"This is a quiet revolution"
So says Christina Hoff Summers about the push for gender equity in the hard sciences (thanks to the several readers who emailed the article):
Read the article, for although long, it is very relevant to understanding the dynamics of how gender feminists use the system to give preferences and goodies to women with little regard to whether they are interested in the physical sciences or not.
Few academic scientists know anything about the equity crusade. Most have no idea of its power, its scope, and the threats that they may soon be facing. The business community and citizens at large are completely in the dark. This is a quiet revolution. Its weapons are government reports that are rarely seen; amendments to federal bills that almost no one reads; small, unnoticed, but dramatically consequential changes in the regulations regarding government grants; and congressional hearings attended mostly by true believers.
American scientific excellence is a precious national resource. It is the foundation of our economy and of the nation’s health and safety. Norman Augustine, retired CEO of Lockheed Martin, and Burton Richter, Nobel laureate in physics, once pointed out that MIT alone—its faculty, alumni, and staff—started more than 5,000 companies in the past 50 years. Will an academic science that is quota-driven, gender-balanced, cooperative rather than competitive, and less time-consuming produce anything like these results? So far, no one in Congress has even thought to ask.
Read the article, for although long, it is very relevant to understanding the dynamics of how gender feminists use the system to give preferences and goodies to women with little regard to whether they are interested in the physical sciences or not.
posted by Helen at 3:47 PM
105 Comments:
I forget who said it, but at the height of the gender-war-feminist movement, some wag said, "One wonders whether feminist airplanes will stay aloft for feminist engineers." We might just be about to find out.
Can we just hang any idiots that really believe this garbage is a good idea? Please?
Science from the "Little Princess": she'll stamp her foot and everything will be right.
A very quick comment-- there is no scientfic doubt that innate sex differences in ability determine the massive sex differences in the physical sciencs, engineering and mathmatics.
One need not go to the theories of baron- Cohen about autism-- there are decades of research establishing these sex differences and their biological bases beyond any reasonable doubt.
This is lunacy AND LIES.
As Dr. Helen noted in earlier posts, no one minds saying it may be brain development when wondering why boys lag in english, but men get fired when they that brain differences may be the reason for a girl's lagging in science.
I have a hard time debating such people because they lack reason. I would have said women have superior skills in english just based on my experience that women tend to be far better with the language, probably because of their natural tendency to communicate more with words. Conversely, I would have guessed men tend to be better at science because of their natural tendency to need to conquer, to problem solve, etc (this is why as a child, I played with legos to "figure out" how to do things, and my sisters played with dolls having them engaged in converstaion).
Is this universal? Of course not. Are there men who are masters at english, and women who master science, of course.
Could I be wrong? Absolutely.
Are my opinions rooted in sexism or the believe in superiority of one of the sexes? Absolutely not.
Would some feminists call me a sexist? Only if it futhered their belief or interests. Seems sexism, like racism, is most often employed to win a debate or gain an advantage without meaningful dialogue (i.e., I can out debate you, so I'll disqualify you).
Some individuals need to understand that things will never be exactly equal (by their definition of equal, which is sameness), in a society where people have freedom of choices and associations, and innate differences. The only way to make people equal is to destroy their ability to make their own choices (Now that is frightening).
Sorry so long. First time poster. Have a great weekend!
I graduated from college about 2.5 years ago, from one of Virginia's best Computer Science departments. While I was there, it was commonly known among the men in the program that the women largely relied on the help of the men to get by. Yes there were exceptions, there are always exceptions (hell, I married one of those exceptions), but the rule at our school was that the women were largely incompetent at even the minimal crap thrown at them. They could pick up theory as well as the men, but when it came time to do lab work, most of them were terrible at it.
Our valedictorian was a perfect example of this. She had a 4.0 major GPA, but it took her over 2 hours to figure out how to do file manipulation in ANSI C. For those of you who don't know what ANSI C is, it's the programming language that a lot of lower-level development is done in, like OS and compiler design. There are about 15-20 standard ANSI C file procedures and functions. A simple Google search for "ANSI C file I/O" would return everything she needed to get things done in 20 minutes.
When I asked her why she didn't do a Google search, she whined that she didn't understand it as well as I did because I had more experience. However, the fact is that the project was really, really simple. It was just a simple introduction to C. Open a file, read its contents, dump them to the command line, and close the file. 10-15 lines of code.
The way that they've made these programs friendlier to women is to focus more on textbook knowledge, and not on practical work. So what you end up with is a female software developer who understands a lot of the theory, but damned if she can do much with it.
This is a real problem. It never seems to occur to people that if you have to change the nature of the program to fit women, that maybe most women are not suitable students for the subject.
Trust,
There is nothing sexist about suggesting that most women are just not wired for these subjects. One of the biggest problems with this subject is conveying the idea that there is a natural wiring necessary to succeed in it.
Another thing you will find is that most women just are not as interested in these subjects as men, no matter what environment they come from. The girl I mentioned in my previous post was typical of most girls in Computer Science. For her, the subject revolved around her textbook. She didn't have any interest in it beyond it being a good career path. So she succeeded in class, but when it came time to demonstrate a real breadth of knowledge, she fell down hard. Every. Single. Time. There is nothing so eye-opening as watching someone who has a 4.0 GPA in Computer Science struggle to learn Python, one of the easiest languages there is (easier than BASIC, in my opinion).
The real reason that feminists are so upset about this is because engineering and science jobs are some of the last real intellectual jobs out there. The humanities have lost most of their respectability because they have become the whores of political correctness. Law and medicine are the only two professions that women can hold their own. However, unlike the sciences and engineering fields, law and medicine don't really advance society much. Medicine is dependent on the work done by scientists and engineers, and until that "glass ceiling" is breached, women will not be equal in the fields that give all of these important fields their direction.
Thanks for your reply, miket. You make some good points, and I enjoy the dialogue.
Best regards,
Trust
In the old days, an MIT coed was defined as a guy who worked his balls off in high school...
The bizarre thing about discussions like this is that this kind of thing has been going on for decades already. Academics who have spent their entire careers under one form of affirmative action or another, who would rather commit seppuku than utter a blatantly sexist remark, who have never even heard such a remark made by any of their colleagues and who routinely practice discrimination in favor of women, will swear blind that an anti-female sexism must be rife in their discipline because there are so few women. Many of them are on a hair-trigger listening for the slightest sign of sexism in their co-workers, often hearing it when it isn't there, and just wetting themselves over the opportunity to denounce the suspect who is forced to back-pedal as hard as he (note the gender specificity) can. Woe betide the male scientist who comments on the prevalence of women-only groups in his profession, or dares to question the consequences of forcing the hiring of certain people on the basis of factors which have nothing to do with the work that will be expected of them. The environment is already here, legislation just adds yet another layer of formalism to it.
