" <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote in message
news:yTyHd.14894$IV5.11792@attbi_s54...
"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:356030F4fled7U1@individual.net...
"Theo Bromine" <the0br0mine@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:355ugpF4hltjsU1@individual.net...
[]
The question is: What are the implications if there *are* proven to be
innate biological differences contributing to academic performance and
career choices for males and females? Even if it can be proven that
there are differences between the norm/mean/median/average for males
and
females, I think it is clear that there is significant overlap, and the
range of differences between individual males and females is far
greater. It doesn't make sense to steer girls away from career choices
in math and sciences because boys score better on standardized math
tests, or to steer boys away from language arts because girls score
better on standardized language tests.
Obviously, a statistical likelihood of greater math ability should not
affect how we treat individuals. Most people can grasp this by analogy
to
height. Just because men are likely to be taller than women, we can't
say
there are no tall women.
On the other hand, a *proven*
innate difference in some areas might indicate that the objective of
gender parity in those areas would be a bad idea.
Exactly. The implication of showing innate differences exist is that the
"socialization only" theories are wrong. These theories lead people to
assume that women are being held back by unfair treatment. They do
things
like impose quota systems to redress the supposed unfairness. If only
20%
of women are suited to be engineers and the university has to accept 50%
female engineering students, then something very wrong is happening.
Right
now, policies are based on the assumption that innate differences do not
exist. If this assumption is false, then these policies are mistaken
and
unjust.
Jayne
Jayne. If 50% of the students accepted by an engineering school are
women, then
obviously those woman want to be there or they would not have applied for
acceptance. So why is accepting them "wrong", in your view?
Consider the hypothetical situation in which we know that men have greater
math ability than women. (Recall that my comments were in the context of
considering the implications of establishing that innate differences exist.)
If there is a quota then the school accepts the top 50% of the women who
apply. Let's say their marks range from 70% up. Meanwhile, the top 50% of
the men who apply have marks ranging from 85% up. What is happening in this
case is that women are having to meet a much lower standard to be admitted.
Do you think this would be fair?
You are using a hypothetical case to make the case for discrimination when you
haven't established that there is a link between any alleged physical ability of
men to do math and science better than women. College educators and
administrators cannot work run their schools under such unsubstantiated rumours.
For one thing, it is morally reprehensible. For another, they'd get their asses
sued right out of business. And even if it was shown that men can do science
and math better than women because of some innate ability, so what? If a woman
wants that education, who are you or I to deny it to them? If a young girl had
a better social and cultural environment in which to learn math and science, who
is to say that she wouldn't choose those endeavors? If those cultural and
social barriers aren't erased, we will never know, and might even be denying
society of another Madam Curie, or a Jame Goodall.
Are you saying
that men have a right to try to succeed and then fail, but not women?
Deciding
on admissions policy is one thing, but are we now to decide who has a
right to
an education,who doesn't, and what education they will get? And who are
we to
decide for any adult what kind of education they should or should not
have? The
last time I checked, we still lived in a free country where we as
individuals
have a right to make the decisions which most affect our lives.
I am saying that men and women should have to meet the same admission
standards. People should be accepted into college based on merit rather
than quotas.
And I'm telling you that that can happen only when the educators stop teaching
girls using the same cultural and social mores as they teach boys. You yourself
have acknowledged that that boys and girls are different (you do know the
difference, don't you?). So why should we teach our children with a one sexual
preference (male) fits all mentality with regard to culture and social
influences? If you want to teach young boys how to so math by giving them a
problem related to rocket engines, that's fine as long as it keeps them
interested in learn the math. But young girls don't relate to rocket engines,
soon lose interest, and don't learn the lesson. They don't understand how it
relates to their lives, how the things in their lives can be described using the
math, because by and large, little girls don't play with toy rockets.
I do not want people to be firefighters if they cannot lift enough weight to
carry an injured person.
