Posted on 09/24/2002 12:55:07 AM PDT by RogerFGay
Rejecting "Male Science"
Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers Party had some amazing technological achievements. The V-2 rocket was the first man-made object sent into outer space. The autobahn was one of the finest roads ever constructed and the Volkswagen or Peoples Car was one of the best mass produced automobiles ever made. Nazi science built jet airplanes, cruise missiles, and smart bombs.
Were these achievements the consequence of superior ideology? Hardly. Imperial Germany had also been very advanced in science and technology. Zeppelins glided over London, while British biplanes flew far below, unable to touch them. The Unterseeboot or U-Boat almost drove the British to the peace table in 1917. Germans also created such ghastly, but sophisticated, weapons as poison gases.
The ideology of Nazism may have insured German defeat in the Second World War. How? Because Hitler and his henchmen rejected Jewish Science. This did not just mean that many Jewish scientists or scientists with Jewish wives, like Enrico Fermi, left Europe for Britain or America. The Nazis also rejected Jewish Science itself.
So, when the Germans accidentally discovered Tabun nerve gas, later refined into Soman and then Sarin, one of the leading German scientists - a very patriotic German, who loathed Great Britain and longed for a Greater Germany - was rejected by Hitler because of his Jewishness, and Der Fuhrer would not even agree to meet him.
Womenists engage in the same sort of madness. Men have traditionally done very well in higher mathematics, physics, chemistry and a number of other physical sciences. Men, in fact, have produced many more of the greatest minds in these areas than women have.
There is nothing particularly sinister about this. The male and female mind are wired differently. The two sexes think differently and approach problems differently. This is just enough of a distinction so that the vast majority of men and women are not world class thinkers in abstract areas, but the very, very few who are tend to be male.
This has not kept women from also being great physicists, like Madame Curie, and it has not kept women from being great mathematicians (Albert Einsteins first wife was a better mathematician than Albert himself). But overwhelmingly, in those disciplines that require high levels of analytical skill, men are the only people at the very top.
There simply has never been a woman whose accomplishments in those areas of analytic powers and great intuitive leaps equaled Newton, Napier, Galileo, Einstein, Maxwell, Heisenberg or Pythagoras. There have been large numbers of excellent female scientists, doctors, and mathematicians. There have also been large numbers of great female minds, like Beatrix Potter, who meticulously and accurately accumulated a large body of knowledge and accurately categorized the collected knowledge.
There have also been very, very few human beings in history who have made the sorts of vast strides that Pythagoras did when he first saw the projection of abstract principles into the material world, or that Newton did when he noted that a twenty-pound lead ball fell at the same rate as a ten-pound lead ball, or that Einstein did when he saw that space-time itself was a dimension. Nevertheless, men utterly dominate the pinnacles of analytical achievement.
The best chess players in the world have never been female, despite the fact that the best chess in the world has often been a member of some unpopular ethnic group - Jewish, Cuban, German (as a pawn of the Nazis) or Russian (during the Cold War) - and despite the great coup that such a victory would provide Womenists.
The increasingly obvious difference at the highest levels of intellectual achievement between men and women has led Womenists to produce the same sorts of absurd theories that Hitler produced when confronted with the obvious accomplishments of Jewish scientists. Womenists simply call exceptional analysis male science and so unworthy of serious attention.
The ultimate problem for Womenists is that, while those cultures which rejected European education can catch up over time, the difference in the very highest levels of analytical power seems inherent in our maleness of femaleness. Men, who have long understood that the differences between the sexes were a series of tradeoffs with no clear winner or loser, have no problem with this.
Womenists, however, are infected with the same fatal hubris toward women that the Nazis had toward Aryans: women must be superior to men in every way at every level and in every sense. Because reality is so different from this, Womenists have taken the same path as Nazis: descent into pagan worship of partisan deities, which insure the metaphysical victory of their super-race or super-sex. Evil, like history, repeats itself.
Bruce Walker
Bruce Walker writes regular, orginal, weekly columns for Enter Stage Right and Conservative Truth. His articles have also appeared in a variety of print and electronic periodicals, including Christian Science Monitor, Oklahoma Bar Journal, Law and Order, Legal Secretary Today, and The Docket. Bruce also wrote a regular column for several years entitled "Law and You" for The Single Parent, the national journal of Parents Without Partners. His professional career includes five years as Executive Director of the Oklahoma District Attorneys Association, three years as Administrator of the Oklahoma Child Support Enforcement Program, and six years as Managing Attorney of the Tulsa Child Support Office.
I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head, dude... In my field (physics) there's been interminable moaning and groaning about how to attract and keep the chicks in the barn (despite strenuous recruiting efforts, quite a bit of chick attrition at my graduate institution alone)... I having assisted teaching and tutoring a fair number of students of both genders, it is my forthright and unPC opinion that most chicks don't have what it takes to succeed in this field. Better suited for bio, chem, or one a them lesser "sciences"-- less rigid and analytical perhaps, dunno... Flame away, chicks, but I know better than many. Even though I am hardly about to make an earthshaking leap here. ;)
Check the faculty of your local university's "Women's Studies" department, for starters.
Continuing my rant against the feminization of science... Bwahaha... I have alot to say about this but I'll remember it when I get drunker...
Folks b!tch that the hardcore sciences are gender-oriented intrinsically, namely toward men. Well take my field, physics, cause that's what I know-- physics is a man's world. Get over it. If you wanna run with the big boys, grow some big ones.
Have you ever been to a doctoral dissertation defense, a really good one? Or a good physics talk? After you spend an hour or so of droning on and on about ion-induced nonresonant charge transfer or some such dreck, the audience sets in-- and they rip your guts out. They yell and holler and set in on you and each other like a pack of hungry dogs, throwing out ideas and challenges and criticisms. And it's good stuff. What would it be like if the APS Women's Guild ran the show? Nice. Quiet. Polite. Nonconfrontational. Non-memorable. Insipid.
/rant
She was no great scientist; as a student of Antoine Henri Becquerel, her greatest contribution to the discovery of Radium was to stand waist-deep in the peat-muck and shovel it into vessels for analysis, alongside her husband, a scientist in his own right who later died while walking in horse-drawn traffic on the streets of Paris, having been rundown in midstride.
The Prize was awarded to all three, hers as a sop to the feminists of her day.
You're right, if that's the case then it's not that significant, and there's nothing to worry about.
To then use that as a basis to rant about how dumb women are, that seems rather lame to me.
That would be lame. The author did no such thing, though. Where do you get this?
Using your stated assumption (normal dist.), and implicit assumption (the means are equal), the medians are also equal, i.e., "more [>50% of] women are better than the average man" is not correct.
Obviously, there's no way to quantify ability, but I wonder how well the tail of the normal distribution characterizes great genius.
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.