Geez, that's what the old timers said before it became
politically-incorrect to do so.

Bro
__________________

Women Lack 'Natural Ability' In Some Fields, Harvard President Says
Comments Came At Economic Conference

POSTED: 4:06 pm EST January 17, 2005
UPDATED: 4:19 pm EST January 17, 2005

CAMBRIDGE, Mass -- The president of Harvard University prompted
criticism for suggesting that innate differences between the es
could help explain why fewer women succeed in science and math
careers.

Lawrence H. Summers, speaking Friday at an economic conference, also
questioned how great a role discrimination plays in keeping female
scientists and engineers from advancing at elite universities.

The remarks prompted Massachusetts Institute of Technology biologist
Nancy Hopkins - a Harvard graduate - to walk out on Summers' talk, The
Boston Globe reported.

"It is so upsetting that all these brilliant young women (at Harvard)
are being led by a man who views them this way," Hopkins said later.

Five other participants in the National Bureau of Economic Research
conference, including Denice D. Denton, chancellor designate of the
University of California, Santa Cruz, also said they were offended by
the comments. Four other attendees contacted afterward by the Globe
said they were not.

Summers told the Globe he was discussing hypotheses based on the
scholarly work assembled for the conference, not expressing his own
views. He also said more research needs to be done on the issues.

Conference organizers said Summers was asked to be provocative, and
that he was invited as a top economist, not as a Harvard official.

The two-day, invitation-only conference of the Cambridge-based
National Bureau of Economic Research drew about 50 economists from
around the country to discuss women and minorities in science and
engineering.

Summers declined to provide a tape or transcript of his remarks, but
he did describe comments to the Globe similar to what participants
recalled.

"It's possible I made some reference to innate differences," he said.
He said people "would prefer to believe" that the differences in
performance between the es are due to social factors, "but these
are things that need to be studied."

He also cited as an example one of his daughters, who as a child was
given two trucks in an effort at gender-neutral upbringing. Yet he
said she named them "daddy truck" and "baby truck," as if they were
dolls.

It was during such comments that Hopkins got up and left.

"Here was this economist lecturing pompously (to) this room full of
the country's most accomplished scholars on women's issues in science
and engineering, and he kept saying things we had refuted in the first
half of the day," said Denton, the outgoing dean of the College of
Engineering at the University of Washington.

Summers already faced criticism because the number of senior job
offers to women has dropped each year of his three-year presidency.

He has promised to work on the problem.

From:	man_in_black529 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: Harvard Pres: Women Lack Ability In Math, Sciences
Date:	19 Jan 2005 07:02:20 -0800

conno...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Silly "George" can't understand biology as the discriminator as to
why
> there are no female geniuses equal to masculine ability.

Silly boy can't understand when he got burned. If you were
up on anything about physics in the last 80 years, you
would've expected a response like mine, but *sigh* whether
or not men are equal to women, some men lag behind both
es.

> THe same applies to sports, where events even have to be seperated,
> even in non contact sports such as chess.

Okay, sciences = sports. LOL Which is why those interested
in the latter would shove those interested in the former
into the lockers in school.

From:	George
Subject:	Re: Harvard Pres: Women Lack Ability In Math, Sciences
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:54:25 GMT

wrote in message
news:1106146939.987422.116590@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> conno...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Silly "George" can't understand biology as the discriminator as to
> why
>> there are no female geniuses equal to masculine ability.
>
> Silly boy can't understand when he got burned. If you were
> up on anything about physics in the last 80 years, you
> would've expected a response like mine, but *sigh* whether
> or not men are equal to women, some men lag behind both
> es.
>
>> THe same applies to sports, where events even have to be seperated,
>> even in non contact sports such as chess.
>
> Okay, sciences = sports. LOL Which is why those interested
> in the latter would shove those interested in the former
> into the lockers in school.

Read it and weep, Yahoo boy:

wrote in message
news:1106133444.495964.92300@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Well I can't name ANY female geniuses, can you?

Just because you can't doesn't meant that they don't exist. How about Marie
Currie, who won a Nobel in Physics in 1903, and a Nobel in Chemistry in 1911?
She is possibly the most famous of the women who have received Nobels. Here is
a list of the rest:

http://www.almaz.com/nobel/women.html

> Show me the women chess players beating the man chess players.

I don't know about one beating a man (I have no doubt that one exists), but if
you want to talk about phenomenal chess playing, look no further than this:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50301,00.html

Oh look, here is a woman who beat a lot of guys:

http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/home/may08/story_3.html

> Show me the women sports players beating the man sports players.