Neither do I. Guess what? It doesn't take a heavy lifter to do math or
science. All it takes is the willingness to learn how to do it, to work hard at
learning it, and the opportunity to succeed. And guess what else? Whether a
girl wants to study science and math or not is not your decision to make (unless
she is your child, and then God help her). It's hers and hers alone. She can
try , and fail. That is her right. But if she succeeds, she can contribute to
society in a meaningful, and sometimes significant way. People have a right to
try to succeed in their life goals. If they fail, that is their right also.
People tend to be over-protective when it comes to failure. If you cannot learn
from your mistakes, you cannot learn. But for most people, one has to make
mistakes for that to really happen. If I do a math problem and I get it wrong,
I do it again and again, learning form my errors until I get it right.
If this mean that less than 50% of firefighters
are women, this is not oppresion of women. Most people accept this because
we know that on average women are not as strong as men. If differences in
mathematical ability are innate, we can expect a distribution similar to
differences in physical strength. It would not mean that no women can do
math and science (which is why it is irrelevant to give examples of great
women scientists). It means that fewer women than men would succeed in math
and sciences.
Jayne
And so what? Who are you to say that women can't try and fail? They certainly
can't succeed as a whole when the social cards are stacked against them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jayne Kulikauskas" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawrence Summers |
19 Jan 2005 05:17:40 PM |
|
|
"George" <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote in message
news:5uBHd.15062$OF5.7776@attbi_s52...
"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:357u66F4h12a3U1@individual.net...
[]
Consider the hypothetical situation in which we know that men have
greater
math ability than women. (Recall that my comments were in the context
of
considering the implications of establishing that innate differences
exist.)
If there is a quota then the school accepts the top 50% of the women who
apply. Let's say their marks range from 70% up. Meanwhile, the top
50% of
the men who apply have marks ranging from 85% up. What is happening in
this
case is that women are having to meet a much lower standard to be
admitted.
Do you think this would be fair?
You are using a hypothetical case to make the case for discrimination when
you
haven't established that there is a link between any alleged physical
ability of
men to do math and science better than women.
[rest of post snipped]
I was not making a case for discrimination. You are making a straw man
argument. Get back to me when you are prepared to address what I have
actually said.
Jayne
.
|
|
|
| User: "George" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawrence Summers |
20 Jan 2005 03:22:53 AM |
|
|
"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:35883eF4hsu8iU1@individual.net...
"George" <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote in message
news:5uBHd.15062$OF5.7776@attbi_s52...
"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:357u66F4h12a3U1@individual.net...
[]
Consider the hypothetical situation in which we know that men have
greater
math ability than women. (Recall that my comments were in the context
of
considering the implications of establishing that innate differences
exist.)
If there is a quota then the school accepts the top 50% of the women who
apply. Let's say their marks range from 70% up. Meanwhile, the top
50% of
the men who apply have marks ranging from 85% up. What is happening in
this
case is that women are having to meet a much lower standard to be
admitted.
Do you think this would be fair?
You are using a hypothetical case to make the case for discrimination when
you
haven't established that there is a link between any alleged physical
ability of
men to do math and science better than women.
[rest of post snipped]
I was not making a case for discrimination. You are making a straw man
argument. Get back to me when you are prepared to address what I have
actually said.
Jayne
Explain why you think it is so important that a link between any alleged
physical ability of
men to do math and science better than women needs to be established in order
for proper education reform to occur.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jayne Kulikauskas" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawrence Summers |
20 Jan 2005 06:04:51 AM |
|
|
In case anyone is wondering why I am not responding to George's posts, his
behaviour in another newsgroup has so disgusted me that I am no longer
engaging in discussion with him.
Jayne
.
|
|
|
| User: "C.J.W." |
|
| Title: Re: Lawrence Summers |
20 Jan 2005 03:29:56 PM |
|
|
Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
In case anyone is wondering why I am not responding to George's posts, his
behaviour in another newsgroup has so disgusted me that I am no longer
engaging in discussion with him.
Well, he certainly seems to be intent on being mentally retarded here.
It's a straw man argument George, try to get that through your head.
--
--W
http://mynym.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "George" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawrence Summers |
21 Jan 2005 03:01:20 PM |
|
|
"C.J.W." <watt2020@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:41F023DB.E71B11A1@bellatlantic.net...
Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
In case anyone is wondering why I am not responding to George's posts, his
behaviour in another newsgroup has so disgusted me that I am no longer
engaging in discussion with him.
Well, he certainly seems to be intent on being mentally retarded here.
It's a straw man argument George, try to get that through your head.
--
--W
http://mynym.blogspot.com/
My last comment to her was :
"Explain why you think it is so important that a link between any alleged
physical ability of
men to do math and science better than women needs to be established in order
for proper education reform to occur."
Please explain why you think this is a strawman argument?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawrence Summers |
20 Jan 2005 03:42:32 AM |
|
|
"Theo Bromine" <the0br0mine@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:358ks7F4gsrtpU1@individual.net...
My guess is that the girls (and boys) who don't like toy rockets aren't
the ones who grow up to be astrophysicists, astronauts or engineers.
And teaching girls math using examples more attractive to girls isn't
likely to change that - it might actually have the effect of
discouraging girls from liking rockets if it is implied that such a
thing is normal for boys and unusual for girls.
But it just might encourage them to persue a career in mathematics. The point is
that children (and most adults) learn best when they have a frame of reference,
something they can relate to.
I do not want people to be firefighters if they cannot lift enough weight to
carry an injured person.
Neither do I. Guess what? It doesn't take a heavy lifter to do math or
science. All it takes is the willingness to learn how to do it, to work hard
at
learning it, and the opportunity to succeed.
I disagree. I have no qualifications in education, but I am convinced
that there is such a thing as scientific and mathematical aptitude. The
majority of people can reach a reasonable level of competence (ie high
school math) by hard work and determination. But beyond that, there are
some people for whom no amount of hard work or practice is going to get
them to a PhD, just like no amount of practice would allow them to be a
professional orchestra musician, and no amount of steroids would turn
them into a sports pro.
Of course. There certainly are individual differences. No one is questioning
that. However, you can reach a level of competence in math and still do
science. Not all science is rocket science. Not every scientist is an genius,
nor should they be expected to be. I never understood math until I studied
under the right teacher. My experience with math teachers is that for every
great math teacher, there must be hundreds of lousy ones. Nearly all of my math
teachers were realy lousy until I got into college and found one who knew how to
teach it. And she was a older woman (one of the best instructors I've ever had
the pleasure of knowing). She made her students want to come to class, and that
is a very rare gift indeed. It is not as bad with science teachers, and yet
many simply don't know how to teach it. Hence the endless curves on tests in
order to make sure enough students pass the class for the teacher to justify
his/her employment.
And guess what else? Whether a
girl wants to study science and math or not is not your decision to make
(unless
she is your child, and then God help her). It's hers and hers alone. She
can
try , and fail. That is her right. But if she succeeds, she can contribute
to
society in a meaningful, and sometimes significant way. People have a right
to
try to succeed in their life goals. If they fail, that is their right also.
People tend to be over-protective when it comes to failure. If you cannot
learn
from your mistakes, you cannot learn. But for most people, one has to make
mistakes for that to really happen. If I do a math problem and I get it
wrong,
I do it again and again, learning form my errors until I get it right.
Actually, I am reasonably certain that if one of Jayne's daughters
wanted to study math, science, or engineering, she would be encouraged
to do so. I'm sure some of Jayne's best friends are women engineers.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Theo Bromine" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawrence Summers |
19 Jan 2005 08:31:37 PM |
|
|
Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
"George" <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote in message
news:yTyHd.14894$IV5.11792@attbi_s54...
"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:356030F4fled7U1@individual.net...
"Theo Bromine" <the0br0mine@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:355ugpF4hltjsU1@individual.net...
[]
The question is: What are the implications if there *are* proven to be
innate biological differences contributing to academic performance and
career choices for males and females? Even if it can be proven that
there are differences between the norm/mean/median/average for males
and
females, I think it is clear that there is significant overlap, and the
range of differences between individual males and females is far
greater. It doesn't make sense to steer girls away from career choices
in math and sciences because boys score better on standardized math
tests, or to steer boys away from language arts because girls score
better on standardized language tests.
