Women in the sciences.

Will Feminists Again Attempt To Censor Science? by Ashley Herzog

(Miss Herzog, btw, is a very comely blonde, from the photo.)

We’ll probably never know how great a role biology plays in gender differences, because feminists try to prevent anyone from researching it.

That’s exactly what happened at Harvard University in 2005. During an academic conference, Harvard’s then-president Larry Summers discussed several theories about why there are fewer female math and science professors. In addition to gender discrimination, Summers floated the possibility of “different availability of aptitude at the high end”—in other words, there are more men than women with the top-notch math and science abilities expected of elite professors. He also noted that more research was needed to explain the gender discrepancy.

But, apparently, more research is the last thing feminists want. At the mere suggestion of innate gender differences, a few feminists in the audience literally ran from the room crying. One professor, Nancy Hopkins, said she had to leave the room “or else I would’ve either blacked out or thrown up.” (While Hopkins never responded to Summers with a scientific argument, she did manage to reinforce the stereotype that women are too emotional to handle scientific debate and will respond to difficult situations by bursting into tears. Thanks, Nancy!) A few months later, Summers was forced out of his presidency in order to appease the science-averse feminists.

Emphasis added.

Notice also that Summers included reasons palatable to feminists in his speculations. While Nancy Hopkins gave a practical demonstration of why women are less represented in the sciences: feminists are too emotional to handle scientific inquiry.

Anyway, the article goes on to tell how feminists attacked Dr. Louise Brizendine’s excellent The Female Brain, despite Dr. Brizendine’s attempts to spin the differences so that they sounded good.

Anyway, I shouldn’t have been surprised, but it turns out that Nancy Hopkins has built her career on fantasies about sexism. She occasionally does a little science in between crap like this:

Hopkins made a name for herself a few years ago by whining incessantly about gender discrimination at MIT. Indeed, she complained so much that she was able to finagle the chairmanship (sorry, the chairpersonship) of a committee tasked with finding discrimination at MIT. Shockingly, Hopkins found discrimination! Her report made her a hero in the pages of the New York Times, which dubbed her a “reluctant feminist” in the headline of its gushing profile of her.

The report, which emphasized the feelings of anonymous female professors, found that discrimination manifested itself in a “stealth-like” way at MIT — which is generally PC code for “I’m not going to provide any evidence.” The supposedly convincing evidence was kept secret, while the official report explained: “Discrimination consists of a pattern of powerful but unrecognized assumptions. . . Once you ‘get it,’ it seems almost obvious.”

Indeed.

This is perfectly consistent with Hopkins’s current schtick . . . In the past, women used to claim that vulgar language would cause them to grow ill or faint. Now feminists like Hopkins use the same tactic to silence ideologically unacceptable ideas and to intimidate the intellectually curious. That’s the stereotype Hopkins is reinforcing: that feminists and the Left are pro-science and pro-scholarship as long as they already agree with the conclusions. (Source.)

And:

Feminist Mythology

In the summer of 1994, Hopkins talked to some of her MIT School of Science female colleagues. As the subsequent MIT “Study on the Status of Women Faculty in science at MIT” later reported: “In the course of their careers these women had come to realize that gender had probably caused their professional lives to differ significantly from those of their male colleagues. Interestingly they had never discussed the issue with one another, and they were even uncertain as to whether their experiences were unique, their perceptions accurate.”

As it turns out, these women had never noticed the discrimination until Hopkins pointed it out. Discrimination had been a non-issue for these women. The meeting with Hopkins has been described as “akin to a religious experience” in its revelatory impact for the women.

The MIT mea-culpa report is a classic product of a New Age MIT, with little more than feelings as evidence of discrimination.

Someone hilariously and correctly asked, Should Nancy Hopkins be driving? “Now, I’m not saying that women can’t drive, nor am I implying that Ms Hopkins’ remarks are evidence in that direction. Republican women mostly seem to do ok at it, anyway. However, given her self-reported reactions to Summers remarks, what would happen if she were driving down the street and accidentally punched up Rush Limbaugh on the radio, for example? Rush makes one of his ‘feminazi’ jokes, and she throws up and blacks out. When she then plows into a busload of innocent children, the blood will be on Rush’s hands, obviously. Still, that doesn’t help The Children.”

