thedrifter
01-23-05, 07:43 AM
Horrors! Men and Women Different?
January 20, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Pete Jensen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The latest brouhaha to circulate and titillate the angst of the political correctoids is Harvard President and former Clinton Administration Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers’ suggestion that differing performance in certain subjects between males and females might be because of innate factors, rather than “discrimination and socialization,” and his suggestion that the subject be more closely studied. To compound his sins, he also dared suggest that the shortage of female academics in the upper echelons of science and math might be a product of their choices, rather than because of sexism or discrimination.
My God. How can we have this? Someone needs to just erect the gallows and call for an old fashioned lynching. Alas, alack, ochone, ochone, cry, wail, gnash teeth rend garments, **** and moan, **** and moan. Did I leave anything out? Oh, yeah – grumble, growl, snarl, The Patriarchy. Silly me.
Hey, just want to make sure I don’t leave anything out of the weary old Feminut litany. I’d hate to be accused of misquoting.
I’m tempted to cite chapter and verse as to why Mr. Summers is right. And I will. But you will have to pardon me whilst I rant briefly about the intellectual poison known as political correctness. And, it’s my column, so…
Hey. Get your own gig.
Intellectual poison. The soul of Political Correctness is a blinkered insistence that something is true, because of politics, especially in the face of all reason and evidence to the contrary. It’s not used as an argument, it’s a squelch on any semblance of honesty. Speak with any frankness, or apply any intellectual rigor to the doctrine and dogma of the PPC (Painfully Politically Correct), and one usually winds up with an outcry and Star Chamber over your heresy which makes the Spanish Inquisition look like a kindergarten.
To make matters worse, some matters are just not subject to being mentioned in any way under this mental fascism. Or only mentionable by certain select groups. In any event, rather than civilize discourse, it stifles it, and makes it subject to the whims of obnoxious little tin gods with pinched faces.
Let’s take one case in point, that of the Late Jimmy “The Greek” Snyder. A former oddsmaker, he drew a gig with CBS as a commentator and analyst until he made the fatal mistake of musing over the reason for the dominance of blacks (No – unless you were born in Africa, you ain’t African-Diddley. You’re black, I’m white, and the fact that the real colors are Mocha and Peach are irrelevant. Besides, “mocha” and “peach” are for pussies. Grow a pair.) in sports. He remarked that as slaves, they had been bred for it.
Gents and Ladies – Jimmy the Greek was a hundred percent right. You take any people, put them on the slave boats where only the strong survive; put them in the field where only the strong survive; breed them for endurance, breed them to work faster and more efficiently, and see what you get in a few hundred years. You are going to have big, strong, fast people who can go and go, tirelessly, all the live-long day.
The perfect athlete, in other words.
But we can’t say that – well, you can’t. I will, and defend myself by saying “Prove me wrong.” It’s not that great a leap in intuitive thought. It’s true, but it can’t be said, no matter how true, in polite company because it offends someone’s politics.
There is the problem. Many people, most especially liberals, have based entire philosophies on tenets which are tenuous as best. Knock down a primary premise, and the whole line of specious reasoning comes falling down. “Gays are born that way.” Ignore all the ex-gays. Tell them they don’t exist. Put on the blinders, stick the fingers in the ears, hop up and down, and chant “La-LA-la-la-LA!” Why? Well, because the minute it is shown that there are gays who are most certainly NOT born that way, every argument they make proceeds from that false premise.
Pardon me - Was that the crash of an entire philosophical structure coming down?
It’s correct – but only politically. And you can’t possibly discuss it. Once a discussion begins, pesky details like “facts” start popping up. Damned inconvenient, these facts, eh wot?
We can’t have a discussion of racial epithets, like the word “******.” Everyone starts printing it “n****r” or something to that effect. Or “The “N” Word.” You can’t even say someone is ******dly. (Stingy, if you are a graduate of Publik Skule.) Never mind that it is derived from a totally different language and root.