Here's the most famous example:

http://ok.essortment.com/billiejeanking_rvwa.htm

> Show me that women can compete equally in sport/business with men.

That one was easy:

http://www.angelfire.com/celeb/millers/200.html

> ANSWER: biology discriminates, it is impossible for women to excel as
> man does.

No. The correct answer is that you are a bigot, as I've refuted every one of
your claims, above. Sorry, you both lose, boys. Try again.

From:	connor_a at hotmail.com
Subject:	Re: Harvard Pres: Women Lack Ability In Math, Sciences
Date:	19 Jan 2005 16:46:56 -0800

If women are smarter, then show the geniuses that invented phallic
airplanes and computers in garages.
Oh, "they" were college dropouts, those young men.

From:	George
Subject:	Re: Harvard Pres: Women Lack Ability In Math, Sciences
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:01:01 GMT

wrote in message
news:1106182016.534743.49630@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> If women are smarter, then show the geniuses that invented phallic
> airplanes and computers in garages.
> Oh, "they" were college dropouts, those young men.
>

The next time you are in your car during a rain storm, ask yourself who invented
the windshield wiper. For you computer geeks out there, Rear Admiral Grace
Murray Hopper (1906 - 1992) was a US naval officer and mathematician who
invented the computer compiler (called the A-O) in 1952. Oops. I thought women
couldn't do math. And for all you law enforcement types, ask around about who
invented kevlar.

From:	Andre Lieven
Subject:	Re: Harvard Pres: Women Lack Ability In Math, Sciences
Date:	20 Jan 2005 03:56:43 GMT

"George" (george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com) writes:
> wrote in message
> news:1106182016.534743.49630@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> If women are smarter, then show the geniuses that invented phallic
>> airplanes and computers in garages.
>> Oh, "they" were college dropouts, those young men.
>
> The next time you are in your car during a rain storm, ask yourself who
> invented the windshield wiper. For you computer geeks out there, Rear
> Admiral Grace Murray Hopper (1906 - 1992) was a US naval officer and
> mathematician who invented the computer compiler (called the A-O) in
> 1952.

Wow, one example ! Well, that certainly shows that women can do
as well as men. Oh wait... it doesn't. It showed that *precisely*
one woman could. Out of 100,000,000.

Yeah, start putting your cash into women's lab stocks...

> Oops. I thought women couldn't do math.

For someone who claimed to have a scientific background, you
*repeatedly* make the MS-take of CONfusing anecdotes with DATA.

" The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "

Come on back, when women win half the Nobel Prizes...

> And for all you law
> enforcement types, ask around about who invented kevlar.

And, for you civilisation types, ask who invented 99% of...
everything.

" If civilisation had been left in female hands, we would
still be living in grass huts. " Camille Paglia, " Sex,
Art and American Culture ", 1992, introduction.

Oh, try this one on: " The exception that proves the rule. "

So far, Feminist George has been UNABLE to show ANY evidence
that women can compete with men, absent artificial based
priviliges, on a 50% to 50% basis. Nor should they, if they
don't want to.

Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

From:	Ian
Subject:	Re: Harvard Pres: Women Lack Ability In Math, Sciences
Date:	20 Jan 2005 06:18:24 -0800

George wrote:
> "Ian" wrote in message
> news:1106127011.670654.323610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > George wrote:
> >> "Ian" wrote in message
> >> news:1106076962.934564.13530@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> > ho ho ho.
> >> >
> >> > People without a sense of humour like to think they've got one.
> >> > People who can't speak as good as the best speakers like to
think
> > they
> >> > can.
> >> > People who can't count like the best like to think they can too;
> > but
> >> > you see, they can't.
> >> >
> >> > It's a simple fact that someone has to be better at any subject
you
> >> > care to choose than others. It isn't fair, but it's reality.
> >>
> >> It's not about who is better than whom. It's about equality of
> > opportunity. At
> >> any rate, how do you know who's the best if half the population is
> > denied the
> >> same opportunity?
> >
> > Noone is denied the opportunity. It's work and talent that
> > counts. Women aren't there because they don't work as hard,
> > and don't have the talent.
> >
>
> The research indicates otherwise:
>
> http://www.arc.gsu.edu/csp/csp_gender.htm#Theories
>
> >> Simply being a man doesn't make me a better person, nor does it
> > autmatically
> >
> > I'm afraid it does. Women don't do honour or loyalty or sacrifice.
> > They're man things I'm afraid.
>
> Perhaps in your little country that is true. I can't say. I can say
that right
> now there are thousands of American women who are putting themselves
in harms'
> way in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sorry to burst your bubble.