I am beyond concern. I am truly in fear for the future of this nation. We are in deep, deep, deep doo doo.
Most of the women who become 'scientists' as the result of these programs will probably not become researchers, they'll become managers and bureaucrats with science degrees. You see this already in the national lab system and many academic research settings. Men do the research, women administer the research. These women may be Phd's in their field, but they don't tend to have research backgrounds.
* yes of there are exceptions.
You'll also notice that many science degrees offered today are ad-hoc applied programs dedicated to 'biotechnology' or 'health sciences'. These programs graduate 'scientists' who fulfill 'equity' requirements just as well as a physicist. But they are actually high-end vocational programs. I suspect that the number and variety of such programs will increase in response to any demand created by federal requirements.
The most significant result may be the acceleration of the shift to private research settings from public and academic ones. This trend has been prominent for the past few decades.
One last point. Not all science degrees are equivalent. While the popular assumption is that the academic rigors of physics or chemistry are roughly equivalent to botany or psychology, they are not. Students who are interested in science but do not have the aptitude for 'hard' sciences tend to pursue the latter.
So perhaps we'll end-up with a surplus of female psycho-botanist.
Where I work the more technical the department, the higher the ratio of males to females. The network services department, 100% male. Programming, where I work, 10 males, 1 female. And, so it goes. Interactive web development, 6 males, 1 female.
Account management, project management, about 75% female. In fact females are the majority in every department other than the three I mentioned above and out number males overall.
One of the problems that we have with women in the IT consulting around here is that women with technical degrees and a modicum of intelligence are often fast tracked into senior positions. This has been a real pain for my wife who has is a very good engineer, and who has been largely surrounded by incompetent female management.
Most of the women I've worked with have been in management as well, though thankfully they were not my management. Some of them were guilty of behavior, such as airing our division's dirty laundry in front of the client, that would have gotten a man fired without mercy.
A very quick comment-- there is no scientfic doubt that innate sex differences in ability determine the massive sex differences in the physical sciencs, engineering and mathmatics.
Aside from the fact that you can't spell and don't know the difference between "basis" and "bases," would you be kind enough to provide a citation or two for your claim? TIA
I graduated from college about 2.5 years ago, from one of Virginia's best Computer Science departments.
Ah, a grizzled veteran.
Our valedictorian was a perfect example of this. She had a 4.0 major GPA, but it took her over 2 hours to figure out how to do file manipulation in ANSI C. For those of you who don't know what ANSI C is, it's the programming language that a lot of lower-level development is done in, like OS and compiler design. There are about 15-20 standard ANSI C file procedures and functions. A simple Google search for "ANSI C file I/O" would return everything she needed to get things done in 20 minutes.
If you were in such a great "computer science" program, why was someone able to graduate without being able to write a basic computer program? These sort of people should be filtered out before they hit the 400 level courses.
"If you were in such a great "computer science" program, why was someone able to graduate without being able to write a basic computer program? These sort of people should be filtered out before they hit the 400 level courses."
---------
There have been some articles on Digg lately from managers of programming departments who talk about the abilities of people coming out of school.
One manager said that they give all job candidates a simple test: Count from 1 to 100 and print out a certain word with every even number and another word with every third number. The object was to try to write short code.
Most people were terrible at it, even people who allegedly had a few years of experience.
As far as women in the hard sciences or engineering goes: My impression has been that they eventually go on to something like public relations in the company - or they eventually get married and just live off their husband. In any case, the company is rid of them, but there is always a new crop coming up. Some are truly into it, most aren't. They're more into saying they're an empowered female engineer (Wooo-Hooooo!).
"The dynamics of how gender feminists use the system...."
What needs to be done, has not been done; that must be done if our professions and institutions are to work and leave gender is that the social sciences begin a systems analysis of the fields of anthropology, sociology, and political science.
Miket, Trust, and John Doe have accurately described what occurs.
Economists between 1954 and 1992 have largely accomplished this task. In 1954 economics was mostly theory based on Keynes and Friedman.
Doctoral candidates in economics took the required course in "methods" seriously, studied and applied statistics, heuristics, modeling, and other methods derived from the pure sciences.
The result is today the Congress asks the Chairman of the Federal Reserve System for his "guidance" in formulating legislation.
Had social scientist applied and used the "methods" they were taught Congress would have asked for "guidance" from the "Chairman of Federal Social Systems" (or similar systems name) for advice on what effects this gender bias legislation would have on the science, engineering, and math.
These empirical studies actually could have been accomplished.
Today most social scientists when discussing gender issues grab their copy of Ann Rand. Social science is stuck in theory and theology.
I'm quite certain BR549's concerns will be realized.
FGM-- "bases" is the plural of basis. Try making substantive comments and not the smarmy-wimpy- bitchy- geeky crap you posted.
As a fashion merchandising major you are certainly unfamiliar with the last 50 + years of research in the area of sex differences in "mental ability".
An introduction requiring little scientific training would be Doreen Kimura's "Sex and Cognition",1999, esp chapter 6 Mathematical Aptitude. The references thee might help you reach a level of literacy among educated people. Also David Geary's " Male, Female" is another introductory reference , ch 8 Sex Differences in Brain and Cognition.
It is incredible that it is 2008 and someone needs assistance in locating sources about the biological bases of sex differences in mental ability.
Benbow ( a female person ) and Stanley published their findings on massive sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability in Science in 1980 and 1983--
1980 Science, 210,`1262-1264
1983 Science, 222,1029-1031
also, Benbow- 1988 Behavioral and Brian Sciences,11, 169-232.
1980-- going on 28 years ago -- and FGM-types are still clueless in 2008. And Benbow was merely cumulative in 1980...
The research relevant to public policy in this area has already been done.
Its inconsistent with political ideologies like feminism and egaliatarianism and liberalism. Ignorance of the data could easily be cured--so everyone is simply lying. Politicians pandering to the female vote, as they never suffer at the polls due to male malcontent. ( A terrifying factoid-- about 7.4 million more women voted in the Presidential election of 1996 and it must be as bad now. Women will soon vote us into the GYNOCRACY)
The societal cost may be worth calculating.
If women are favored because they are female and places and money made available to them- more qualified men lose opportunities and financial support solely because they are male.
Now THATS sex discrimination.
But feminists and their cronies could care less about harming men-- see Title 1x and men's athletics.
Ah, a grizzled veteran.