See? Those darn facts again…
It lends nothing to civility. Once the PC-fest begins, everyone starts playing the “I’m more offended than you!” game. Or, for a real hoot, they get offended on behalf of someone who isn’t offended their damn selves. Or begin squabbling over who has the right to speak this way, or use that word, or address the other subject material. This is civility? More like a couple of old hound dogs fighting over some road-kill.
That’s what I mean by poison. It kills any significant discourse, just like if you or me were to imbibe a tumbler of Chateau Lafite-Rothschilde Strychnine ’55.
And, like a lot of things, Summers made the mistake of not only speaking heresy, but speaking heresy which many are afraid might be true.
Not true? Let’s look at some inconvenient facts. Feminism has had two generations to work its ju-ju. And in fields like science and engineering, women are staying away in droves. Women all over the place are abandoning careers in favor of family. There’s article after article of hand wringing drivel asking, “Why? Oh, WHY?!?!” and it comes to the same conclusion, and interviews the same woman, or it least it seems so, saying “I tried to juggle family and career. I was never satisfied. So I chose to stay home and be a mom.”
Oh, societal pressure. I see.
Instance after instance abounds of women doing fine in the class, in the lab, in theory – and then not achieving in real application.
Not enough mentoring. Put in a position designed to fail. I see.
Many places have done everything short of making such things required for anyone with two X chromosomes, forbidding men from taking the classes, and marching women into the classroom in shackles and chains – and still they don’t take the classes. Not even offered at discounts.
Not enough support. I see.
We can’t consider that women might be good at it, but plain not interested. Hell, I’m good at square dancing, but you couldn’t get me to square dance with a death threat. I’m good at it, but I have no interest in doing it.
It could be that maybe someone needs to look into it, and consider some things beyond the feminist meme that male and female are fungible, and gender is a construct, because those models sure as hell don’t seem to be holding up under any intellectual rigor. Maybe if we did that we could figure out why.
But that’s where we came in here, isn’t it? We know the phenomena is, but we can’t discuss the why. Because the why has already been determined.
Sexism, blah, blah, blah, oppression, blah, blah, blah, pressure, blah, blah, blah, the Patriarchy, ptui!
Our mind is made up. Please do not confuse us with facts unless it supports our conclusion. Heh. Well, I guess it can be said that feminists aren’t good at science. Or linear thinking. But, hey, that’s okay. That’s way too patriarchal anyway.
The sour old hags at NOW and their cronettes are bound and determined to hammer the peg into the hole, no matter how square and round they are respectively. And after years of claiming to speak for all women, a claim that has gone un-contradicted, they just can’t conceive that their choices might not be someone else’s choices. Which leads to yet another question – is the apparent failure of women in these fields due to the fact that some are going in there to displace men, but done with no real passion for the subject matter? Could it be that some are going into fields they really don’t have a love for as a career, and to do it for the sisterhood, and finding out later that it’s not their calling?
I’ve taught before, and can tell you that the greatest motivator for a student is to light a passion to know a subject – it trumps all other factors combined. Take a mediocre student who loves the material, and watch them shine. As a supervisor, I can tell you for a fact the difference in performance between someone who loves their job and a clock puncher is exponential.
Maybe women are just not that into it?
Oh, yeah. Another question we can’t pose. Pardon me. Fifty lashes for the Gonzman with the hanky of Political Correctness.
The only consolation to me in this whole mess is that, as a former Clinton appointee, the Left-Feminist savaging of Lawrence Summers is another case of the political correctoids eating their own. The fact that they refuse to take a stark and honest look inward, do some introspection and brutal self-critique, and try to massage all the numbers to fit in their predefined world-view is the reason they have been getting their butts whipped in elections the past few decades. Nothing like driving the data to an erroneous conclusion, and then proceeding from that bad premise, to be a recipe for failure.
With that in mind, never mind. By all means. Please carry on, as you were.