Obviously, a statistical likelihood of greater math ability should not
affect how we treat individuals. Most people can grasp this by analogy
to
height. Just because men are likely to be taller than women, we can't
say
there are no tall women.
On the other hand, a *proven*
innate difference in some areas might indicate that the objective of
gender parity in those areas would be a bad idea.
Exactly. The implication of showing innate differences exist is that the
"socialization only" theories are wrong. These theories lead people to
assume that women are being held back by unfair treatment. They do
things
like impose quota systems to redress the supposed unfairness. If only
20%
of women are suited to be engineers and the university has to accept 50%
female engineering students, then something very wrong is happening.
Right
now, policies are based on the assumption that innate differences do not
exist. If this assumption is false, then these policies are mistaken
and
unjust.
Jayne
Jayne. If 50% of the students accepted by an engineering school are
women, then
obviously those woman want to be there or they would not have applied for
acceptance. So why is accepting them "wrong", in your view?
Consider the hypothetical situation in which we know that men have greater
math ability than women. (Recall that my comments were in the context of
considering the implications of establishing that innate differences exist.)
If there is a quota then the school accepts the top 50% of the women who
apply. Let's say their marks range from 70% up. Meanwhile, the top 50% of
the men who apply have marks ranging from 85% up. What is happening in this
case is that women are having to meet a much lower standard to be admitted.
Do you think this would be fair?
Are you saying
that men have a right to try to succeed and then fail, but not women?
Deciding
on admissions policy is one thing, but are we now to decide who has a
right to
an education,who doesn't, and what education they will get? And who are
we to
decide for any adult what kind of education they should or should not
have? The
last time I checked, we still lived in a free country where we as
individuals
have a right to make the decisions which most affect our lives.
I am saying that men and women should have to meet the same admission
standards. People should be accepted into college based on merit rather
than quotas.
I do not want people to be firefighters if they cannot lift enough weight to
carry an injured person. If this mean that less than 50% of firefighters
are women, this is not oppresion of women. Most people accept this because
we know that on average women are not as strong as men. If differences in
mathematical ability are innate, we can expect a distribution similar to
differences in physical strength. It would not mean that no women can do
math and science (which is why it is irrelevant to give examples of great
women scientists). It means that fewer women than men would succeed in math
and sciences.
Spurred by curiosity, I looked up MIT's admission policies, for an
example. Currently, MIT undergrads are 57% male and 43% female. (By
comparison, in the late 1970s, it was about 85% male.) They state that
they do not have an official affirmative action program, but that gender
is one of the factors they take into account when looking, for example,
at standardized test scores.
They say: "We are aware as we make [admissions] decisions that women
score somewhat lower on standardized tests, so we take that into
account. We feel that has more to do with the tests than with women.
Women as a whole slightly outperform men at MIT. They also have a higher
retention rate."
Based on the results of school performance and retention rate, it seems
that they are using reasonable criteria of admission. (Of course, MIT
would have somewhat skewed definition of what they mean by "lower scores".)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jayne Kulikauskas" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawrence Summers |
19 Jan 2005 09:23:40 PM |
|
|
"Theo Bromine" <the0br0mine@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:358jgaF4go6jjU1@individual.net...
[]
Spurred by curiosity, I looked up MIT's admission policies, for an
example. Currently, MIT undergrads are 57% male and 43% female. (By
comparison, in the late 1970s, it was about 85% male.) They state that
they do not have an official affirmative action program, but that gender
is one of the factors they take into account when looking, for example,
at standardized test scores.
They say: "We are aware as we make [admissions] decisions that women
score somewhat lower on standardized tests, so we take that into
account. We feel that has more to do with the tests than with women.
Women as a whole slightly outperform men at MIT. They also have a higher
retention rate."
Based on the results of school performance and retention rate, it seems
that they are using reasonable criteria of admission. (Of course, MIT
would have somewhat skewed definition of what they mean by "lower
scores".)
I can see how that is reasonable enough, but it makes me wonder about what
would happen if it were reversed. What if men were being admitted with
lower scores? Even though they did better at performance and retention, I
suspect we would hear complaints about it.
