PC is Anti-Though.

[GunCrave]

In early 2005 Harvard President Lawrence Summers put forth an idea the left-wingers on the campus didn't like. During some sort of conference someone asked Summers why males seemed to be such a supreme majority in mathematical fields of science. Summers, who had the audacity to, not even assume, but put forth the idea that there might be an innate difference between the two sexes when it comes to mathematical aptitude. He suggested a study should be done to further confirm this difference. Upon hearing this indignity to equality, Nancy Hopkins, a self-proclaimed feminist(fat, ugly dyke) raised an uproar to have Summers' head on a platter and he be dismissed as the lead administrator at Harvard. On several occasions Summers apologized not once. Not twice, but at least fifteen times for his mere utterance. This still wasn't enough for the equality-zealots on the Harvard campus and he eventually resigned his job.

This is something I've wondered myself. They're seems to be an academic difference between men and women. Women, who appear to be much more proficient at language, while men dominate fields of math. I understand they're women who are good at math and men who are excellent at grammar, but haven't any of you noticed the difference? Even if you find this suggestion by Summers offensive isn't college the place where thoughts and ideas can be exchanged freely: without fear of redicule? It's fucking rediculous how progressively PC the top universities have become that if you go against the typical left wing mandate of thought, and say something they don't like they'll seek to destroy you. It's not just Harvard, but many other colleges have this problem.

[FightingForFreedom]

GunCrave, for once I mostly agree with you - which is odd because I never agree with you. I don't understand what the guy did wrong. Someone should do a study like that. Actually several people have (Nation Public Radio and American Psychology Association).

Is it possible that because both genders have differently programmed brains that their strengths and weaknesses might differ? I mean I don't think anyone would argue that men are physically stronger than women. Is that offensive?

[GunCrave]

Even if it was proven that one sex is superior in one field of acamdeia it wouldn't mean they're overall superior. This would let us know how both sexes' brains vary and how micro-evolution may have affected the two.

On a side note: damn I'm incompetent. I got the title wrong. It should be "PC is Anti-Thought."

yes yes, I fail at life.

[SolInvictus]

is it that ridiculous and inappropriate to think that men and women aren't exactly alike?

[GunCrave]

At 5/27/06 11:35 PM, shi_huangdi wrote: is it that ridiculous and inappropriate to think that men and women aren't exactly alike?

You need to understand something about most college campuses. They're absolutely dominated by the most radical aspects of liberalism. The only way you'll get very far is if you agree with everything in the left-wing agenda. This includes thinking there is no difference between girls and boys. If you dare challenge their agenda you better be ready for a hell- storm.

[theburningliberal]

At 5/27/06 11:35 PM, shi_huangdi wrote: is it that ridiculous and inappropriate to think that men and women aren't exactly alike?

In a society that has Title IX, yes.

Although I do agree, it is bullshit.

I saw a comedy special by George Carlin (I think). Funniest thing ever, he was talking about political correctness. I'll see if I can find the quotes, but he was essentially mocking all the PC bullshit.

[bakem0n0]

The problem with poitical correctness is that there is no feasible and fair way to put it into action. It requires a strong dose of "common sense"--something that is at least as oxymoronic as "politically correct"--in order for it to work. I agree that men and women should have equal rights, but to say that pointing out relitive strengths is offensive is asinine.
Anyone with a basic understanding of biology knows that the sexes aren't identical. Consequentially, each is better at certain things: Men tend to be stronger, but really suck at the whole bearing children thing, for example. To point out these differences is not inherently offensive, though in certain context it could easily be so.
For this man to end up losing his job for pointing this out is a blow to my faith in humanity.

[Kenzu]

this shows how dangerous feminism is.

I personally don't know one single feminist, who is a nice woman/girl.
They preach equality, but treat men like dirt.

[HighlyIllogical]

It's an interesting point. Yes, I would think that there are inherent differences between men and women, even how our brains are wired.

[LordDarlington]

See this is where I get annoyed.

Maybe I'm not a "true" liberal - the definition is purely subjective I guess. In my opinion this isn't a "liberal" agenda but a feminist one. The problem is that women aren't just seeking equal rights anymore. They've already achieved that. Now the feminist agenda seeks to establish females as the superior sex. It's the same problem with all "x rights" movements. They constantly babble about how all males are pigs and chauvanists but GOD FORBID there's any difference between them they all start their menstrual cycles and go on rampages.

It's fucking irritating... and stupid.

[GunCrave]

I never thought this thread's premise would get such bipartisan support. Heh

[HighlyIllogical]

At 5/28/06 02:57 PM, GunCrave wrote: I never thought this thread's premise would get such bipartisan support. Heh

Considering that PC affects white males disproportionately, you shouldn't be surprised.

But anyway:

I consider myself pro-feminist, but when feminism becomes anti-masculinist, then it's bad. Double standards exist far too often.

[Penal-Disturbance]

$2 says there's a heck of a lot more to this story than is being told. Some feminists can be extreme, but this is just unrealistic. Most of the "PC" problems with feminism are because of dumbasses who are scared of feminists and have no idea to approach the idea of equal rights. PC sometimes helps protects younger generations from being warped into certain mindsets, so in some cases it's important. Britian wouldn't be as socially progressive as it is now if it wasn't for organisations like the ITC.

[fli]

His study doesn't take in account the variables.

For example, why are most politicians usually WASPs? Are presidents usually White men because there's an inate trait in them?

People could make a quick hypothesis and a thorough research and come to the conclusion that White men are more apt to take on Presidential jobs.

But that would be ignoring other variables such as the fact that most of these presidents come from well to do families (more than "well to do" infact...) and other things like that.

While there maybe differences between men and women, saying that women are less equppied to study math because they're not as capable to men is indeed sexist and such as study is INHERENTLY flawed.

I am amazed a professor, of all people, could make such an error of not taking in variables such as society pushes men into these fields more often than women. I'm sure there are a whole lot more variables.

And all of you could just bitch and hissyfit about feminism, and how right this professor was.

Well,
I read his report and while the man does do a good job at not using scientific bias, he simply can't control the variables. After all, the many important contributions in mathematics and sciences have been made by women such as Marie Curies-- which disproves his works.

Bah--
You guys are such bitchers and moaners. Grow some balls--