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 ...
No. You need to post with more intellectual honesty.
But not just VALID, the most prevalent too~!
I did not assert that. Nice try.
Sweeping statements? Many people on this thread AGREED with me.
Nope! I try to avoid Julia Roberts. Is it relevant?
So far, the only response I'm getting is, "No, I didn't say that," when it's right there on the dang screen! Gah...
You didn't?
Well then you sure have a "FEW" of us here fooled, or confused.
What WAS your assertion?
How many people to you think go to college for reasons other than parties and socialization?
Yes, I think.
I think that when there are millions of college students, even 5% of the total is a lot of people without being most of them. Which is why I said "a lot" and not "most".
I got a "nice try".
Go figure!
HAHA!! Oh my goodness..
Ok Valerie, if that is how you define "a lot".
How could I possibly know how many? It would be silly for me to ASSERT any such number. It's really silly of you to ask.
Again I ask, who are you to judge such a thing for everyone? Isn't it up to each woman to decide?
Do yourself a favor and change your assertion to "a number of", and that should get you off the hook.
But, it doesn't matter if a WIFE is narrow-minded with no horizons? Most men I know want a wife who is educated, and are proud of that. If your aim is to be a wife, why not go to college to find a husband?
THAT was a blatantly dishonest post of yours.... preach to the mirror.
So then, getting an education and meeting a husband stand as DUAL goals.
But going to college just to meet a husband, is a sole goal.
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.