Really, though, while her actions are completely indefensible, Nancy Hopkins is herself a victim of feminism. In any pre-feminist era, she would have had a job more in keeping with her temperament, like housewife, the kind of profession delicate women have always pursued. Something that allowed her husband and other men to shelter her from the harsh realities of the big bad world out there, where people go around saying things she doesn’t want to hear. She would have been contented in such a life, and a useful member of society, instead of struggling to cope in a field where, patently, she can’t. Don’t misunderstand me, Larry Summers is the real victim of this farce. But Nancy Hopkins, brainwashed by feminists into making herself miserable striving to do things far beyond her abilities, deserves some sympathy too.

This is why I believe that workplaces and professions should discriminate against women. There are a lot of women smart enough to pass the exams and so on who still don’t have the emotional ability to cope and will fall apart and invoke the “Pussy Pass”, women like Nancy Hopkins. Women attempting to enter the professional world should be “hazed” so that only those who can cope will stay.

Advertisements

12 Responses to “Women in the sciences.”

  1. Artfldgr Says:

    In leaking Summers’ off-the-record talk to the Boston Globe, Hopkins claimed that she had to leave or, “I would’ve either blacked out or thrown up.”

    In reality, Hopkins is a veteran at playing the gender card. Wendy McElroy reported in 2001 on Hopkins’ lucrative conflicts-of-interest:

    “The [MIT] Committee was established to investigate complaints of sex discrimination that were leveled by Hopkins herself. Yet she became the Chair, heading an investigation into her own complaints. As a result of her findings, Hopkins received — among other benefits — a 20 percent raise in salary, an endowed chair and increased research funds. Indeed, most of the Committee consisted of women who benefited substantially from the ‘guilty’ verdict. The only evidence of sex discrimination produced was the fact that there are more men than women in the faculty of the School for Science.”

    Similarly, Denice D. Denton was celebrated for standing up to Summers to, in her words, “speak truth to power.” This heroic tableau of the humble, no-doubt-discriminated-against woman engineering professor daring to defy the mighty male university president lost some luster when it emerged that Denton was UC Santa Cruz’s chancellor-designate at $275,000 annually. One college supremo attempting to intimidate another one into not mentioning inconvenient facts is not what most people visualize as speaking truth to power.

    A few days later, Tanya Schevitz reported in the San Francisco Chronicle on how Denton plays the game. The headline read, “UC hires partner of chancellor: creates $192,000 post for Santa Cruz chief’s lesbian lover.”

  2. Artfldgr Says:

    In leaking Summers’ off-the-record talk to the Boston Globe, Hopkins claimed that she had to leave or, “I would’ve either blacked out or thrown up.”

    In reality, Hopkins is a veteran at playing the gender card. Wendy McElroy reported in 2001 on Hopkins’ lucrative conflicts-of-interest:

    “The [MIT] Committee was established to investigate complaints of sex discrimination that were leveled by Hopkins herself. Yet she became the Chair, heading an investigation into her own complaints. As a result of her findings, Hopkins received — among other benefits — a 20 percent raise in salary, an endowed chair and increased research funds. Indeed, most of the Committee consisted of women who benefited substantially from the ‘guilty’ verdict. The only evidence of sex discrimination produced was the fact that there are more men than women in the faculty of the School for Science.”

    Similarly, Denice D. Denton was celebrated for standing up to Summers to, in her words, “speak truth to power.” This heroic tableau of the humble, no-doubt-discriminated-against woman engineering professor daring to defy the mighty male university president lost some luster when it emerged that Denton was UC Santa Cruz’s chancellor-designate at $275,000 annually. One college supremo attempting to intimidate another one into not mentioning inconvenient facts is not what most people visualize as speaking truth to power.

    A few days later, Tanya Schevitz reported in the San Francisco Chronicle on how Denton plays the game. The headline read, “UC hires partner of chancellor: creates $192,000 post for Santa Cruz chief’s lesbian lover.”