Unlike the average grizzled veteran, I actually have an opinion based on experience about what the current state of Computer Science education looks like.
If you were in such a great "computer science" program, why was someone able to graduate without being able to write a basic computer program? These sort of people should be filtered out before they hit the 400 level courses.
Because this is increasingly the norm for applied science and engineering majors. I know engineers who went to school in other parts of the country too, and they had the same experience: professors switching from basing the majority of your grade from projects to exams.
You might be surprised how many people can graduate a good Computer Science program when all they have to do is study abstract theory in most of their classes. Granted, the classes like Network Application Development were their own little academic vietnam...
If FGM is a fashion merchandising major, that would explain a lot...
It's stuff like this that matters with science and engineering:
Yet Dr. Summers, who said he intended his remarks to be provocative, and other scientists have observed that while average math skillfulness may be remarkably analogous between the sexes, men tend to display comparatively greater range in aptitude. Males are much likelier than females to be found on the tail ends of the bell curve, among the superhigh scorers and the very bottom performers.
Among college-bound seniors who took the math SAT's in 2001, for example, nearly twice as many boys as girls scored over 700, and the ratio skews ever more male the closer one gets to the top tally of 800. Boys are also likelier than girls to get nearly all the answers wrong.
And not coincidentally, the people who go into science and engineering tend to have SAT scores in math that are 700 or higher.
Unlike the average grizzled veteran, I actually have an opinion based on experience about what the current state of Computer Science education looks like.
Do tell.
You might be surprised how many people can graduate a good Computer Science program when all they have to do is study abstract theory in most of their classes. Granted, the classes like Network Application Development were their own little academic vietnam...
How can a "computer science" program possibly be good if graduates can't program computers? For example, I really don't see someone getting through these courses if they couldn't program.
http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/undergraduate/courses.php
If FGM [sic] is a fashion merchandising major, that would explain a lot...
Perhaps, but I'm not. BTW, do you think that males of Asian extraction have some sort of genetic predisposition to program computers or do you feel the fact that a lot of computer programmers are Chinese or Indian is due to social factors?
fgfm:
If Chinese or Indian people or Asian people in general are better at programming: why not just let them?
Why not just let the best people do the job? Why not have equal opportunity instead of FORCED equal OUTCOME? Why not friggin' leave people alone?
I could understand a desire to look into social reasons for things on a scientific basis, but those days are long gone. Sociology etc. is overrun by feminist and PC ideas, so it has nothing to do with reality or the truth.
Somehow I don't think you are a truth seeker.
You are going to pound that square peg through the round hole if it kills you.
fgfm:
By the way, your snotty attitude really comes through. You can tell that you are miffed by this whole thing.
The very NERVE of people suggesting something that you didn't have in your feminist brainwashing in school.
This is like Nancy Hopkins who was going to faint or throw up because Summers suggested differences as a possible solution (one possible solution among many) for the question of why men dominate in certain areas.
LORDY. Get the smelling salts. The Lady has the vapors.
You couldn't make this stuff up. Her reaction is a stereotypical female thing. LOL
One possible solution if math is harder for girls:
Outlaw math. Don't allow it anymore.
After a while, try to impose our equalitarian ideals on other countries. If Finland, for instance, continues to value logical thinking and mathematics, a military solution may be in order to bring them civilization.
fgfm, his CS program can be good for men, but easy for women. I'm in mathematics, and I've seen blatant grade inflation for females at all levels from undergrad to PhD candidacy --- in good programs.
I pretty much left a mathematics graduate program for two reasons: (1)fast-tracking of females, even when applying for NSF funding women get money years before men do; (2) H-1b and programs like it have destroyed any economic rationale for advanced technical education in this country, it's just too expensive to acquire and the break-even is never or very long. (nb, Dr. Helen's husband, Glenn, is very, very wrong to support H-1b.)
I hate to say it because I'm a conservative, but the situation described in the original article and my experiences in graduate education leave me hating my government. My own government acts to suppress the prices I can charge for my labor, for the explicitly stated purpose of cheapening supply costs for big business. That's a radical market intervention. My own government acts to suppress my research, only because I have a penis instead of a vagina.
America is the New Canada.
If Chinese or Indian people or Asian people in general are better at programming: why not just let them?
I'm not stopping them.
Why not just let the best people do the job? Why not have equal opportunity instead of FORCED equal OUTCOME? Why not friggin' leave people alone?
Why come up with crackpot theories to support a political bias?
I could understand a desire to look into social reasons for things on a scientific basis, but those days are long gone. Sociology etc. is overrun by feminist and PC ideas, so it has nothing to do with reality or the truth.
Like you though sociology was a science or something?
By the way, your snotty attitude really comes through.
I'm glad.
You can tell that you are miffed by this whole thing.
Actually, I find it highly entertaining.
The very NERVE of people suggesting something that you didn't have in your feminist brainwashing in school.
So, do I have you down as another clown who thinks that I'm in the fashion business?
You couldn't make this stuff up. Her reaction is a stereotypical female thing. LOL
I'm a man, baby.
FGM-- "bases" is the plural of basis.
If I were you, I'd work on basic spelling before branching out into fancy plurals like axes and matrices.
Try making substantive comments and not the smarmy-wimpy- bitchy- geeky crap you posted.
There's a method to my madness.
As a fashion merchandising major you are certainly unfamiliar with the last 50 + years of research in the area of sex differences in "mental ability".
I'm certainly not any sort of fashion merchandising major. BTW, do you think that "Bell Curve" is a scholarly work that should be taken seriously?
The references thee [sic] might help you reach a level of literacy among educated people.
Bwahahahaha.
It is incredible that it is 2008 and someone needs assistance in locating sources about the biological bases of sex differences in mental ability.
I know that there are all kinds of crackpot studies out there, but I was wondering where you were getting this "information."
1980-- going on 28 years ago -- and FGM-types are still clueless in 2008. And Benbow was merely cumulative in 1980...
Oh, if it's old, it must be good!
I have a penis instead of a vagina.
I'm proud of you.
How can a "computer science" program possibly be good if graduates can't program computers? For example, I really don't see someone getting through these courses if they couldn't program.
Because Computer Science is not exclusively about programming. It covers a wide range of disciplines ranging from how hardware works, to programming, to security and networking.
From CS241: Systems Programming's Syllabus:
* Final Exam: 30%
* Mid-term Exam: 20%
* Homework (two total): 10%
* Machine Problems (eight total): 30%
* Other (e.g. Lecture Quizzes): 10%
60% of the grade is by examination. All a student has to do is get a decent grade on the exams, and pass modestly on the programming assignments to get through with at least a C.
