Posted on 02/20/2005 3:32:14 PM PST by neverdem
GENDER STUDIES
In Victorian times, scientists argued that women's brains were too small to be fully human. On the intelligence scale, researchers recommended classifying human females with gorillas.
The great 19th century neuroanatomist Paul Broca didn't see the situation as quite so dire, but he warned his colleagues that women were not capable of being as smart as men, "a difference that we should not exaggerate, but which is nonetheless real."
The president of Harvard University suggested that a lack of "innate ability" might help explain why women couldn't keep up with men in fields like math and science … oh, wait, that one happened just last month.
Hold for a minute — OK — while I dig out my corset and bustle.
If that sounds snotty, I mean it to be.
I, for one, am ready to leave the 19th century behind. Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers can apologize all he wants, but the fact is that — from a position of power — he felt comfortable speculating about women's inadequate intelligence and ignoring years worth of science that proved him wrong.
I don't find that excusable. Period.
And I wonder why we women are so willing to tolerate this kind of behavior.
Summers raised the issue of women's lesser capabilities in an economic conference in Cambridge, Mass., in mid-January. And the most consistent response from women — the one still resonating across the country — is defensiveness.
A litany of female scholars quote studies proving that, yes, we girls can do long division, actually understand a chemical formula, comprehend a physical law or two and not only become professional scientists but do good work.
In fact, when allowed, women have done excellent science for decades, even since the corset-and-bustle days. The physicist Marie Curie won....
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
What nonsense.
Everybody knows colleges exists so professors can earn a living.
*hangs head in shame*
Education is NEVER wasted, no matter why it is pursued. Even a MRS degree is important, in our circle, every woman has a degre. One stay at home den mother mom with three boys has a degree in forestry. She may not need it, but it's hers. She loves being a full-time mother. She has no ambition to change the world or any local forests OR TO WORK.
She did nothing illegal. She got an education in more than her specialty, she GREW UP between 18 and 22, which is what we all here are praying YOU'll do, at least a little, Lauralee.
You make these big sweeping pronouncements, and irritate most everyone around, and then find yourself on the receiving end of a lot of deserved criticism. I recommend you "pronounce" less and lurk more. Just a suggestion.
Of course, all that applies ONLY if you really are a relatively dumb 18 yo living at home with her parents. If you're a troll, then hey, knock yourself out.
You are just flat out wrong to assert that I have asserted anything at all about MOST people.
What I got from your post is you're trying to say it's "right" to think colleges/universities exist for reasons *besides* getting a higher education.
YES!
It's wrong to go to college ONLY to meet a husband.
Is it? I think a lot ,\b>of people go to college because it is expected that they do so. Others go for the <\b>social life and parties. Others go without ever knowing why.
Emphasis mine.
Your anecdote about your daughter is relevant to me ... how?
""Education is NEVER wasted, no matter why it is pursued""
Well, it isn't really being pursued if she's there JUST to meet a husband.
Sure, just check out Great Expectations, or It's Just Lunch, or you can go to match.com and meet someone for a few bucks a week. But the college route is quicker.
Since when is "a lot of people" MOST people? If I meant MOST PEOPLE I would have said so.
Even though my lovely mathematician is an educator, she does make more than this pastor salary of mine.
But who's adding (or subtracting or calculating or....:>)
Yes, I'm trying to get clarification on that!
It sure seems to be saying those are valid reasons for colleges to exist.
Which I think is downright dumb.
WoW!
You are even more dense than I thought.
YOU assert that kids only go to college these days to party, socialize, or for reasons they don't know.
I am asserting that kids (and adults for that matter) go to college to earn a degree (or two) so that they can do something with their lives if that is what they wish to do.
Then you need to learn to read.
In the 50's and 60's a BS student had to take: art theory, music theory, 3years of foreign language, American History, World History, various (4 years worth)English classes etc.
The BA students took Biology for non-science majors and one other science class, plus 1 super easy math class.
Well " a LOT of people" is sure more than SOME, or A FEW.
Don't you THINK?
Get over it. I know women who went to college to meet intelligent, well-connected young men with a promising future and marry one of them.
... they think that you said the only reason these women went to college was to get married to the first potentially rich guy they come across.
I know a fellow FReeper would never want to associate with any person that would be so cold a calculating about entering the bonds of Holy Matrimony, much less admit you know them. So I read the "to" in your original comment to mean "went on to", rather than absentmindedly assume you were a some kind of lowlife scumbag.
So just tell them the obvious and say "I'm sorry I said "to meet intelligent ..." I meant to say "went on to meet intelligent ...". Sorry you people assumed the worst instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt".
Why?
And don't give me that "wasted education" business.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.