  3. Artfldgr Says:

    In leaking Summers’ off-the-record talk to the Boston Globe, Hopkins claimed that she had to leave or, “I would’ve either blacked out or thrown up.”

    In reality, Hopkins is a veteran at playing the gender card. Wendy McElroy reported in 2001 on Hopkins’ lucrative conflicts-of-interest:

    “The [MIT] Committee was established to investigate complaints of sex discrimination that were leveled by Hopkins herself. Yet she became the Chair, heading an investigation into her own complaints. As a result of her findings, Hopkins received — among other benefits — a 20 percent raise in salary, an endowed chair and increased research funds. Indeed, most of the Committee consisted of women who benefited substantially from the ‘guilty’ verdict. The only evidence of sex discrimination produced was the fact that there are more men than women in the faculty of the School for Science.”

    Similarly, Denice D. Denton was celebrated for standing up to Summers to, in her words, “speak truth to power.” This heroic tableau of the humble, no-doubt-discriminated-against woman engineering professor daring to defy the mighty male university president lost some luster when it emerged that Denton was UC Santa Cruz’s chancellor-designate at $275,000 annually. One college supremo attempting to intimidate another one into not mentioning inconvenient facts is not what most people visualize as speaking truth to power.

    A few days later, Tanya Schevitz reported in the San Francisco Chronicle on how Denton plays the game. The headline read, “UC hires partner of chancellor: creates $192,000 post for Santa Cruz chief’s lesbian lover.”

  4. Artfldgr Says:

    The more meritocratic the field, the more feminists accuse it of discriminating against women. In mathematics, new proofs either quickly fail or are accepted forever. In contrast, women flourish most in notoriously faddish, cliquish domains like the humanities. In Harvard’s English department, 20 out of 51 professors are women, and at less exclusive colleges, they often comprise a majority.

    One of Summers’ initial triumphs had been hiring superstar cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, author of the anti-social constructionist bestseller The Blank Slate, away from Hopkins’ MIT. When asked by the Harvard Crimson if Summers’ remarks were “within the pale of legitimate academic discourse,” Pinker answered, “Good grief, shouldn’t everything be within the pale of legitimate academic discourse, as long as it is presented with some degree of rigor? That’s the difference between a university and a madrassa.”

    The first scientific challenge to academia’s traditional assumption that men were smarter than women came in 1912 when pioneering IQ test researcher Cyril Burt announced they scored equally — on average. Yet, as Summers noted, men are more variable, so they are more numerous among the extremely intelligent, such as Harvard professors and Nobel Prize winners (40 of whom have taught at Harvard).

    The Nobel Prize lists show a striking pattern: the fuzzier the field, the better women do. Twelve women have won the most political and least intellectually rigorous Nobel Prize, Peace (13 percent of all individual winners), and ten have been Literature laureates (ten percent). In Physiology & Medicine, there have been seven female laureates (four percent). In Chemistry, three (two percent), and in Physics, the most abstract of the Nobels, just two (one percent).

    What about mathematics, that most unworldly of subjects? The Fields Medal for mathematicians under age 40 is the equivalent of the Nobel. No women number among its 44 recipients.

    But, surely, the trendline must be turning upwards as discrimination lessens?

    That’s true in Physiology & Medicine, where women won only once before 1977, but six times (nine percent) since. Yet, by aggregating Physics and Chemistry, we can see the opposite pattern: five women ranked among their first 160 laureates, but over the last 40 years, not a single woman features among the latest 160 winners.

    Overall, in the bad old days from 1901 through 1964, women won 2.5 percent of the hard science Nobels. Since then, they’ve declined to 2.3 percent.

    Why hasn’t the feminist era fostered more female scientific geniuses? Perhaps feminism persuaded the top women that they could have it all — romance, children, and career — rather than just the lonely celibacy society once demanded from them, and they spread themselves too thin. Moreover, feminism encourages women to indulge in self-pity and resentment, which distract from earning a Nobel.