Your listing of the classes is dishonest. Why not point everyone to the required curriculum to graduate?
http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/undergraduate/newbscoursework.php
Oh, right, that curriculum doesn't actually require you to be able to do a lot of upper level programming classes to graduate. You can satisfy your coursework based on classes that emphasize theory over programming. There is a world of difference between being able to write a more efficient search/sort algorithm and being able to write a complex system.
"I'm a man, baby."
-------
I was talking about Hopkins - her wanting to faint when a man said that women might be different than men in some ways is a stereotypical female reaction. It's some kind of recursive thing - she's BEING the very thing she says she isn't.
As for the rest, what's the purpose of the snottiness fgfm? Is it going to change society by being a snotty twit on a small Web site?
Is it that hard to understand how people can easily graduate without being able to program? All they have to do is stick to the classes that are based on theory and pass the math classes. Algorithm design classes, data structures, computer organization, Software Engineering I and II, these classes focus on theory and methods, not programming.
It's actually not fair to some of these graduates because they may actually know as much or more about the computer as their programmer peers. A friend of mine can't program well, and actually hates programming, but he knows a whole lot more about how hardware works and security issues in system software than most programmers do. He got that from the theory classes and his own reading, and he took an IT job that was fitting for him in security.
With the right design, anyone can program. Not just anyone can make that design. That's what Computer Science focuses on more in the programming side of things.
No offense folks, but the disagreement over CS curricula is a bit of a thread hijack. Can y'all relate it back to the OP?
Simple. Many CS programs are accommodating women by allowing them to get by based on being able to pass written exams and regurgitate theory, and not being able to apply what they're taught in a lecture. These same changes also make it easier for less capable men to get through as well.
One manager said that they give all job candidates a simple test: Count from 1 to 100 and print out a certain word with every even number and another word with every third number. The object was to try to write short code.
How does this work for you?
perl -e 'for(1..100){print $_;print" X"if$_%2==0;print" Y"if$_%3==0;print"\n"}'
Is it that hard to understand how people can easily graduate without being able to program?
People might be able to squeeze through, but I don't see someone being class valedictorian without knowing how to program.
With the right design, anyone can program.
Absolutely not true.
"How does this work for you?"
---
It doesn't work at all, because the people being interviewed are there physically, at a chalk board, and have to think the problem through in front of interviewers.
You, on the other hand, have access to the Internet, where you can find the code immediately. Which is what you likely did.
That's not a test of anything, except whether you can use the "Google Machine".
BUT, fgfm, I think your foray into the Internets with the Google Machine was probably instructive in a different way: You possibly came across the Digg article I was talking about (where that exact code snippet was given, by the way).
So maybe you believe me now. On the other hand, maybe you will stick your fingers in your ears, stick your tongue out, and refuse to admit you saw any article at all like that on the Internet.
LOL
It doesn't work at all, because the people being interviewed are there physically, at a chalk board, and have to think the problem through in front of interviewers.
I'm sorry, but I don't have a chalk board handy here at stately FGFM Manor and have to use this clunky old computer.
You, on the other hand, have access to the Internet, where you can find the code immediately. Which is what you likely did.
Given that you also have access to the Internet, it should be easy for you to find where I swiped the code if that was indeed the case. BTW, do you think that I found this somewhat different code that does exactly the same thing?
perl -e 'for(my$i=1;$i<=100;$i++){print $i;print" X"if!($i&1);print" Y"if!($i%3);print"\n"}'
How about this?
perl -e 'for(my$i=1;$i<=100;$i++){print $i;if(!($i%6)){print " X Y"}elsif(!($i%3)){print " Y"}elsif(!($i%2)){print " X"};print "\n"}'
"Given that you also have access to the Internet, it should be easy for you to find where I swiped the code if that was indeed the case."
--
There were a few changes -- in the Digg article they talked about printing out specific words (something like "Foo" and "Fizzle") and those specific words were included in the code. Easy to change. I can't remember the words that had to be printed out.
Notwithstanding all of that, I'm just pointing out that an easy task like that can be found in the Internet. If you are asserting that you are a super-duper programmer who can develop a program to print from 1 to 100, then go fer it.
You're setting me up to be the counterpart in your life play, but my only role was to state that some interviewers DO give a test like that to new CS grads - and the results are terrible. I stick by that statement, and it has nothing to do with your personal programming abilities. I got drawn into it just to point out that code snippets can be easily found in the Internet.
Notwithstanding all of that, I'm just pointing out that an easy task like that can be found in the Internet. If you are asserting that you are a super-duper programmer who can develop a program to print from 1 to 100, then go fer it.
You're setting me up to be the counterpart in your life play, but my only role was to state that some interviewers DO give a test like that to new CS grads - and the results are terrible. I stick by that statement, and it has nothing to do with your personal programming abilities. I got drawn into it just to point out that code snippets can be easily found in the Internet.
Guess that gambit didn't work out for you, eh?
#include stdio.h
main()
{
char s[9];
for (int i = 1; i <= 100; i++)
{
*s = '\0';
if (i % 2 == 0)
strcat(s, " X");
if (i % 3 == 0)
strcat(s, " Y");
printf("%d %s\n", i, s);
}
}
PS - I don't have a C compiler handy and Blogger wouldn't let me put pointy brackets around the pound include, but I hope this is good enough for the chalk board. I look forward to further lectures on the fine art of computer programming and my career in fashion merchandising.
Guys, what does this code discussion have to do with the OP? You're hijacking the thread.
In 1954 economics was mostly theory based on Keynes and Friedman.
Just for the record, Friedman was not a terribly prominent figure in economics at that time. But what do I know?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman
Friedman spent the 1954–55 academic year as a Visiting Fellow at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. At the time, the Cambridge economics faculty was deeply divided into a Keynesian majority (including Joan Robinson and Richard Kahn) and a virulently anti-Keynesian minority (headed by Dennis Robertson). Friedman speculates that he was invited to the fellowship because his extreme laissez-faire views were unacceptable to both of the Cambridge factions, a fact that highlights how far out of the mainstream Friedman was in the 1950s.
What does a bearing a penis have to do with physics or programming?
Trey
The application of Title IX to the physical sciences, engineering, mathematics, and computer science is the type of idea that Donna Shalala, Nancy Hopkins, and Drew Faust would come up with.
Feminism uber alles. Not women, but left-feminism. Uber feminists like Faust cannot abide that men dominate some fields of academia for biological reasons not likely to go away soon. So they pound their fists all over the US Congress and demand equal results where nature has stacked the deck against women.
