<p>Summers wasn't making his opinion heard, he was proposing a possible reason for the achievement gap, which makes everyone getting on his back for it even more ridiculous.</p>
<p>i am going to have so much fun arguing for 4 years
blind PC-ness is so ludicrous and gratifying to demolish</p>
<p>yes we'll do it together. </p>
<p>im also gonna sign up for the most PC feminist class i can find.</p>
<p>"WOMAN MAKE ME DINNER!" will be a hot phrase and maybe i will find both of the chauvinists at Brown.</p>
<p>some advise from a fellow brunonian--
you would do well to remember an important distinction: what is irrititating about "pc-ness" is the knee-jerk, reactionary nature by which such opinions ensue--not the opinions in and of themselves. </p>
<p>what's ironic, however, is that you guys seem to have similarly knee-jerk reactions against opinions which you deem politically correct.</p>
<p>case in point: BullMooseandSqrl doesn't even know what feminism is, yet he automicatically labels the very notion of feminism "pc" and fantasizes about voicing antiquated gender roles in his classes. </p>
<p>just to let you know, when you ask the intelligent women in your Brown class to make you dinner, and they are offended, it will hardly be because they are "sissies" or "whiny whores". it will behoove you to examine the reason why they are offended--the history that belies their sensistivity. this applies to any expression of offense, whether it is to Larry Summer's comments, or any of the numerous controversies you are likely to experience during your four years.</p>
<p>you might not always agree with the next person's politics, but at least this way you can truly recognize when an opinion is reactionary and when it is warranted.</p>
<p>So if feminisnm isn't PC, then why can't I go around and say I am a masculinist? Imagine the response to that one....</p>
<p>Case in point: dcircle has no idea how we treat women or what roles we expect of them, yet he automatically labels the very notion of calling feminism PC a "knee-jerk" reaction and fantasizes about stereotyping all those who disagree with him into dumb bigots.</p>
<p>i know what feminism is dcircle. If someone truly gets offended when i tell them to go make me dinner, that person obviously hasnt experienced anything offensive in real life. I hate to put down your noble pursuit of an egalitarian society or whatever bull ideas youre thinking, but if what some stupid comment i say offends someone, then that person has deep deep issues that do not have anything to do with gender roles in society. </p>
<p>Life would be a lot more fun without people constantly, whining and complaining that what some idiot said offends them. I have no respect for peope who constantly whine and blame everyone for everything. Oh and coincidentally about 90% of all feminists fit this category.</p>
<p>And i dont generalize, like i said 1 in 10 feminists is a decent person. I do not have a problem with all two of their actually important ideas - men getting paid more than women for the SAME labor and reasonable abortion laws.</p>
<p>About everything else in the feminist agenda relies on the notion that men are pigs, they put down women, as they have for thousands of years and ... GIRLPOWER!</p>
<p>Of course it doesnt matter that gender roles in society have been evolving for thousands of years and have been essential to the development of the society as we know it. In fact much of the problems that children get blamed for by their parents in this country including drugs, sex, high dropout rates stem from lack of proper parental care and love. Instead of working to get that 4th car, maybe you can take a day or two off to talk with your kids so he doesn't turn out to be f-ed up. This is both the role of the father and the mother, but common sense, and lots of research, can agree with me that NOTHING is more important than having a caring mother for humans and animals as well. Feminism is directly responsible for causing most of the aforementioned problems as it encourages women to seek new roles that are not beneficial to anyone. </p>
<p>Thats me not using my personal opinion and being purely rational.</p>
<p>In my PERSONAL opinion, a majority (note i did not say ALL) of feminisists either can not get men, are homosexual or do not like children. </p>
<p>I am a liberal by the way</p>
<p>and if we get back to topic, id like to point out that, as you can see through this conversation, there are people at brown who are not obsessed with PC.</p>
<p>GH, i don't think of you as dumb bigot or think much at all about they way you treat women--though i'm flattered by your concern. if you want to call yourself a masculinist you just go right on ahead... </p>
