Archive for the Sexist pigs Category

Lawrence Summers resigns!

Posted in Sexist pigs on February 23, 2006 by Blog Admin

<p><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000">A bit over a year since his inflammatory remarks about women's possible innate lack of ability in mathematics and science, </font><a href=""><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000">Lawrence Summers</font></a><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"> </font><a href=""><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000">announces his resignation as President of Harvard University</font></a><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000">.   The fact that these remarks were made at a conference that focused on increasing women's and girls' participation in these areas, simply made the remarks that much more outrageous and damaging.  Though Summers' sexism is outrageous, let us not forget that Lawrence Summers began his bigoted behavior by hassling </font><a href=""><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000">Cornel West</font></a><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000">, </font><a href=""><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000">causing the prestigious African-American studies scholar move from Harvard to Princeton</font></a><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000">.  </font></p><p><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000">Women who work in traditionally male fields like many sciences and technology are subjected to enough hostility and doubt.  We don't need a university president proclaiming his bigoted views.  I belong to an email list for women in technology called </font><a href=""><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000">Systers</font></a><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000">, started by </font><a href=""><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000">Anita Borg</font></a><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"> in 1987.  One woman who wrote a message on the list was one of six <a href="">original people who programmed the ENIAC</a>.  What her professional life must have been like!  I can't begin to extrapolate from my experience the insults and injustices that she must have experienced.  Here's to all the science and tech women who persevere to pave the way for our future Systers!</font></p>

Despite "No Confidence" vote, Lawrence Summers will stay.

Posted in Sexist pigs on March 16, 2005 by Blog Admin

<p>Gee Lawrence, what will it take to show you the door?  Given your poor track record for tenuring women, and your publicly expressed belief that women are innately less suited to science and math fields, it seems that you might be a bit of a liability.  Have you checked the gender <a href="">breakdown of undergraduate enrolments in biology and environmental sciences lately</a>, or are they not a &quot;real&quot; sciences in your book?  <font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #333333" color="#ffffff">Bravo to the faculty of Harvard for </font><a href=""><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #333333" color="#0099ff">voting no-confidence 218 to 185</font></a><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #333333" color="#ffffff">.  Do future undergraduate women a favor, and step down.  What kind of message are you sending them?  How many future Barbarba McClintocks and Jane Goodalls will never emerge because of you? So, as many Harvard students sang yesterday, &quot;Na na na na, hey hey Good bye&quot; Lawrence!</font></p>

ABC News suggests that Lawrence Summers is justified

Posted in Sexist pigs on March 2, 2005 by Blog Admin

<p align="left">On the <a href="">ABC Evening News yesterday (March 1, 2005)</a> Peter Jennings indicated that Lawrence Summers is justified in suggesting that biological differences are a significant reason why women are underrepresented in engineering, mathematics, and science.  </p><p align="left">Historically, science has pointed to various physical differences in women to &quot;explain&quot; their inferiority, especially in the realm of intelligence.  <a href="">According to the NY Times, &quot;A century ago, the French scientist Gustav Le Bon pointed to the smaller brains of women - closer in size to gorillas', he said - and said that explained the &quot;fickleness, inconstancy, absence of thought and logic, and incapacity to reason&quot; in women.</a>&quot;</p><p align="left">There are clear biological differences between men and women, which applies to our brains as well.  I think it begs the question that one brain structure should be superior to the other.  Scientific paradigms tend to favor male (atomistic/positivistic) thinking and discriminate against female (contextual and interconnected) thinking styles.  Shouldn't quality problem solving involve multiple thinking strategies and paradigms?  <a href="">&quot;The Gendered Atom&quot;</a> does a nice job of explaining how science has been biased against women, and does not adequately represent the complex interconnected reality of science.</p><p align="left">Despite the brain research that currently exists, I think it is inexcusable to suggest that women are not cut-out to be scientists or anything else for that matter.  It's time to retire Summers!</p>

Summers is criticized by other university presidents

Posted in Sexist pigs on February 15, 2005 by Blog Admin

<p>In their recent editorial, &quot;<a href="">Women and science: the real issue</a>&quot; John Hennessey, computer scientist and president of Stanford University,  Susan Hockfield neuroscientist and president of MIT, and Shirley Tilghman molecular geneticist and president of Princeton University criticized <a href="">Lawrence Summers sexist remarks</a> at a conference titled, &quot;Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce: Women, Underrepresented Minorities and their S. and E. careers&quot;.</p><p>Given the long-history of discriminatory treatment of women scientists, male-oriented research paradigms as chronicled brilliantly in &quot;<a href="">The Gendered Atom</a>&quot;, I guess it's easier to blame the victim and be done with it.  </p>

"Math is hard", Barbie

Posted in Sexist pigs on January 20, 2005 by Blog Admin

<p>Here we go again!  Derrick Jackson summarizes Harvard President, <font color="#ffff00">Lawrence Summers</font>'s recent bungling in his <a href="">Boston Globe editorial</a>.  Summers suggests that under representation of women in science and engineering may be due to women's innate lack of ability or willingness to work hard. Gee, I wonder why Harvard has so few tenured women professors!?  Can you say &quot;class action law suit&quot;?  I am a professor in computer science and information technology at a small university, and I am frustrated by how few women attempt to major in either discipline.  I understand the social dynamics that steer women to other majors.  Despite these influences some sciences have made spectacular advances, like the biological sciences.  There is a significant research suggesting how we as teachers can make our disciplines more appealing to women.  For computer science, may I suggest:  <a href="">&quot;Unlocking the Clubhouse, Women in Computing&quot;</a> by Jane Margolis and Allan Fisher, which documents Carnegie Mellon's increase in women's enrollment.  CMU went from 8%  women in 1995 to 42% women in 2000.  Brilliant!</p>