Anyone got any popcorn? This ought to be most entertaining…
Pete Jensen
Ellie
January 20, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Pete Jensen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The latest brouhaha to circulate and titillate the angst of the political correctoids is Harvard President and former Clinton Administration Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers’ suggestion that differing performance in certain subjects between males and females might be because of innate factors, rather than “discrimination and socialization,” and his suggestion that the subject be more closely studied. To compound his sins, he also dared suggest that the shortage of female academics in the upper echelons of science and math might be a product of their choices, rather than because of sexism or discrimination.
My God. How can we have this? Someone needs to just erect the gallows and call for an old fashioned lynching. Alas, alack, ochone, ochone, cry, wail, gnash teeth rend garments, **** and moan, **** and moan. Did I leave anything out? Oh, yeah – grumble, growl, snarl, The Patriarchy. Silly me.
Hey, just want to make sure I don’t leave anything out of the weary old Feminut litany. I’d hate to be accused of misquoting.
I’m tempted to cite chapter and verse as to why Mr. Summers is right. And I will. But you will have to pardon me whilst I rant briefly about the intellectual poison known as political correctness. And, it’s my column, so…
Hey. Get your own gig.
Intellectual poison. The soul of Political Correctness is a blinkered insistence that something is true, because of politics, especially in the face of all reason and evidence to the contrary. It’s not used as an argument, it’s a squelch on any semblance of honesty. Speak with any frankness, or apply any intellectual rigor to the doctrine and dogma of the PPC (Painfully Politically Correct), and one usually winds up with an outcry and Star Chamber over your heresy which makes the Spanish Inquisition look like a kindergarten.
To make matters worse, some matters are just not subject to being mentioned in any way under this mental fascism. Or only mentionable by certain select groups. In any event, rather than civilize discourse, it stifles it, and makes it subject to the whims of obnoxious little tin gods with pinched faces.
Let’s take one case in point, that of the Late Jimmy “The Greek” Snyder. A former oddsmaker, he drew a gig with CBS as a commentator and analyst until he made the fatal mistake of musing over the reason for the dominance of blacks (No – unless you were born in Africa, you ain’t African-Diddley. You’re black, I’m white, and the fact that the real colors are Mocha and Peach are irrelevant. Besides, “mocha” and “peach” are for pussies. Grow a pair.) in sports. He remarked that as slaves, they had been bred for it.
Gents and Ladies – Jimmy the Greek was a hundred percent right. You take any people, put them on the slave boats where only the strong survive; put them in the field where only the strong survive; breed them for endurance, breed them to work faster and more efficiently, and see what you get in a few hundred years. You are going to have big, strong, fast people who can go and go, tirelessly, all the live-long day.
The perfect athlete, in other words.
But we can’t say that – well, you can’t. I will, and defend myself by saying “Prove me wrong.” It’s not that great a leap in intuitive thought. It’s true, but it can’t be said, no matter how true, in polite company because it offends someone’s politics.
There is the problem. Many people, most especially liberals, have based entire philosophies on tenets which are tenuous as best. Knock down a primary premise, and the whole line of specious reasoning comes falling down. “Gays are born that way.” Ignore all the ex-gays. Tell them they don’t exist. Put on the blinders, stick the fingers in the ears, hop up and down, and chant “La-LA-la-la-LA!” Why? Well, because the minute it is shown that there are gays who are most certainly NOT born that way, every argument they make proceeds from that false premise.
Pardon me - Was that the crash of an entire philosophical structure coming down?
It’s correct – but only politically. And you can’t possibly discuss it. Once a discussion begins, pesky details like “facts” start popping up. Damned inconvenient, these facts, eh wot?
We can’t have a discussion of racial epithets, like the word “******.” Everyone starts printing it “n****r” or something to that effect. Or “The “N” Word.” You can’t even say someone is ******dly. (Stingy, if you are a graduate of Publik Skule.) Never mind that it is derived from a totally different language and root.