Most of this discussion is irrelevant to the topic. If you guys are this easily diverted by inconsequential arguments, then academic excellence in math-intensive sciences and technologies is likely already as good as lost.
What does a bearing a penis have to do with physics or programming?
Depends on your typing technique, I guess.
Uber feminists like Faust cannot abide that men dominate some fields of academia for biological reasons not likely to go away soon.
So, do you think that the success of Asians in certain fields is due to genetics? Could you please point out the genes responsible for this?
If you guys are this easily diverted by inconsequential arguments, then academic excellence in math-intensive sciences and technologies is likely already as good as lost.
Yeah, it's all riding on how half a dozen people on some blog interact with each other.
Perhaps we should stick to topic: gender differences in math/spatial ability, and how those differences affect academia and the real world + the inadvisability of using government legislation to enforce artificial equity of outcome, where no equity exists.
The most productive debate in science is rigorous but not antagonistic. You can tell whether someone wants to further understanding in ideas by whether he is antagonistic or not when he "bursts onto the scene" in a discussion.
The topic of gender specific brain differences that affect aptitudes in particular areas is a scientific topic. Likewise the different topic of (statistical) ethnic differences in brains that may affect aptitudes in particular areas (as well as general intelligence).
fgfm, how much do you charge for a haircut?
Interesting thoughts by a female engineer (EE, power) who relates the scarcity of women in engineering to the fact that the environmental movement coincided with the large-scale entry of women into the professional workforce.
East Asians also tend to have about a 6 point IQ advantage on whites. If you want to talk about innate advantages, that'd be a good place to start.
br549 said...
I am beyond concern. I am truly in fear for the future of this nation. We are in deep, deep, deep doo doo.
I agree that we are in decline. (Unfortunately I don't see what will stop it, but IMHO the decline is not inevitable or irreversible.)
The ideal of equal opportunity has been successfully perverted. Somewhere, old Screwtape is laughing.
************
This episode is one step in the direction the country is taking. More and more of the ruling class has a vested interest in societal dysfunction.
Some women rank near the very top at math and physical sciences. Statistically, they are outliers.
Brilliant women tend to have different interests than brilliant men. That is well and good, and everyone should be allowed to his own interest. Outreaches and special programs to boost women in the physical sciences and engineering will continue, of course. And as most women continue having trouble breaking through the achievement barrier at the very top of these fields, the political fallout will only increase in amplitude.
David, your engineer Tietjen seems to be saying that women do not go into engineering because engineering is not "trendy" in the popular media. That is an interesting argument, although not at all profound.
Tietjen herself appears to be an excellent engineer who is not insightful enough to ever be able to understand why she is different from the majority of women.
Again, please stick to the topic. This is not about ethnic IQ differences, but rather about gender differences in math/physical science aptitude at the very top ranks.
"Again, please stick to the topic."
----
Are you the new sheriff around these parts?
There are plenty of intellectually demanding fields where women represent roughly half of the grad students and eventual professionals - law and medicine come to mind, not to mention the 77% in veterinary medicine cited in the article.
But there is an obvious difference between these fields and engineering or the hard sciences - interactions with people vs. interactions with machines. As a research scientist at one of the major national labs for 20-odd years, I've seen extremely talented women hired for research work. They all did very well but within a few years moved on to administration, serving on various advisory committees, etc.
Conventional wisdom, with some science to support it, says women are more empathetic and have a better understanding of people. But one doesn't get to use or build these skills by interacting with computer screens and lab equipment 8-10 hours a day. If the proportion of women who will tolerate long solitary work days is smaller than the proportion of men who will put up with this kind of work, then we should expect to see more men in these fields.
I wonder if anyone has asked the veterinary schools if they plan to address that 77% female / 23% male imbalance by eliminating 57% of their female students? Equity demands it!
david...seems to me there's a lot of law that isn't primarily about interactions with people, but rather about the usually-solitary work of reviewing and drafting documents. Indeed, I understand that many law firms have suffered internal strife due at least in part to poor human-interaction skills on the part of some of the partners.
Of course, the image of a field that people have when they choose it often differs from the reality...
Looks like David forget to switch to the other sock puppet.
I wonder how much that goes on here.
jg...there are (at least) two Davids here. It's not an uncommon name.
fgfm, how much do you charge for a haircut?
More than you can afford.
Interesting thoughts by a female engineer (EE, power) who relates the scarcity of women in engineering to the fact that the environmental movement coincided with the large-scale entry of women into the professional workforce.
No one ever accused engineers of not tending to be political crackpots.
East Asians also tend to have about a 6 point IQ advantage on whites. If you want to talk about innate advantages, that'd be a good place to start.
So, do you think that East Asians are genetically superior to whites?
I went over to a progressive website to read comments about your Cooper from Wednesday. I read about 50 comments and found few that actually discussed the content of your post. The rest seemed to be some kind of competition for who could produce the cleverest one-liner or stream of sarcasm.
I have noticed over the years that this sort of heavy emphasis on semantic games and word-smithing is very common amongst "progressives". If they can figure out some clever way to bend words to make 2+2=5 then they have somehow changed reality or at least scored some kind of important point. Seems that it often had something to do with proving somebody else wrong in some way, no matter how trivial. For a long time I could not understand why this was so important to the them. It finally occurred to me that this focus on clever manipulation of words is how the PC wield power. They work in venues where the right words are more important than the facts of the matter at hand. These are places where you can convince the right people or enough people that you are correct or have been abused somehow. Then you can get government, or employers, or public opinion to punish your opponent.
I suppose this is why the PC have taken over sectors like education and the media. Its why the sciences and engineering are the last to fall to the PC. In the sciences and engineering you actually have to produce something that works. A clever word game that somehow "proves" 2+2=5 does not cut it if the plane won't fly. So here we see the same strategy. Go to congress or administrators, use clever words and voila. The powers that be force the scientists and engineers to do what you want, hire who you want.
Too bad for us.
Will
The most productive debate in science is rigorous but not antagonistic. You can tell whether someone wants to further understanding in ideas by whether he is antagonistic or not when he "bursts onto the scene" in a discussion.
Do you really think that this is any sort of a scientific discussion?
"A clever word game that somehow "proves" 2+2=5 does not cut it if the plane won't fly."
--------
Right, but rhetoric will get people to do what you want.
There are truth-seekers (scientists) and people manipulating with rhetoric (salesmen, lawyers).
Rhetoric really is effective. It WILL change minds. It WILL get people to come over to your side.
Sometimes: Unfortunately.
But people have to be aware of the power of rhetoric in and of itself. It has little to do with the truth.
Glenn remarks: Quotas in the physical sciences. Sure -- if it's a successful American institution, fairness requires that it must be crippled . . . .
