Because they never seem to stop at "boys have a penis and girls have a vagina, end of fucking story" they always follow it with trying to "prove" I want a baby (they repulse me) or belong in the home or some crap like that that I don't want to be forced to do. Then I get violent fantasies.

Yeah, see, like I read the math comment and had these visual images of the Harvard president...it would probably be construed as a death threat or something stupid if I say the picture that came to mind, but has anyone here ever been fishing?

Originally posted by Sean Murphy:
Chris, I think posting this little bit without the context it came from - namely that the president of Harvard suggested that there were less women scientists and mathmeticians because biology made them less capable in those fields then men - is lamest action ever on this board. It was totally misleading and a distortion of the women in question's very real anger with those lame comments.

Lamest. Action. Ever. I WIN!!!!

The context isn't provided because it was a closed-door session. That means we can make up anything we want.

"Very real anger" As opposed to false anger? What do you think of a scientist who is so incapable of hearing a thought expressed that she disagrees with, that she becomes physically ill and has to leave the room? Do you consider her a very real scientist? What do you think of the women in the room who weren't offended?

http://www.boston.com/news/education/hig...aw_fire?pg=full
She [Hopkins] doesn't argue that there can't be any differences between the abilities of men and women

Why would she have a problem that math and science might be some of those differences? It's a very biased and emotion-based thing to insist that social influences are the determining factors without any consideration for biological reality.

Studies show more women have biological reactions to hearing such a statement." What a load of sexist crap.

Let me guess: You just cut and pasted your post from some right-wing website that did the editing themselves, wanting to provide an example of feminists being stupid. You probably didn't even know the context yourself.

Of course I don't, remember it was a closed door session. however, your guess is wrong, I cut and pasted the quotes from a news story -- actual news, not just some blogger -- and then wrote the rest myself. If you were Nancy Hopkins' student, would you be feeling confident that she will handle any provacative ideas you bring her fairly and decently?

Here's a female professor who thinks Nancy Hopkins is full of it.

Charles Darwin drew attention to the greater variability of males in The Descent of Man, first published in 1871. Not only are males more diverse than females, Darwin concluded, after a long study of domestic animals. Males also have more "abnormalities."

That more males appear in every category of neurological impairment is undisputed. These afflictions show up even before birth, before cultural influences have had a chance to kick in. Miscarriages, where the fetus is defective, for example, are more likely to be male.

Exceptional intellectual ability of any kind is an oddity. We do not call individuals with characteristics our culture values "oddities," but they are oddities all the same. The other side of the coin is that fewer females have neurological deficits. But women are more apt to look upward with anger than downward with relief.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kleinfeld200501250746.asp
I think you owe the board an apology, especially to any women who might be reading these boards but not posting - and with this kind of attitude around, can you blame them?

I apologize for my remarks about Comrade Stalin. I was foolish in my attempt to subvert his benevolent leadership and I am grateful to the party for the chance to make amends for my treason.

Better?

Haven't spent much time of late reading the literature on this stuff (not since psychology classes), but that National Review article is questionable, for example:

For a professional psychologist not to also bring up the fact that if time constraints are removed, this difference is removed suggests some political motivation on her part. It's also far from straight forward relating spatialization tests to mathematic ability in some causal fashion.

It took you two days to come up with that excuse so, no.

Chris, you are full of shit and you know it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChrisW:
The context isn't provided because it was a closed-door session. That means we can make up anything we want.

What the hell kind of nonsense are you spouting? The content of the conference and what Summers said was reported in the news, as your own link to boston.com points out. You posted a chopped up version of the story that made it sound like Professor Hopkins and others got angry only because Summers said there where biological differences between men and women, not that they were upset because it was suggested that women could be biologically less capable in science then men. That was perfectly clear.

"Very real anger" As opposed to false anger?

More bullshit. Maybe a better choice of words on my part would have been 'valid' anger, but I'm sure you and anyone else with half a brain knows what I meant.

What do you think of a scientist who is so incapable of hearing a thought expressed that she disagrees with, that she becomes physically ill and has to leave the room? Do you consider her a very real scientist? What do you think of the women in the room who weren't offended?

This wasn't just a theory she didn't agree with, it was an insult. Hopkins was angry because she was just told that women were underrepresented in math and science fields, not because there might be bias against them in those fields, but because maybe they were inherently inferior. Yeah, I can imagine an accomplished professor who worked her whole life in the field being engraged by that, especially when said by the president of one of the most prestigious universities in the world. And she wasn't alone. According to your boston.com link, there were only two women present they could find who said they weren't offended. The article doesn't say what they thought, so I can't comment on them.

Anyway, this isn't about Hopkins, or Stalin, or whatever other smokescreen you try to toss out there. It's not even a debate on whether what Summers said might be valid, because you didn't include anything about the topic at first. You posted a cut-up version of an article that totally distorted what really happened. You managed to fool Phil into thinking that it was just about some crazy women acting stupid until the truth was pointed out, and that was obviously the intent.

If you had wanted to discuss the whole issue gender differences, you could have posted the boston.com article at first. But that isn't what you wanted, you just posted a stupid snippet that belittled women, and you don't have the stones to admit your fuckup and apologize. Just goes to show a rightwinger's disregard for truth. Rush Limbaugh-style journalism all the way.

Nah, its just the Weemie style. It gives him an erection to be criticized in this manner.

Seems to be a trend, this "hate porn" thing.

ahhh, that ol' flaming sac of shit hint of tude there.

Guys and gals, can't you find humour in what ChrisW posted. He didn't post the news story, because the story about the lecture was circulating well enough to be considered a "given".

Does the lecture or his findings have merit? Obviously, the findings don't include cultural considerations because that was not it's focus, that was not the model it used to examine the issue.

Personally, I think most of these topics of ability, advantage, talents has to do with a shit load of factors... biology is but one. Cultural values is another. Parenting skills is another. Education quality is another. Economic influence another... and it goes on and on and on.

Originally posted by Sean Murphy:
Chris, you are full of shit and you know it.

At least you didn't lead off with "I disagree with what you have to say, but I defend to the death your right to say it". Dodged a bullet there.

I think you owe the board an apology, especially to any women who might be reading these boards but not posting - and with this kind of attitude around, can you blame them?

You assume that there's all these women who want to post on a comic book message board but wouldn't do so because of what I post. Are they such timid creatures? Are they not capable of ignoring, or even addressing what I bring to the table? Are they so desperately in need of Sir Galahad (or Ma'am, if you prefer) to defend them against my belittlement?

I don't see any problem with the idea that either gender is biologically inferior to the other in the area of science and math, or any other for that matter. But then, I don't get the gitchy feeling about these things.

Posted by jenny gonzalez
Yeah, I get homocidal rages over this stuff.

See, there's an argument for biological equality with Fuka! :p *sorry, couldn't resist*

Because they never seem to stop at "boys have a penis and girls have a vagina, end of fucking story" they always follow it with trying to "prove" I want a baby (they repulse me) or belong in the home or some crap like that that I don't want to be forced to do. Then I get violent fantasies.

The main issue is what's your stance on women who do want hubbies and brats? If it's a 'fine, stay at home, raise your kids, keep away from me' attitude, that's perfectly cool. If these women don't bore you or some shit and you can be friends (or at least friendly) with them, even better. Just because, y'know, it's nicer. These women genuinely love their children, their husbands, their homes, and they are as annoying on the subject as anyone else in love. The thing is some women find great success in deriding being a wife/mother. That's where the "nazi" part comes. Literally in Germany any bully could put on a swastika and have legal sanction for anything, no one could stop them.

'Being a wife and mother is oppressive. If a woman says she enjoys it, she's afraid of her husband or obviously brainwashed, or just not educated/aware enough. Communication becomes one-directional, just like it is with the motherhood-is-sacred group, who can't even proselytize their bitchiness 24/7 like feminists can. Bullies are intolerant of anything that provokes thought. Women who genuinely want to be wives and mothers aren't the best candidates to tell feminists 'fuck off' when they cross the line, and the bullies of both sides shut the men up real well.

There must be lots of women who repeated words and copied feminists because it worked, not because they really believed in it, but more like memorizing stuff to pass a test and use when needed. It got those women what they wanted (like a guy pretending to be sensitive) as successfully as anything else so they stuck with it. If copying feminists stops working, they'll look for a different method to get what they want, and leave the feminists high and dry.

The pay scale is equal, a woman earns as much as a man for the work she does, but women collectively make choices that lead them to earn less (and for some reason people tally up what groups earn ) Most women do end up getting married and having kids, so the stereotype may bother you but it is close enough to accurate that it gets hung on anyway (like being a white male). A bully who gets what he or she wants will want more. You don't get to be a bully by taking positions everybody agrees with, you take positions they don't want and force them to go along. Notice how the demand for 50% female faculty at Harvard immediately followed. Some coincidence, huh?

I have no interest in getting married, but I am reaching the age where a cook and a maid sounds nice. But I don't make enough money to pay for one. Getting a wife to do it would be just as expensive (if not more) one way or another. Like most bachelors I don't eat well or care for cleaning duties. To raise my living standard in those areas would mean raising my ambition to earning more money -- to say nothing of paying for her food/clothes/comfort/consolation/children. It'd be easier to just discipline myself to cook and clean and to hell with the rest.

Men don't care about motherhood or homemaking in the way some guys like sports and some don't. "OK, that's what you're into" and they get along or they don't. A cook and a maid sounds like it would be nice, but it's awfully unfair to expect her to do all that when she comes home from work.