... and hundreds of thousands of men. More american women have died
overseas from
genitourinary complaints than have died fighting for america.

>
> >> mean that I'm mechanically inclined (which I am). My son-in-law
is
> > the most
> >> incompetent mechanic I know. Even my wife knows more about cars
than
> > he does.
> >
> > Write a thousand times,
> > "The plural of anecdote is not statistics."
>
> Don't take my word for it (I know you haveno intention of doing so
anyway).
> Read the paper:
>
> http://www.arc.gsu.edu/csp/csp_gender.htm#Theories
>
> >> What's more, he has no interest in learning about them, even if it
> > means he
> >> doesn't have to call a wrecker when it breaks down. If the cat
breaks
> > down,
> >> guess who tries to figure out the problem before I get called?
You
> > got it. My
> >> step-daughter does.
> >>
> >> > It doesn't mean I like being crap at english, but me disliking
this
> >> > inability makes no difference. Nothing makes a difference. I'm
> > simply
> >> > not very good at it.
> >>
> >> Just because you aren't very good at it doesn't mean that you will
> > never be good
> >
> > I'm afraid it does.
>
> Well, perhaps in your case, it does. Anecdotal evidence of one does
not make
> for good statistics, as you like to point out.

This isn't a class based argument. You were talking about me in the
general
and specific cases.

Had you said, just because you aren't good at something, it doesn't
mean MEN
aren't then this would have been the failure of anecdotal over class
based
argument, but it wasn't. What form of stamp collection do you
"specialise"
in then if you demonstrate such faults in understanding simple logic?

However, since you mention it, you can see I'm still here. I've not ran
off
under fear of being sick, or blacking out.

>
> >> at it. I was lousy in math in highschool, and avoided it like the
> > plague when I
> >
> > You think you're good at maths? You don't understand the difference
> > between a class based argument and an individual case. Don't make
me
> > laugh.
>
> Laugh all you care to. It makes no difference to me one way or the
other. I
> have 22 college credits in mathematics, including a year and a half
of calculus
> and one year of linear algebra, and all your laughing cannot deny me
this truth.
> And all of your bravado hasn't refuted the arguments in the link I
provided.
> Nor have you provided one shred of evidence to prove conclusively
that women are
> physiologically inferior at math and science than men. Until you
do, you are
> just pissing in the wind.

Perhaps you have, but qualifications makes no difference to your innate

talent. It's merely the form that fades. My argument still holds.

>
> >> first went to college (I was going for a B.A. degree in
anthropology,
> > which
> >> didn't require any math, amazingly). When I went back to get a
B.S.
> > in geology,
> >> I had to take a year of calculus. I was scared out of my wits
about
> > it for a
> >> long time. Finally I decided that I had to do it, so I started by
> > taking the
> >> easiest math course offered, and worked my way up to calculus
(which
> > is how I
> >> met my wife). In the end, I had a 3.5 GPA in math, and enough
> > credits for an
> >> associate degree. You can do anything if you put your mind to it.
> > So can
> >
> > No you can't. A man can't have a baby. No woman will ever beat
> > Miguel Indurain's hill times.
>
> Both of those arguments are true, today. Who's to say that they will
be true
> tomorrow? You? I doubt that you are qualified to make that
assessment.

If a person has a baby, then he won't be a man.

As for Miguel Indurain's King of the mountain times, I'm safe here too.
There are plenty of fast women, Paula Radcliffe for instance, but
cycling isn't running. Cycling involves getting the bike up the hill
too. From the evolutionary perspective women have had to carry the
children, but men have had to carry the family.

Or are you saying women's external physiology is different to men's
only because
of social constructs?

Perhaps instead of posting links to junk science, you'd like to find me
a
piece of research that explains why after thousands of millions of
years
of evolution, with male and female external physiology being so
different,
that internal brain function is so identical. Men and women have had
such
different tasks socially for the whole of history, it's impossible from
the
evolutionary perspective for them to have identical brain behaviour.

Your stamp collecting research needs to prove why, particularly in
light
of simple experiments into say, multitasking (or any other of the
innate
differences.)

You have stated nothing yet that improves on 1985 response of the mad
friend of Leicester University Women's Officer Suzi Boulin's to me
when I asked why if men looked so different to women, that she thought
they
thought the same. (This was, "Because they do. Now fuck off" (I
paraphrase))

>