From Sommers' article (I second Helen that it's well worth reading despite the length):
As a rule, women tend to gravitate to fields such as education, English, psychology, biology, and art history, while men are much more numerous in physics, mathematics, computer science, and engineering. Why this is so is an interesting question—and the subject of a substantial empirical literature. The research on gender and vocation is complex, vibrant, and full of reasonable disagreements; there is no single, simple answer.
In that spirit, this is thought-provoking. For example:
...I've taught a fair number of women students in electrical engineering and computer science classes over the years. I can give you a list of the ones who had the best heads on their shoulders and were the most thoughtful about planning out the rest of their lives. Their names are on files in my "medical school recommendations" directory.
...
...I'm not one of the people who complains that there aren't enough women working as professors, janitors, or whatever. For whatever reason we've decided that science in America should be done by low-paid immigrants. They seem to be doing a good job. They are cheap. They are mostly guys, like other immigrant populations. If smart American women choose to go to medical, business, and law school instead of doing science, and have fabulous careers, I certainly am not going to discourage them...
According to author Greenspun, those immigrant scientists join American male nerds who are willing to get paid much less than if they used their skills to maximize their income. (Straw...camel's back...?)
So, do you think that East Asians are genetically superior to whites?
In some respects, they do seem to have a bit of an edge on us. Each race has its own genetic advantages and disadvantages, which is why I don't get too think that racial inferiority, equality and superiority really matter overall.
"There are truth-seekers (scientists) and people manipulating with rhetoric (salesmen, lawyers)"...the categories are not mutually exclusive. Words may not make the plane fly, but they may well determine which plane gets built, and will also be very important in the logistics of getting it built. The recent book "747", by the guy who was chief engineer on that project, gives an interesting view of policy & politics at the highest levels of corporate engineering.
On the other side, at least some aspects of law require excellent reasoning skills as well as verbal facility. And there are a lot of sales jobs that require considerable technical knowledge.
My view is that everyone who gets a college education should come out with both decent rhetorical skills and decent truth-finding skills (formal logic, basic statistics, scientific method). I know this sounds somewhat utopian, but could be achieved if academic administrators saw it as a priority.
I cannot believe that you idiots have posted so many witless rejoinders to each other. Couldn't you simply insult each other via email. Why would you come onto some elses site to do this?
Anyhoo
This exchange reminded me of another point that I would like to make. Science is not primarily conducted by geniuses. It's safe to say that the great majority of scientists are not geniuses on a psychometric basis. But this assumption is very common among people outside of the sciences.
CHS promotes a similar assumption with her emphasis on Harvard's famous math course as an indicator of why science degree go primarily to males. Math 55 is notorious, but for its absurdity, not the quality of instruction. It's a death march set to Calculus. Scientific work is not like Math 55. This course is more indicative of Harvard's status-seeking culture. You'll notice that none of the better science and engineering programs utilize this method of instruction.
If you want to explain the disparity in male versus female participation in the science, look at revealed preferences. Natural aptitudes play a role, but it you go too far with this assumption you'll find that you then need to explain not only the disparity but the presence of so many males.
In some respects, they do seem to have a bit of an edge on us. Each race has its own genetic advantages and disadvantages, which is why I don't get too think that racial inferiority, equality and superiority really matter overall.
Like natural rhythm and all that?
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/dec95reviews.htm
Blacks, [Dinesh D’Souza] assures us solemnly at one point, really do dance better than whites, though it is unclear whether this startling conclusion holds for all black Americans or merely to the playful and presumably party-going "Sambos" whom he claims to recognize among the blacks of today.
I suppose this is why the PC have taken over sectors like education and the media. Its why the sciences and engineering are the last to fall to the PC. In the sciences and engineering you actually have to produce something that works. A clever word game that somehow "proves" 2+2=5 does not cut it if the plane won't fly. So here we see the same strategy. Go to congress or administrators, use clever words and voila. The powers that be force the scientists and engineers to do what you want, hire who you want.
Will, would you be kind enough to tell us what your profession is?
I cannot believe that you idiots have posted so many witless rejoinders to each other. Couldn't you simply insult each other via email. [sic] Why would you come onto some elses [sic] site to do this?
Because it's there?
Actually, I was thinking more about things like resistance and susceptibility to certain diseases, body types, and such.
fgfm: Will, would you be kind enough to tell us what your profession is?
Will: Why?
I noticed that I fat-fingered the calculator keys. Veterinary schools will actually have to eliminate 70% of their female students to achieve gender equality. Feminists consider this progress?
Actually, I was thinking more about things like resistance and susceptibility to certain diseases, body types, and such.
Are you a "fast-twitch" man?
Will: Why?
Since you have such strong feelings about how all these fields are supposedly being ruined by "the PC," I thought that it might be informative to find out what practical experiences you have in such matters.
Veterinary schools will actually have to eliminate 70% of their female students to achieve gender equality. Feminists consider this progress?
You seem to be the only person proposing this.
Interesting group of folks you hang with fgfm.
I was puzzled by your opening salvo here, and have remained so with with each additional post. Outside of displaying your massive amount of intelligence and knowledge of so many things, and taking the opposite position of whatever has been stated by another, I am wondering if you have a point. That is, beyond the superior position to go along with the intellect.
As one who has never heard the bottom line, just obfuscation from the left, let's say you are PC in all manners of the buzz words. The PC term was invented basically during the first Clinton administration, and I notice you and your team aren't fond of them (the Clintons). So forgive me if you do not subscribe to that.
If you actually got your way on everything, meaning politically and socially, what would America be like in your view of how it should be? I would really like to know. I find it fascinating with all the time you have obviously put into becoming educated and knowing just about everything, you waste it in a barber shop. Wait.... you aren't really a barber are you? Ha! I knew it!
History is proof that women will always be considered inferior until at some point the number of women who prove otherwise reaches critical mass. It wasn't so long ago that our little female minds couldn't handle reading and writing.
As a society we do ourselves a great disservice trying to fit people into neat little boxes. Everyone has a unique narrative. Over 50% of the world population is female, and I daresay the only thing I have in common with most of them is just that. Nothing is more ridiculous than trying to define a person by a trait (gender) that they share with half the world.
That said, if a woman sucks at something - I think it's only fair to say so. I don't extrapolate her failure to all womankind - but neither do I believe in shielding her from consequence like we would if she were a man.
My problem with feminists is that they want it both ways - a man's power but not his responsibility. In that sense, I don't really see them as feminists because they don't truly believe or practice the equality they advocate.