Jayne
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Jeffery" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawrence Summers |
19 Jan 2005 09:47:40 PM |
|
|
"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:358mgnF4i9qavU1@individual.net...
"Theo Bromine" <the0br0mine@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:358jgaF4go6jjU1@individual.net...
[]
Spurred by curiosity, I looked up MIT's admission policies, for an
example. Currently, MIT undergrads are 57% male and 43% female. (By
comparison, in the late 1970s, it was about 85% male.) They state that
they do not have an official affirmative action program, but that gender
is one of the factors they take into account when looking, for example,
at standardized test scores.
They say: "We are aware as we make [admissions] decisions that women
score somewhat lower on standardized tests, so we take that into
account. We feel that has more to do with the tests than with women.
Women as a whole slightly outperform men at MIT. They also have a higher
retention rate."
Based on the results of school performance and retention rate, it seems
that they are using reasonable criteria of admission. (Of course, MIT
would have somewhat skewed definition of what they mean by "lower
scores".)
I can see how that is reasonable enough, but it makes me wonder about what
would happen if it were reversed. What if men were being admitted with
lower scores? Even though they did better at performance and retention, I
suspect we would hear complaints about it.
Hey, I'm hoping for admission to a home economics class. Even though I burn
the toast.
Alan Jeffery
Jayne
.
|
|
|
| User: "George" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawrence Summers |
20 Jan 2005 03:52:36 AM |
|
|
"Alan Jeffery" <observa_no_spam@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:358o25F4j19p7U1@individual.net...
"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:358mgnF4i9qavU1@individual.net...
"Theo Bromine" <the0br0mine@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:358jgaF4go6jjU1@individual.net...
[]
Spurred by curiosity, I looked up MIT's admission policies, for an
example. Currently, MIT undergrads are 57% male and 43% female. (By
comparison, in the late 1970s, it was about 85% male.) They state that
they do not have an official affirmative action program, but that gender
is one of the factors they take into account when looking, for example,
at standardized test scores.
They say: "We are aware as we make [admissions] decisions that women
score somewhat lower on standardized tests, so we take that into
account. We feel that has more to do with the tests than with women.
Women as a whole slightly outperform men at MIT. They also have a higher
retention rate."
Based on the results of school performance and retention rate, it seems
that they are using reasonable criteria of admission. (Of course, MIT
would have somewhat skewed definition of what they mean by "lower
scores".)
I can see how that is reasonable enough, but it makes me wonder about what
would happen if it were reversed. What if men were being admitted with
lower scores? Even though they did better at performance and retention, I
suspect we would hear complaints about it.
Hey, I'm hoping for admission to a home economics class. Even though I burn
the toast.
Alan Jeffery
Bhwhahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! Good one.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Theo Bromine" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawrence Summers |
19 Jan 2005 09:45:04 PM |
|
|
Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
"Theo Bromine" <the0br0mine@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:358jgaF4go6jjU1@individual.net...
[]
Spurred by curiosity, I looked up MIT's admission policies, for an
example. Currently, MIT undergrads are 57% male and 43% female. (By
comparison, in the late 1970s, it was about 85% male.) They state that
they do not have an official affirmative action program, but that gender
is one of the factors they take into account when looking, for example,
at standardized test scores.
They say: "We are aware as we make [admissions] decisions that women
score somewhat lower on standardized tests, so we take that into
account. We feel that has more to do with the tests than with women.
Women as a whole slightly outperform men at MIT. They also have a higher
retention rate."
Based on the results of school performance and retention rate, it seems
that they are using reasonable criteria of admission. (Of course, MIT
would have somewhat skewed definition of what they mean by "lower
scores".)
I can see how that is reasonable enough, but it makes me wonder about what
would happen if it were reversed. What if men were being admitted with
lower scores? Even though they did better at performance and retention, I
suspect we would hear complaints about it.
Jayne
Indeed there probably would be complaints, and those complaints would be
equally unreasonable. MIT for a long time has explicitly stated that
they do not have a cutoff point for standardized test scores,
considering a number of mitigating factors in their admission decisions.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawrence Summers |
19 Jan 2005 09:40:06 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:23:40 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
I can see how that is reasonable enough, but it makes me wonder about what
would happen if it were reversed. What if men were being admitted with
lower scores? Even though they did better at performance and retention, I
suspect we would hear complaints about it.