    ===================================

    While the entire female sex has yet to produce an Economics winner, Summers’ uncles account for two: 1970 laureate Paul A. Samuelson is his father’s brother and 1972 laureate Kenneth J. Arrow is his mother’s brother. Both of Summers’ parents were economists at Penn.

    Having been blessed with the luckiest imaginable combination of genes and upbringing, nature and nurture, for an economics professor, Summers earned tenure at Harvard at age 28, then a record.


    ===================================
    Ivy League presidents aren’t much worried that the left half of the Bell Curve will get themselves well enough organized to challenge the hegemony of the IQ overclass. No, what they fear is opposition to their use of IQ sorting mechanisms, such as the politically incorrect but crucial SAT, from those identity politics pressure groups who perform below average in a pure meritocracy, such as women, blacks, and Hispanics. But, they each boast enough high IQ activists, like Nancy Hopkins, to make trouble for prestige universities.

    So, Harvard, like virtually all famous universities, buys off females and minorities with “a commitment to diversity” — in other words, quotas. By boosting less competent women, blacks and Hispanics at the expense of the more marginal men, whites, and Asians, Harvard preserves most of its freedom to continue to discriminate ruthlessly on IQ.

    What is obviously in the best interest of Harvard, and of the IQ aristocracy in general, is for everybody just to shut up about group differences in intelligence. Stifling arguments allows the IQ upper class to quietly push its interests at the expense of everyone else. So, Summers bought peace fast.

    Of course, he won’t pay the price. Our sons will.

    http://isteve.com/2005_Education_of_Larry_Summers.htm

  5. Artfldgr Says:

    The more meritocratic the field, the more feminists accuse it of discriminating against women. In mathematics, new proofs either quickly fail or are accepted forever. In contrast, women flourish most in notoriously faddish, cliquish domains like the humanities. In Harvard’s English department, 20 out of 51 professors are women, and at less exclusive colleges, they often comprise a majority.

    One of Summers’ initial triumphs had been hiring superstar cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, author of the anti-social constructionist bestseller The Blank Slate, away from Hopkins’ MIT. When asked by the Harvard Crimson if Summers’ remarks were “within the pale of legitimate academic discourse,” Pinker answered, “Good grief, shouldn’t everything be within the pale of legitimate academic discourse, as long as it is presented with some degree of rigor? That’s the difference between a university and a madrassa.”

    The first scientific challenge to academia’s traditional assumption that men were smarter than women came in 1912 when pioneering IQ test researcher Cyril Burt announced they scored equally — on average. Yet, as Summers noted, men are more variable, so they are more numerous among the extremely intelligent, such as Harvard professors and Nobel Prize winners (40 of whom have taught at Harvard).

    The Nobel Prize lists show a striking pattern: the fuzzier the field, the better women do. Twelve women have won the most political and least intellectually rigorous Nobel Prize, Peace (13 percent of all individual winners), and ten have been Literature laureates (ten percent). In Physiology & Medicine, there have been seven female laureates (four percent). In Chemistry, three (two percent), and in Physics, the most abstract of the Nobels, just two (one percent).

    What about mathematics, that most unworldly of subjects? The Fields Medal for mathematicians under age 40 is the equivalent of the Nobel. No women number among its 44 recipients.

    But, surely, the trendline must be turning upwards as discrimination lessens?

    That’s true in Physiology & Medicine, where women won only once before 1977, but six times (nine percent) since. Yet, by aggregating Physics and Chemistry, we can see the opposite pattern: five women ranked among their first 160 laureates, but over the last 40 years, not a single woman features among the latest 160 winners.

    Overall, in the bad old days from 1901 through 1964, women won 2.5 percent of the hard science Nobels. Since then, they’ve declined to 2.3 percent.

    Why hasn’t the feminist era fostered more female scientific geniuses? Perhaps feminism persuaded the top women that they could have it all — romance, children, and career — rather than just the lonely celibacy society once demanded from them, and they spread themselves too thin. Moreover, feminism encourages women to indulge in self-pity and resentment, which distract from earning a Nobel.

    ===================================

    While the entire female sex has yet to produce an Economics winner, Summers’ uncles account for two: 1970 laureate Paul A. Samuelson is his father’s brother and 1972 laureate Kenneth J. Arrow is his mother’s brother. Both of Summers’ parents were economists at Penn.

