tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348439.post4747141956386159025..comments2008-11-11T18:18:01.656-07:00Libran Loverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08385670064264356313noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348439.post-47945759534169331582008-11-11T18:18:00.000-07:002008-11-11T18:18:00.000-07:00Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>I don't think Larry Summers ignored all the other factors which might come in the way of women succeeding in certain fields. He talked about innate ability as being one of the possible factors. Also, as far as I know, he never CONCLUDED that innate ability between the genders is indeed a differentiating factor for success. In fact, he did not even conclude that there is a difference in innate ability. He only seemed to be speculating aloud.<BR/><BR/>I am also not sure about Larry Summers having a history of discrimination against women. The article I have linked above states the total opposite. Having gone through all that noise after his remarks at Harvard, I doubt that Larry Summers would continue to discriminate, even if he did in the past. He'd be extra careful not to discriminate cuz countless eyes watch his every move now.<BR/><BR/>Having said all that, I do agree with your point that the selection of Larry Summers sends the wrong message. Also, the rest of Obama's economic team is worrying - many of them are from the same old guard, players who have always been part of the current economic setup, who contributed to and profited from such a setup. I don't have a lot of confidence that they will bring about any revolutionary change. Perhaps, they will only stabilize the economy to a certain extent. Perhaps, that's all Obama can do for the economy. Perhaps, that is all the talent pool he had to choose from...<BR/><BR/>LLLibran Loverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08385670064264356313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348439.post-41551670496988395002008-11-10T23:06:00.000-07:002008-11-10T23:06:00.000-07:00"larry summers is said to have a history of discriminating against women. he is reported to have not done anything about issues like pay parity etc. when he was treasury secretary.<BR/><BR/>what larry summers said previously is wrong on so many levels. it totally ignores and denies gender barriers and says women dont succeed in maths and science purely because they cant.<BR/><BR/>no conclusive evidence has been found and no theories formulated by neuroscientists and others researchign the differences between genders that women dont have it in them to be successful in maths and science.<BR/><BR/>obama;s choice of summers is questionable because<BR/><BR/>1. having biased people in top office has the cascading effect on hiring women into top positions, economic policies for owmen.<BR/>2. it can also slowly adn insidiously color the opinions and therefore policies and culture of the white house. this will have a long term negative effect on future generations of girls who got all excited about a woman president and breakign the glass ceiling.<BR/>3.people wonder whether obama is going to hire more candidates with poor attitudes towards people. governments should not have people with negative attitudes towards people in its top offices. they will reverse the efforts of people who fought discrimination in the past.<BR/><BR/>to all those defending summers on this thread, what if that statement was made about the innate abilities of a particular race? is gender discrimination okay but racial not? why is obama, someone who fought centuries of discrimination considering someone who has a history of gender discrimination? "<BR/><BR/>from a forum post.<BR/><BR/>as for the analogy. well, its an inadequate one. in sports, there are different standards for women and men. for e.g., you will ahve to win 3 sets in a game of tennis if you are a man and 2 if you are a woman to win the match.<BR/><BR/>the issue discussed is not whether a woman can play 3 sets and win with a man but if the same oppportunities and safe environment are being given to women to succeed as much as they are to men. to say women dont succeed because they were made to fail is neither statistical nor scientific nor objective nor open-minded nor non-discriminatory nor expansive in vision and thinking ability. <BR/><BR/>i think i will stop here and not argue any more.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348439.post-82301108205051131422008-11-10T10:25:00.000-07:002008-11-10T10:25:00.000-07:00Well said!<BR/><BR/>How was NYC?ZenDenizenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14005775186817411944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348439.post-78865431431934167922008-11-10T06:18:00.000-07:002008-11-10T06:18:00.000-07:00anonymous,<BR/><BR/>I recognize a teachable moment here! :-)<BR/><BR/>Check this article, which is a first-hand account of a woman who has worked closely with Larry Summers: <A HREF="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheryl-sandberg/what-larry-summers-has-do_b_142126.html" REL="nofollow">Larry Summers' True Record on Women</A><BR/><BR/>Quote from the article: <I>Many people note that our nation has few economists with his intelligence. They should also know that we have few leaders, if any, in the financial world who have done more for women.</I><BR/><BR/>Unfortunately for us, Larry's supposed sexist remarks were never recorded. So, we don't have an exact copy of his words and the context in which they were said. However, from various sources I have gathered this:<BR/><BR/>1. Larry did not go right out and claim that men are more intelligent than women.<BR/><BR/>2. Larry mentioned that there is greater variability in the performance of men as compared to women, in Math and Science. Variability is the key word here. It means that there are more men at both the lowest and the highest levels of performance in these fields. This is a true, verifiable statistical fact.<BR/><BR/>3. Larry wondered aloud about the causes for such variability, and one of the reasons he considered was the differences in 'innate ability'.<BR/><BR/>4. Larry DID NOT CONCLUDE that differences in innate ability causes more men than women to be high achievers in Math and Science. In fact, he mentioned that more study is required in this area.<BR/><BR/>Scientific inquiry demands that we consider all explanations and possibilities objectively, no matter how unpleasant or unfair they may seem. In my opinion, that is what Larry Summers was doing.<BR/><BR/>If you are still not convinced, consider this analogy: Sports in which both men and women participate, such as running or swimming. It is true that in these sports, at the highest record-breaking levels of achievement, you will find more men. Women are simply not as fast runners or as fast swimmers as men. No doubt, there are countless women all over the world who can beat me in running and swimming. No doubt, these women could beat a lot of other men as well. But the statement about high achievers in this field remains true - there are more men there than women. Now, if I were to wonder aloud if this is because men are physically stronger than women (innate ability), would you call me sexist?<BR/><BR/>LLLibran Loverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08385670064264356313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348439.post-28202570606098555612008-11-09T23:35:00.000-07:002008-11-09T23:35:00.000-07:00yeah. and he is considering larry summers for cabinet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348439.post-43881344161272541472008-11-09T14:26:00.000-07:002008-11-09T14:26:00.000-07:00Focussed if you're keen on Britspeak :)<BR/>SAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348439.post-3716074466670782112008-11-07T23:11:00.000-07:002008-11-07T23:11:00.000-07:00And here's what I learnt when writing this post: <A HREF="http://www.future-perfect.co.uk/grammartips/grammar-tip-focussed-focused.asp" REL="nofollow">Is it focussed or focused?</A>Libran Loverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08385670064264356313noreply@blogger.com