See? Those darn facts again…
It lends nothing to civility. Once the PC-fest begins, everyone starts playing the “I’m more offended than you!” game. Or, for a real hoot, they get offended on behalf of someone who isn’t offended their damn selves. Or begin squabbling over who has the right to speak this way, or use that word, or address the other subject material. This is civility? More like a couple of old hound dogs fighting over some road-kill.
That’s what I mean by poison. It kills any significant discourse, just like if you or me were to imbibe a tumbler of Chateau Lafite-Rothschilde Strychnine ’55.
And, like a lot of things, Summers made the mistake of not only speaking heresy, but speaking heresy which many are afraid might be true.
Not true? Let’s look at some inconvenient facts. Feminism has had two generations to work its ju-ju. And in fields like science and engineering, women are staying away in droves. Women all over the place are abandoning careers in favor of family. There’s article after article of hand wringing drivel asking, “Why? Oh, WHY?!?!” and it comes to the same conclusion, and interviews the same woman, or it least it seems so, saying “I tried to juggle family and career. I was never satisfied. So I chose to stay home and be a mom.”
Oh, societal pressure. I see.
Instance after instance abounds of women doing fine in the class, in the lab, in theory – and then not achieving in real application.
Not enough mentoring. Put in a position designed to fail. I see.
Many places have done everything short of making such things required for anyone with two X chromosomes, forbidding men from taking the classes, and marching women into the classroom in shackles and chains – and still they don’t take the classes. Not even offered at discounts.
Not enough support. I see.
We can’t consider that women might be good at it, but plain not interested. Hell, I’m good at square dancing, but you couldn’t get me to square dance with a death threat. I’m good at it, but I have no interest in doing it.
It could be that maybe someone needs to look into it, and consider some things beyond the feminist meme that male and female are fungible, and gender is a construct, because those models sure as hell don’t seem to be holding up under any intellectual rigor. Maybe if we did that we could figure out why.
But that’s where we came in here, isn’t it? We know the phenomena is, but we can’t discuss the why. Because the why has already been determined.
Sexism, blah, blah, blah, oppression, blah, blah, blah, pressure, blah, blah, blah, the Patriarchy, ptui!
Our mind is made up. Please do not confuse us with facts unless it supports our conclusion. Heh. Well, I guess it can be said that feminists aren’t good at science. Or linear thinking. But, hey, that’s okay. That’s way too patriarchal anyway.
The sour old hags at NOW and their cronettes are bound and determined to hammer the peg into the hole, no matter how square and round they are respectively. And after years of claiming to speak for all women, a claim that has gone un-contradicted, they just can’t conceive that their choices might not be someone else’s choices. Which leads to yet another question – is the apparent failure of women in these fields due to the fact that some are going in there to displace men, but done with no real passion for the subject matter? Could it be that some are going into fields they really don’t have a love for as a career, and to do it for the sisterhood, and finding out later that it’s not their calling?
I’ve taught before, and can tell you that the greatest motivator for a student is to light a passion to know a subject – it trumps all other factors combined. Take a mediocre student who loves the material, and watch them shine. As a supervisor, I can tell you for a fact the difference in performance between someone who loves their job and a clock puncher is exponential.
Maybe women are just not that into it?
Oh, yeah. Another question we can’t pose. Pardon me. Fifty lashes for the Gonzman with the hanky of Political Correctness.
The only consolation to me in this whole mess is that, as a former Clinton appointee, the Left-Feminist savaging of Lawrence Summers is another case of the political correctoids eating their own. The fact that they refuse to take a stark and honest look inward, do some introspection and brutal self-critique, and try to massage all the numbers to fit in their predefined world-view is the reason they have been getting their butts whipped in elections the past few decades. Nothing like driving the data to an erroneous conclusion, and then proceeding from that bad premise, to be a recipe for failure.
With that in mind, never mind. By all means. Please carry on, as you were.
Anyone got any popcorn? This ought to be most entertaining…
Pete Jensen
Ellie