odditycollector (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
odditycollector) wrote2005-01-18 03:04 pm
odditycollector) wrote2005-01-18 03:04 pm
Because *everybody* needs a moment of deep, homicidal RAGE
via ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
daegaer:
Why women are poor at science, by Harvard president
...In a lengthy address delivered without notes, Dr Summers offered three explanations for the shortage of women in senior posts in science and engineering, starting with their reluctance to work long hours because of childcare responsibilities....
...A Harvard spokeswoman declined to comment yesterday, or to release the transcript of Dr Summers's remarks. Richard Freeman, who invited the Harvard president to speak at the conference, said Dr Summers's comments were intended to provoke debate, and some women over-reacted....
and, because I'm fair like that, his subsequent attempt at spin, because at no point does it resemble an apology.
Goddammit. You know, there is something seriously wrong with the world when the President of fucking Harvard sounds like my high school guidance councilor (Don't *worry* about the language requirement. You don't have to go to University anyway.).
I've heard rather disturbing things about Harvard before now, but this seriously worries me. I think what pisses me off the most isn't even that they gave an idiot like that the presidency of a university, but that other people are going to *believe* his BS, just because 'Harvard President' has that ring of authority.
If I was attending there right now, I'd put some serious thought into transferring. I wonder how many women who *are* feel the same way.
And no, I don't believe he meant to 'provoke debate' - after *how* many years in an academic setting he should have known that that is NOT how you do it.
So these are the options I can see. If he's serious about not believing his own words, that makes him either a troll, at the same level as someone who posts insults online and then steps back to laugh at the resulting 'furore', or someone way too inept to be running a university.
Or he really *does* believe it and is now backtracking for political reasons.
Guess which option I'm willing to bet on.
*seethes for a few minutes*
And now I'm going back to work on my &*%# cpsc assignment, even though an economist from Harvard believes I may not be biologically predisposed towards that sort of work. Maybe if I calm down later I'll send him a polite letter and some gender studies material and an outline of the proper way to do a sociological experiment, because "My daughter likes to play with dolls" a) says absolutely nothing about the population of little girls as a whole and b) has no bearing on her potential math skills.
Idiot.
daegaer:Why women are poor at science, by Harvard president
...In a lengthy address delivered without notes, Dr Summers offered three explanations for the shortage of women in senior posts in science and engineering, starting with their reluctance to work long hours because of childcare responsibilities....
...A Harvard spokeswoman declined to comment yesterday, or to release the transcript of Dr Summers's remarks. Richard Freeman, who invited the Harvard president to speak at the conference, said Dr Summers's comments were intended to provoke debate, and some women over-reacted....
and, because I'm fair like that, his subsequent attempt at spin, because at no point does it resemble an apology.
Goddammit. You know, there is something seriously wrong with the world when the President of fucking Harvard sounds like my high school guidance councilor (Don't *worry* about the language requirement. You don't have to go to University anyway.).
I've heard rather disturbing things about Harvard before now, but this seriously worries me. I think what pisses me off the most isn't even that they gave an idiot like that the presidency of a university, but that other people are going to *believe* his BS, just because 'Harvard President' has that ring of authority.
If I was attending there right now, I'd put some serious thought into transferring. I wonder how many women who *are* feel the same way.
And no, I don't believe he meant to 'provoke debate' - after *how* many years in an academic setting he should have known that that is NOT how you do it.
So these are the options I can see. If he's serious about not believing his own words, that makes him either a troll, at the same level as someone who posts insults online and then steps back to laugh at the resulting 'furore', or someone way too inept to be running a university.
Or he really *does* believe it and is now backtracking for political reasons.
Guess which option I'm willing to bet on.
*seethes for a few minutes*
And now I'm going back to work on my &*%# cpsc assignment, even though an economist from Harvard believes I may not be biologically predisposed towards that sort of work. Maybe if I calm down later I'll send him a polite letter and some gender studies material and an outline of the proper way to do a sociological experiment, because "My daughter likes to play with dolls" a) says absolutely nothing about the population of little girls as a whole and b) has no bearing on her potential math skills.
Idiot.
no subject
Anyhow, I loved Legos to death and loved math as a kid, but somewhere along the way I lost it (roundabout integral calculus). I think in my case it has more to do with the sort of math my brain works with.
One thing that bugs me about these gender assumptions is that skills which make one good at science == skills which make one good at math -- most people I know in the maths and sciences are significantly better at one than the other, with the exception of physicists. Different mindsets, different skills, and it's amazing how many scientists suck at pure math and how many mathematicians break down when confronted with applied math.
/ramble
no subject
Different mindsets, different skills, and it's amazing how many scientists suck at pure math and how many mathematicians break down when confronted with applied math.
*nods* And compare either math or science people with those in applied science/engineering. Or biologists vs physicists. Or people in different branches of computer science, even. It's difficult to group us all together, although we probably have a lot more in common than, eg, chemists and english majors.
And... I actually don't remember much about toys I played with. Hmm. As well as that repression thing has served me, it kinda gets in the way of drawing conclusions from my childhood.
no subject
1. Statisticians
2. Accountants
3. Abstract mathematicians
4. Scientists/applied mathematicians
5. Engineers
6. People who just hate/can't do math AT ALL.
I fall into 1, 4, and 6, depending on the circumstance. My mother falls into 2, 4, and 5; my father into 3.
although we probably have a lot more in common than, eg, chemists and english majors.
Sometimes! I don't know, really.
As well as that repression thing has served me, it kinda gets in the way of drawing conclusions from my childhood.
See what fun you're missing (http://www.livejournal.com/users/daegaer/317951.html?thread=4339199#t4339199) by not being able to extrapolate your TRUE career path from childhood games?