    Having been blessed with the luckiest imaginable combination of genes and upbringing, nature and nurture, for an economics professor, Summers earned tenure at Harvard at age 28, then a record.


    ===================================
    Ivy League presidents aren’t much worried that the left half of the Bell Curve will get themselves well enough organized to challenge the hegemony of the IQ overclass. No, what they fear is opposition to their use of IQ sorting mechanisms, such as the politically incorrect but crucial SAT, from those identity politics pressure groups who perform below average in a pure meritocracy, such as women, blacks, and Hispanics. But, they each boast enough high IQ activists, like Nancy Hopkins, to make trouble for prestige universities.

    So, Harvard, like virtually all famous universities, buys off females and minorities with “a commitment to diversity” — in other words, quotas. By boosting less competent women, blacks and Hispanics at the expense of the more marginal men, whites, and Asians, Harvard preserves most of its freedom to continue to discriminate ruthlessly on IQ.

    What is obviously in the best interest of Harvard, and of the IQ aristocracy in general, is for everybody just to shut up about group differences in intelligence. Stifling arguments allows the IQ upper class to quietly push its interests at the expense of everyone else. So, Summers bought peace fast.

    Of course, he won’t pay the price. Our sons will.

    http://isteve.com/2005_Education_of_Larry_Summers.htm

  6. Artfldgr Says:

    The more meritocratic the field, the more feminists accuse it of discriminating against women. In mathematics, new proofs either quickly fail or are accepted forever. In contrast, women flourish most in notoriously faddish, cliquish domains like the humanities. In Harvard’s English department, 20 out of 51 professors are women, and at less exclusive colleges, they often comprise a majority.

    One of Summers’ initial triumphs had been hiring superstar cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, author of the anti-social constructionist bestseller The Blank Slate, away from Hopkins’ MIT. When asked by the Harvard Crimson if Summers’ remarks were “within the pale of legitimate academic discourse,” Pinker answered, “Good grief, shouldn’t everything be within the pale of legitimate academic discourse, as long as it is presented with some degree of rigor? That’s the difference between a university and a madrassa.”

    The first scientific challenge to academia’s traditional assumption that men were smarter than women came in 1912 when pioneering IQ test researcher Cyril Burt announced they scored equally — on average. Yet, as Summers noted, men are more variable, so they are more numerous among the extremely intelligent, such as Harvard professors and Nobel Prize winners (40 of whom have taught at Harvard).

    The Nobel Prize lists show a striking pattern: the fuzzier the field, the better women do. Twelve women have won the most political and least intellectually rigorous Nobel Prize, Peace (13 percent of all individual winners), and ten have been Literature laureates (ten percent). In Physiology & Medicine, there have been seven female laureates (four percent). In Chemistry, three (two percent), and in Physics, the most abstract of the Nobels, just two (one percent).

    What about mathematics, that most unworldly of subjects? The Fields Medal for mathematicians under age 40 is the equivalent of the Nobel. No women number among its 44 recipients.

    But, surely, the trendline must be turning upwards as discrimination lessens?

    That’s true in Physiology & Medicine, where women won only once before 1977, but six times (nine percent) since. Yet, by aggregating Physics and Chemistry, we can see the opposite pattern: five women ranked among their first 160 laureates, but over the last 40 years, not a single woman features among the latest 160 winners.

    Overall, in the bad old days from 1901 through 1964, women won 2.5 percent of the hard science Nobels. Since then, they’ve declined to 2.3 percent.

    Why hasn’t the feminist era fostered more female scientific geniuses? Perhaps feminism persuaded the top women that they could have it all — romance, children, and career — rather than just the lonely celibacy society once demanded from them, and they spread themselves too thin. Moreover, feminism encourages women to indulge in self-pity and resentment, which distract from earning a Nobel.

    ===================================

    While the entire female sex has yet to produce an Economics winner, Summers’ uncles account for two: 1970 laureate Paul A. Samuelson is his father’s brother and 1972 laureate Kenneth J. Arrow is his mother’s brother. Both of Summers’ parents were economists at Penn.