Jayne
the right is already complaining that women arent being submissive
enough.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Jeffery" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawrence Summers |
19 Jan 2005 09:49:54 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <wf3h@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:41ef27ff.208493247@usenet.ptd.net...
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:23:40 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
I can see how that is reasonable enough, but it makes me wonder about
what
would happen if it were reversed. What if men were being admitted with
lower scores? Even though they did better at performance and retention, I
suspect we would hear complaints about it.
Jayne
the right is already complaining that women arent being submissive
enough.
Exactly what "flavour" of the right has your knickers in a twist? And don't
try to tell me they are all the same. That's horseshit, and you know it.
Alan Jeffery
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawrence Summers |
20 Jan 2005 09:57:16 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:49:54 +1300, "Alan Jeffery"
<observa_no_spam@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
"Bob" <wf3h@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:41ef27ff.208493247@usenet.ptd.net...
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:23:40 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
I can see how that is reasonable enough, but it makes me wonder about
what
would happen if it were reversed. What if men were being admitted with
lower scores? Even though they did better at performance and retention, I
suspect we would hear complaints about it.
Jayne
the right is already complaining that women arent being submissive
enough.
Exactly what "flavour" of the right has your knickers in a twist? And don't
try to tell me they are all the same. That's horseshit, and you know it.
you're from new zealand so are probably unaware of the unique and
tremendous power of the american right wing. if you have to ask about
the right, you shouldnt be in the conversation.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Jeffery" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawrence Summers |
20 Jan 2005 02:17:34 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <wf3h@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:41efd4a5.11653347@usenet.ptd.net...
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:49:54 +1300, "Alan Jeffery"
<observa_no_spam@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
"Bob" <wf3h@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:41ef27ff.208493247@usenet.ptd.net...
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:23:40 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
I can see how that is reasonable enough, but it makes me wonder about
what
would happen if it were reversed. What if men were being admitted
with
lower scores? Even though they did better at performance and
retention, I
suspect we would hear complaints about it.
Jayne
the right is already complaining that women arent being submissive
enough.
Exactly what "flavour" of the right has your knickers in a twist? And
don't
try to tell me they are all the same. That's horseshit, and you know it.
you're from new zealand so are probably unaware of the unique and
tremendous power of the american right wing. if you have to ask about
the right, you shouldnt be in the conversation.
So, you fall back on suggesting I'm ignorant. Any tactic to avoid
rethinking your position. I read the NY Times, LA Times, have friends in
the US (right and left wing). Also read lots of the stuff Denis Dutton puts
up on Arts and Letters Daily. Have studied American politics and history,
and have spent quite a lot of time in the US. So I probably know a lot more
about the US than you know about NZ.
The "right" is not some monolithic block of facist nutters. Americans are,
so far, too individualistic for that. And what about the "unique and
tremendous power" of the left wing? So, I'm not asking about "the right",
I'm asking which flavour of the right has your knickers so in a knot.
You know, your avoidance techniques bear an amazing similarity to
creationist squirming.
Alan Jeffery
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawrence Summers |
20 Jan 2005 02:55:25 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:17:34 +1300, "Alan Jeffery"
<observa_no_spam@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
"Bob" <wf3h@ptd.net> wrote in message
you're from new zealand so are probably unaware of the unique and
tremendous power of the american right wing. if you have to ask about
the right, you shouldnt be in the conversation.
So, you fall back on suggesting I'm ignorant.
if the shoe fits...
Any tactic to avoid
rethinking your position. I read the NY Times, LA Times, have friends in
the US (right and left wing).
big deal. how many of your neighbors are mennonites? amish? when's the
last time you were in dover, PA. i was there this morning.
when did you last attend a john kerry rally? i did right before the
elections.
you're a dilettante. you're an observer, not a participant.
Also read lots of the stuff Denis Dutton puts
up on Arts and Letters Daily. Have studied American politics and history,
and have spent quite a lot of time in the US. So I probably know a lot more
about the US than you know about NZ.
im sure that's true. it's also irrelevant. when i make a remark about
NZ as ignorant and as uniformed as yours are about the US, by all
means, call me on it.
The "right" is not some monolithic block of facist nutters.
zzzzzzzzz....
Americans are,
so far, too individualistic for that.
really? ever hear of the 'Republican party'? tell me which branch do
they NOT control right now?
And what about the "unique and
tremendous power" of the left wing?
there's a left wing in america? by all means, tell me more. because i
certainly dont see it. perhaps union member? oh. only 9% of americans
belong to unions.
go ahead. demonstrate your deep and profound understanding of american
politics.
So, I'm not asking about "the right",
I'm asking which flavour of the right has your knickers so in a knot.
again, tell me what part of govt the GOP does not control
look forward to your response.
You know, your avoidance techniques bear an amazing similarity to
creationist squirming.
well, i'm sure with your deep and abiding knowledge, gleaned from the
'times' you'll be able to set me straight.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Jeffery" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawrence Summers |
20 Jan 2005 03:08:30 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <wf3h@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:41f01954.29236359@usenet.ptd.net...
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:17:34 +1300, "Alan Jeffery"
<observa_no_spam@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
"Bob" <wf3h@ptd.net> wrote in message
you're from new zealand so are probably unaware of the unique and
tremendous power of the american right wing. if you have to ask about
the right, you shouldnt be in the conversation.
So, you fall back on suggesting I'm ignorant.
if the shoe fits...
Any tactic to avoid
rethinking your position. I read the NY Times, LA Times, have friends in
the US (right and left wing).
big deal. how many of your neighbors are mennonites? amish? when's the
last time you were in dover, PA. i was there this morning.
when did you last attend a john kerry rally? i did right before the
elections.
you're a dilettante. you're an observer, not a participant.
Also read lots of the stuff Denis Dutton puts
up on Arts and Letters Daily. Have studied American politics and
history,
and have spent quite a lot of time in the US. So I probably know a lot
more
about the US than you know about NZ.
im sure that's true. it's also irrelevant. when i make a remark about
NZ as ignorant and as uniformed as yours are about the US, by all
means, call me on it.
The "right" is not some monolithic block of facist nutters.
zzzzzzzzz....
Americans are,
so far, too individualistic for that.
really? ever hear of the 'Republican party'? tell me which branch do
they NOT control right now?
You will find there are a large number of Americans who also do not consider
the GOP to be one ginormus fascist conspiracy. Some of them even write
about it. They are the people I get some of my info from. And BTW, being
in the middle of things does not, automatically, make you more objective.
End.
Alan Jeffery
And what about the "unique and
tremendous power" of the left wing?
there's a left wing in america? by all means, tell me more. because i
certainly dont see it. perhaps union member? oh. only 9% of americans
belong to unions.
go ahead. demonstrate your deep and profound understanding of american
politics.
So, I'm not asking about "the right",
I'm asking which flavour of the right has your knickers so in a knot.
again, tell me what part of govt the GOP does not control
look forward to your response.
You know, your avoidance techniques bear an amazing similarity to
creationist squirming.
well, i'm sure with your deep and abiding knowledge, gleaned from the
'times' you'll be able to set me straight.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawrence Summers |
20 Jan 2005 03:16:28 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:08:30 +1300, "Alan Jeffery"
<observa_no_spam@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
"Bob" <wf3h@ptd.net> wrote in message
really? ever hear of the 'Republican party'? tell me which branch do
they NOT control right now?
You will find there are a large number of Americans who also do not consider
the GOP to be one ginormus fascist conspiracy.
correct. and i never said they were. HOWEVER, the GOP policy issues
that ARE important to the religious right have been GIVEN to the RR to
control. rick santorum, my US senator, is an example of one of those
idiots. joseph pitts, who is a member of the religious right, and is a
member of congress, is from the lancaster area...close to dover.
Some of them even write
about it. They are the people I get some of my info from. And BTW, being
in the middle of things does not, automatically, make you more objective.
damn straight. it makes you more aware of the danger.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