It is a stupid game we play; pitting boys against girls and vice versa. We end up with all these men who resent successful women. Who surround themselves with bimbos and then proceed to point out how stupid the bimbos are. As if! And the women who detest men. What a waste!
Interesting group of folks you hang with fgfm.
Thanks.
I was puzzled by your opening salvo here, and have remained so with with each additional post. Outside of displaying your massive amount of intelligence and knowledge of so many things, and taking the opposite position of whatever has been stated by another, I am wondering if you have a point. That is, beyond the superior position to go along with the intellect.
I'm angling for a position with the Tennessee educational system.
As one who has never heard the bottom line, just obfuscation from the left, let's say you are PC in all manners of the buzz words.
This statement really doesn't make any sense.
The PC term was invented basically during the first Clinton administration
No, it was popularized in a negative way by Dinesh D'Souza in 1991 and used in a speech by George H. W. Bush.
I notice you and your team aren't fond of them (the Clintons). So forgive me if you do not subscribe to that.
This supposed political correctness phenomenon is kind of a bugbear. I consider myself to be an individualist and not particularly orthodox, heterodox, sectarian, or anything like that.
If you actually got your way on everything, meaning politically and socially, what would America be like in your view of how it should be? I would really like to know.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't have any sweeping social theories.
I find it fascinating with all the time you have obviously put into becoming educated and knowing just about everything, you waste it in a barber shop. Wait.... you aren't really a barber are you? Ha! I knew it!
You are too clever for me.
Thanks for answering as I expected.
"I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't have any sweeping social theories."
Imagine that!
Trey
Thanks for answering as I expected.
My pleasure.
Imagine that!
Not having a grand plan based on a dubious theory beats blowing three trillion in Iraq on a WMD snipe hunt followed by a pathetic attempt to install a sham democracy at the point of a gun.
Here it comes......
Here it comes......
Your 19th nervous breakdown?
So fgfm (or should I say Mary?), I still don't know what your point is. Other than to waste a lot of space in this comment thread.
Dr. Helen said: it is very relevant to understanding the dynamics of how gender feminists use the system to give preferences and goodies to women with little regard to whether they are interested in the physical sciences or not.
However, the link went to a description of equity feminism. I thought this was the type that you supported. From the link: Hoff Sommers describes Equity feminism as an ideology that aims for full civil and legal equality and distinguish it from the term gender feminism, which she uses to describe the idea of much of modern academic feminist theory and the feminist movement which aims at the total abolition of gender roles and structure of the society which they claim is still dominated by patriarchal structures.
I am opposed to affirmative action and quotas, but equity sounds like a good thing. A qualified person should be allowed to be a scientist, regardless of their physical features.
fgfm - What was the ratio of men to women in your graduating class for Computer Science (if you remember)? Did you feel that the women in your classes were competent in their tasks?
David - Thanks for sharing the article, I enjoyed it.
Jeff: I hate to say it because I'm a conservative, but the situation described in the original article and my experiences in graduate education leave me hating my government.
Conservatives do tend to be more patriotic than their counterparts. However, conservatives also despise big government because it is usually inefficient and causes new problems. A good conservative and even a classical liberal should realize that we need to move toward (not away from) the Constitution and we need to cut spending down to a level that is feasible. As we have violated these principles I have also noticed that we seem to be coming closer to Canada's view of government.
As an intellectual outlier (Asperger's autistic) male, with perfect 800 GRE math/verbal GRE scores married to a genius ASpie, I think our academic experiences have some relevance to this discussion:
My wife memorized her way through the theory and problem solving of getting a BS in physics andminor in math. The entire time, she struggled with geometric analysis of any non-1-D problem.
When we went to Aerospace Engineering grad school, taking undergrad AE courses to get up to speed before we started on the actual grad courses, the simple (for me) problems in _engineering_ mechanics (which are multi-object, 3D and very geometric) drove her nuts. Literally.
She did not make it through the first semester before having a nervous breakdown (hypochondria(cancer,AIDS)) (that she now _explicitly_ connects to her failure to handle geometric manipulation problems).
Note: we never got near "vehicle design" ... this was multi-member torque-torsion etc of simple objects ... she completely went blank on fluid dynamics and shear/strain in mechanics-of-materials.
Her (strange) recovery path has now led her to being a professional bollywood/bellydancer.
Also note that this is an unusually gifted and brilliant math/science/sci-fi geek whose (present) obsession is to reprise her SW-Celebration-4 performance with her own hand-built linux-based open-automaton voice-control/semi-AI R2D2. Very few females that I am aware of can out-geek her.
And yet her analytic (left-brain) geometric/spatial ability really stinks (her right-brain spatial ability is amazing, as can be seen in her youtube bellydance videos if you care to look for them (clues in the previous paragraph will allow any determined person to ID her)).
=-=-=-=
This leads to the specific reason for my posting ...
Autism is the extremity of social detachment (because our brain's neural "mirror-complex" system is missing or minimized).
Specifically, autistics (5:1 or 6:1 M:F ratio AFAICR) inherently (pre-birth) remap that social-interaction part of the brain that auto-comprehends facial expressions, body language, social cues, etc into other areas like memory, sensory-system-improvements, pattern-recognition or mechano-motor-skills.
The genetic areas specific to physio-structural-layout are on the X chromosome ... females get 2 chances to get it right, males get 1.
A female with normal (neuro-typical) genes on 1 X chromosome and Autistic neurovariant genes on the other comes out as a slightly awkward female (i.e. with the social skills of a typical male, but since she's expected to have female-normal skills, she's at a moderate disadvantage).
My best understanding of the gender-neuro-dimorphism research to date is that the be-a-better-hunter (rock/spear/arrow tosser) genes are on the Y chromosome, tweaking the visio-spatial-math-coprocessor neural pre-birth developmental signals. Uniquely to males, there are separate Y-chromosome selection-pressures for genetic superiority in hunting (i.e. family/clan feeding) which led to dominance or die-out of various hunters' families (and thus genetic lineages).
The be-a-better-gatherer color/texture analysis visual-skills genes are X-chromosome partially-cumulative-not-redundant genes (which is why females are (nearly?) never colorblind and can actually be hyper-chromo-sensitive (males have 1, 2 or 3 color-sensing-types in our gene-maps for our eyes, females have either 3 or 4(an extra spectrally-shifted red sensor cell type))). Similarly, fine-dexterity hand controls are genetically partially-cumulative, and with 2 X-chromosomes, females get boosted fine-motor-dexterity.
Conversely, with _no_ X redundancy, males get no moderating normative genetic duplication, so neural remappings (good and bad) are unmitigated. This explains the broader distribution of neural skills (good and bad) in males vs the closer-skewed-to-average normalized female neural skills distribution. Females have far more 100-IQs and males have disproportionately more 50s and 150s.
Simply put, in order to have a seriously deviant brain-wiring mapping, both of a female's X contributions must have the same deviation ... and deviantly-high-IQ is a genetic abnormality (and it generally comes with serious other genetic abnormalities).
(Lest you think that I'm preening in superiority ... in addition to Aspergers Autism, I have no sense of smell, bad knees(35 dislocations), anterograde-amnesia, post-prandial-hypotension (to syncope), strabismus, (mild) double-monocular-triple-vision, oversize occular floaters, a corrected VSD, serious allergies, recurring-oral-ulcers(autoimmune), OCD, many bouts of pneumonia, and serious respiratory-infection vulnerability. But I'd trade away none of that for my vastly boosted abilities to invent things.)
Serket,
Scroll down and you will see the definition of gender feminism--this is the type that I am against:
"Hoff Sommers coined the term, "Gender feminism", in her book Who Stole Feminism? (Simon & Schuster, 1994). She uses the phrase to describe feminism which criticizes contemporary gender roles and aims to eliminate them altogether.[1] In current usage, gender feminism may also describe feminism which seeks to use legal means to give preference to women in such areas as spousal abuse, child custody, sexual harassment, divorce proceedings, and pay equity. Supporters assert that such activity leads to further equality among the sexes, while critics argue that this amounts only to reverse discrimination and encourages political, legal, social and economic rent-seeking activity based on gender."
I do believe in equality between the sexes, not special preference and rights for one over the other.
fgfm - What was the ratio of men to women in your graduating class for Computer Science (if you remember)?
Who said that I have a degree in "computer science" and why I wouldn't I remember if I did?
Did you feel that the women in your classes were competent in their tasks?
Why wouldn't they be?
Scroll down and you will see the definition of gender feminism--this is the type that I am against
You and Sommers are political hacks who live in a fantasy world.
Other than to waste a lot of space in this comment thread.
Don't worry, Google has plenty of disk space.
mark....
Incredible people both, you and your wife.
Mark, except for the math stuff, I understood every word of what you wrote! This surprised me because it looked totally over my head at first, but your style helped, so thanks. I am not sure I agree with the lack of mirror neurons hypothesis of aspergers, but it is an intriguing possibility.
Stick around, have a cup of coffee, and post often.
Trey
gs
excellent statement:"American male nerds who are willing to get paid much less than if they used their skills to maximize their income."
what if the term "nerd" is verily defined by "willing to get paid much less than if they used their skills to maximize their income"?
What would be the mental repositioning that overcomes this proclivity?
njartist,
Consider stereotypical struggling painters, poets, etc who endure a precarious bohemian existence rather than 'prostitute' their talents for commercial purposes. IMO such people aren't considered nerds even though they like nerds are obsessive about their pursuit.
What would be the mental repositioning that overcomes this proclivity?
Perhaps a tipping point is reached at which one decides 'this isn't worth the aggravation' or 'enough is enough'. I'm guessing that there is not a unique set of conditions which will drive a given individual to a tipping point, and that one individual will put up with what another will consider intolerable.
Considering one's life is compromise upon compromise with nearly every moment a crossroads, it is my view we are all prostitutes to a degree. Although much less so if one only has himself or herself to consider.
Things I would never consider doing changed rather drastically after marriage and children, when the definition of "have to" also changed. I never have been the world's greatest planner.
Brian Tracy made the statement that many people believe prostitution is the oldest profession. Then he added, perhaps not. After all, she had to sell that thang first.
Life is, at the very least, always interesting, often fascinating.
gs,
Thanks for the response.
My pleasure, NJArtist.
Thd distinction Sommers created between "equity" and "gender " feminism-- is misleading and largely bogus.
Feminism is and always was a hate movement--- so its like claiming I am a " Good Nazi" and not a " Bad Nazi".
Feminism is irrational, immoral and empirically vacuous. No sane position can be based on such an ideology.
"Equity" feminists like Sommers and Young are shallow thinkers--
--Sommers is misandric, ch 8 , War Against Boys, a vile an expression of anti-male bigotry as was ever penned by any feminist. Sommers claims males in their normal state are rapacious monsters who need to be 'civilized"-- by women !--- to do what women want. ( the conservative woman mantra)
and
Young irrationally attacks men's rights groups
and elevates the career woman to divine status ( her agenda)
and has an obsession with women being treated like "human beings". No one has ever met a "human being", Cathy.
Both claim that feminism has gone awry from its original goals or gone "too far" ( for women ). Nope-- it was always a hate movement. Do some reading.
Young titled her book "Ceasefire "-- as if there were two warring camps. Wrong Cathy-- women are assualting men. They started the unilateral assault and men have not even fired a shot back.
Sommers praises Friedan as a good feminist. Friedan was a liar , a fraud, a husband batterer-- and she attacked the home-maker/housewive woman in the most vile way imaginable.
Sommers talks about how " Misguided Feminism " is harming out Boys.-- no Ms Sommers-- thats good ole feminism doing that.
Both women claim this original feminism that was good and noble and fair-- that has gone wary-- and the genders are now fighting.
Sorry ladies-- do some reading. Feminism was always a hate movement and the war is no war at all-- it is a unilateral attack from women against men. There has been no response from men.
The "distinctions" are
1. " gender " ( lets overturn the evil patrirchy and enslave/kill men and boys),
2. "equity ' ( us girls have it good now so don't ruin it )
3. and conservative women( No-- make men behave the old way )
What all three have in common is that they are gynocentric-- women everywhere have only one goal-- what is best for women. They just disagree on that.
They disagree on how to use the law to benefit women and how to raise boys-- to serve women's interests, because they disagree about women's interests.
" Feminism " is the problem-- be definition, it is gynocentric-- focused on the needs and intersts of women.
Is a " masculunist" for equity?-- then why does he claim an ideology that puts men first ?
Hence the "equity feminist" is an oxymoron ...
People who are concerned with equity CANNOT be feminists.
Helen, hopefully Blogger will alert you to this new comment on an older post.
I haven't read this paper in depth but thought you might be interested (in the trackbacks too). As a psych PhD, you have a better feel than I for the statistics therein.
av168成人視訊視訊交友av168成人av168成人av168成人av168成人kiss168下載asex520免費電影免費ava片線上看xo7777 netxo7777 netxo7777 netxo7777 netxo7777 netxo7777 netxo7777 net3y3成人色色網xo7777 netxo7777 netxxx383視訊xxx383視訊
Post a Comment
<< Home