    Having been blessed with the luckiest imaginable combination of genes and upbringing, nature and nurture, for an economics professor, Summers earned tenure at Harvard at age 28, then a record.


    ===================================
    Ivy League presidents aren’t much worried that the left half of the Bell Curve will get themselves well enough organized to challenge the hegemony of the IQ overclass. No, what they fear is opposition to their use of IQ sorting mechanisms, such as the politically incorrect but crucial SAT, from those identity politics pressure groups who perform below average in a pure meritocracy, such as women, blacks, and Hispanics. But, they each boast enough high IQ activists, like Nancy Hopkins, to make trouble for prestige universities.

    So, Harvard, like virtually all famous universities, buys off females and minorities with “a commitment to diversity” — in other words, quotas. By boosting less competent women, blacks and Hispanics at the expense of the more marginal men, whites, and Asians, Harvard preserves most of its freedom to continue to discriminate ruthlessly on IQ.

    What is obviously in the best interest of Harvard, and of the IQ aristocracy in general, is for everybody just to shut up about group differences in intelligence. Stifling arguments allows the IQ upper class to quietly push its interests at the expense of everyone else. So, Summers bought peace fast.

    Of course, he won’t pay the price. Our sons will.

    http://isteve.com/2005_Education_of_Larry_Summers.htm

  7. Sandy Says:

    Stop 60’s type discrimination now. For our daughters and every female that you have ever loved.
    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-60s-type-discrimination-in-the-work-place-now

  8. Sandy Says:

    Stop 60’s type discrimination now. For our daughters and every female that you have ever loved.
    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-60s-type-discrimination-in-the-work-place-now

  9. Sandy Says:

    Stop 60’s type discrimination now. For our daughters and every female that you have ever loved.
    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-60s-type-discrimination-in-the-work-place-now

  10. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Sandy, have you actually read my post? Or looked at what sort of blog this is? Are you just trolling, or did you think your simplistic appeal would cause me to abandon everything I know about the sexes?

    It would be silly to sign a petition to “end” 60’s type discrimination when it has ended several decades ago. Nowadays, instead, women have special privileges and discrimination lawsuits in order to force more of them into the sciences, whether they can do the job or not. Usually, they can’t.

    For every female, and male, I have ever loved, I want to revive 60’s type discrimination. Sex discrimination has a very positive effect on society. It encourages women to be homemakers, which is a vitally important job sorely missed for the last several decades, and it keeps incompetent manipulators like Nancy Hopkins out of the sciences, where they promote misinformation for the sake of their PC agenda.

  11. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Sandy, have you actually read my post? Or looked at what sort of blog this is? Are you just trolling, or did you think your simplistic appeal would cause me to abandon everything I know about the sexes?

    It would be silly to sign a petition to “end” 60’s type discrimination when it has ended several decades ago. Nowadays, instead, women have special privileges and discrimination lawsuits in order to force more of them into the sciences, whether they can do the job or not. Usually, they can’t.

    For every female, and male, I have ever loved, I want to revive 60’s type discrimination. Sex discrimination has a very positive effect on society. It encourages women to be homemakers, which is a vitally important job sorely missed for the last several decades, and it keeps incompetent manipulators like Nancy Hopkins out of the sciences, where they promote misinformation for the sake of their PC agenda.

  12. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Sandy, have you actually read my post? Or looked at what sort of blog this is? Are you just trolling, or did you think your simplistic appeal would cause me to abandon everything I know about the sexes?

    It would be silly to sign a petition to “end” 60’s type discrimination when it has ended several decades ago. Nowadays, instead, women have special privileges and discrimination lawsuits in order to force more of them into the sciences, whether they can do the job or not. Usually, they can’t.

    For every female, and male, I have ever loved, I want to revive 60’s type discrimination. Sex discrimination has a very positive effect on society. It encourages women to be homemakers, which is a vitally important job sorely missed for the last several decades, and it keeps incompetent manipulators like Nancy Hopkins out of the sciences, where they promote misinformation for the sake of their PC agenda.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: