Re: Harvard Pres: Women Lack Ability In Math, Sciences

From: George (george_at_wtfiswrongwithyou.com)
Date: 01/21/05 

Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:02:48 GMT

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message news:i5CdnVr6l5YZmmzcRVn-qg@rcn.net...
> In article <ON6Id.15709$4I2.9431@attbi_s01>,
> "George" <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:
>>
>><jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:vK2dnQJuyY33aG3cRVn-3Q@rcn.net...
>>> In article <x8RHd.13093$P04.10449@attbi_s03>,
>>> "George" <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>><jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:8ISdneJlSePqO3LcRVn-sA@rcn.net...
>>>>> In article <6EvHd.14769$IV5.6166@attbi_s54>,
>>>>> "George" <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>><jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:9oOdnc-mva-Y9HPcRVn-2g@rcn.net...
>>>>>>> In article <10us10omcajd781@corp.supernews.com>,
>>>>>>> Jo Schaper <joschapern4ospam@2socketdot.no5net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>As a woman apparently lacking the genetic abilities under
> discussion,
>>> I
>>>>>>>>would advise the men in this discussion to take the time to find out
>>>>>>>>what Mr. Harvard President Sir actually said, (at least as reported
> in
>>>>>>>>the news media):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Please read:
>>>>>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/19/education/19harvard.html
>>>>>>>>No transcript of his exact words are available.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>He is quoted for three ways which women may be unfit for these
>>>>>>> professions:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>1) Reluctance of married women with children to work long (some
>>> articles
>>>>>>>>say 80-hour) workweeks in pursuit of their vocation;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2) That innate sex-related/genetic differences make women less
> capable
>>>>>>>>of math or science; or
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But this is just a plain bull*** comment. The science and math
>>>>>>> types I knew and worked with were of both sexes. I didn't start
>>>>>>> to see "token females" until after EEO and NOW got their hooks
>>>>>>> into politics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All these people, including the President of Harvard, are doing
>>>>>>> is creating smoke and mirrors so that the real problem doesn't
>>>>>>> get looked at.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So what do you think that the real problem is. Don't
>>>>>>just say that there is a
>>>>>>problem and then not tell us what you think it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> You read my other post. What part of it wasn't clear?
>>>>> Universities here (Massachusetts) are not educating and are fighting
>>>>> all attempts to get them back to doing that job.
>>>>> Instead of dealing with the problem that nothing useful
>>>>> is getting taught, the whole community is now focusing
>>>>> on non-existent misogyny, sprinkled with all the equality
>>>>> rhetoric, that liberals favor, to avoid working.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I agreed with you up to the point where you made the accusation about
>>> liberals.
>>>>I feel sorry for your state of mind. I really do.
>>>
>>> What state of mind? The fact that I'm pissed off about all
>>> this waste?
>>>
>>> /BAH
>>>
>>> Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
>>
>>What waste would that be?
>
> It's becoming obvious that you either have a reading comphension
> problem or you're playing dumb because you know you're wrong
> and I'm right.
>
> Either way there's no discussion value and a waste of my
> composition time.
>
> /BAH
>
> Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

In other words, you were just blowing smoke up everyones ass, and don't intend
to answer the question. I'm not surprised.

Quantcast