<p>of course i'm not sure what you mean by that. you know that feminism doesn't proclaim or promote female superiority, right? it is a far reaching umbrella that encompasses an examination of feminity in various social, political, and historical contexts. in many of those contexts, females have been marginalized and as a result there are many feminists who'd like to see a little more gender equality. more activist feminists may actually challenge the status quo. but not all. others are hunky dory with the way things are.</p>
<p>so, in fact, equating feminism with political correctness is actually a knee-jerk assumption. assuming that is illegitimate on those grounds, wanting to say "WOMAN MAKE ME DINNER!" in a feminist theory class, and calling those offended "sissies" or "whiny whores", are all equivalently knee-jerk.</p>
<p>incidentally, feminism (or "women's studies" as it has been reclaimed by academia) is no different from ethnic studies, african american studies, queer studies, or any other off-shoot of anthropology that focuses on marginalized people. i'm disappointed in you GH. as a Brown student, i'd expect you to be broadly and liberally educated enough to know that.</p>
<p>well not all Brown students are as smart as you are dcircle.</p>
<p>what you are saying about the ethnic studies is partially true, however i do not know any such groups or followings that so adamantly blame their problems on another group that they do not include. How many african americans do you know that will openly complain to you that white people are holding them back? Not to mention that except for abortion and wages, women have virtually no real problems (im sorry nature made their bodies different and gave them the cursed ability to create babies), while the black community is affected negatively on every socioeconomic level. Women have rarely been opressed by any civilized society, comparing their treatment to african american discrimination, which is essentially what you are doing, is stupid.</p>
<p>seeking more gender equality than we already have is damaging since we are going to a place where no distinction is made between the sexes. For a healthy society to work, there need be distinctions; creating equality where it naturally does not exist will never work.</p>
<p>abortion laws are decent, educational opportunities equal, title IX is so sufficient it hurts male sports (like it or not, the only ones that are at all fun to watch), voting rights are equal, ...what more is there? Let's make women bigger and stronger because its unfair that they are physically weaker than men!</p>
<p>Whoa, BullMoose, I am adamantly opposed to excessive PC-ness, but I am also opposed to the other extreme you represent: obnoxion. </p>
<p>"...women have virtually no real problems ..."</p>
<p>Huh? w t f? The modern Western World has been built upon the dominance and authority of men. The 20th century saw many advances in women's rights and opportunities. However, there is still a patently demonstrated glass ceiling of access for women in many areas, as Dr. Summers (I thought) appropriately conveyed.</p>
<p>Yes, gratuitous political correctness is bunk, but its opposite is arguably worse. Hyper-PC liberalism at its worst tiptoes around everyone's feelings and every complaint so that evertone can have an excuse for failure. They magnify the chips we all can find on our shoulders if we contrive enough PC tripe. Nevertheless, inequalities still exist to hold people back, and simplistic ignorance of these obstacles is unacceptable. The truth is probably somewhere in between PC-mania and your coarse brashness.</p>
<p>I was just being facetious.</p>
<p>haha that's called my anti-feminist rant.
is there anything seriously wrong with the western world having been built upon the dominance and authority of men?
i dont wanna sound close-minded but thats not anyone's fault, thats a consequence of nature taking its toll for thousands of years... we are not a billion times more advanced now than we were 200 years ago, why are we trying to change standarts and roles that have worked for tens of thousands of years. I have said on numerous occasions that there are a couple of issues that need be addressed, but radical changes in gender roles are not, in my personal opinion, the right thing to do until robots can raise our children. And i am not implying that women should just make and raise babies, however their essential role in the future generations cannot be ignored and should not be eliminated, something that feminism promotes.</p>
<p>BullMooseandSqrl, at some point during college you'll realize that you can't just find an orifice to pull words out of and then start using them.</p>
<p>this isn't so much a matter of being "smart" as being aware. </p>
<p>so in an effort to help you out before you get to Brown, i suggest you do the following</p>
<p>1) type "feminist theory" into google and click the search button--else, don't plan on using the word "feminism" in an academic discussion.
feminism does not preclude women from having babies, raising them, or otherwise being maternal. just because saying so gives you an argument, doesn't make it true.</p>
<p>2) pick up a history book. suffrage, roe v. wade, and other rights of women that our country protects were brought about against incredible resistance, mostly from folks like you with tautological arguments like "why are we trying to change...what has worked for tens of thousands of years"</p>
<p>3) talk to some women (though in your case, i can understand why you might have limited experience with this). women do not enjoy the same benefits from society as men by most socioeconomic markers. women, as a population, have lower incomes, less access to healthcare, less representation in government and administration, less opporunity to be all that they can be. </p>
<p>do you actually think it is right that a woman has to try harder to be an orthapedic surgeon than a man does? is more likely to be a victim of physical and sexual abuse? do you think society has an obligation to do something about this?</p>
<p>grow up, dude.</p>
<p>dcircle: Why don't you substantiate your rhetoric with fact and show us your example of where today, between 2 employees for the exact same positions nationally the salary being offered to the women is lower than the salary being offered to the men solely because of gender. And while you're at it, which women exactly are receiving less representation in government...because of their gender?</p>
<p>To be a complete cliche here, I'm going to quote Ani DiFranco at a recent concert, paraphrasing from her "Grand Canyon" poem:</p>
<p>"I mean...why can't every decent man and woman call themselves a feminist
[hmmm...the belief in the social, political, and economic equality of men and women da da da da da...am I missing something here?!?!]
how about...just out of respect, for those who fought for this?"</p>
<p>I mean, what the ****? I hate how even much of the "progressive" left wing has taken on Rush Limbaugh's feminazi propaganda in order to discredit women who seek equality as being whining, ugly, manhating, unshaved dykes. Christ, guys, as long as we still live in a patriarchal society where women live in constant fear of rape and harrassment, make less money for (oftentimes) harder work, and all the other institutionalized and cultural disadvantages that women face, I'm going to call myself a feminist and hope all other reasonable people do as well.</p>
<p>And of course men face disadvantages as well, and I completely acknowledge that and would hate for someone to call me a man hater or something else ridiculous that any woman who expresses sentiments about desiring real equality must face.</p>
<p>If you don't think women should be offended by "go make me dinner," then I guess you think it's perfectly benign to tell a black person to "go pick some cotton."</p>
<p>sure thing lawyerdad, glad to see your interest</p>
<p>first off, a single employer can't offer two different salaries for the exact same position, based upon gender. that would be illegal. (you're a lawyer, right?)</p>
<p>however, women continue to make less on average for similar positions than men across a cohort of employers--you look at a market as a whole</p>
<p>these review articles might help you bone up:</p>
<p><a href="http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.63?journalCode=soc%5B/url%5D">http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.63?journalCode=soc</a>
<a href="http://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/jeclit/v30y1992i3p1333-81.html%5B/url%5D">http://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/jeclit/v30y1992i3p1333-81.html</a>
<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10048835&dopt=Citation%5B/url%5D">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10048835&dopt=Citation</a>
<a href="http://ideas.repec.org/a/ier/iecrev/v14y1973i3p693-709.html%5B/url%5D">http://ideas.repec.org/a/ier/iecrev/v14y1973i3p693-709.html</a></p>
<p>secondly, women represent a much smaller portion of elected officials and non-governmental administrators relative to population size, as compared to men.</p>
<p>the evidence for this is empirical but here's an academic perspective from Brown's own Jennifer Lawless for good measure:</p>
<p>Dcircle: No facts, exactly as I suspected. Arguing by anectdote and self-serving sets of statistics is very popular in academia, although useless and pointless to anyone in the real world. Time to take your head out of the kool-aid bowl. Your student loans are about to become due.</p>
<p>1) how do you suppose people argue outside of academia? what would you have liked to see instead?</p>
<p>it is the scope of academia that is often out of touch with reality, not its methods. in fact, these methods generate studies that are the basis of all of our socioeconomic policy. what you really ought to be doing is disagreeing with the analysis.</p>
<p>2) if the papers i cited are self-serving, can you contradict their findings? it's a bit hypocritical to critize my facts without presenting any of your own. </p>
<p>i think you can do better than questioning the practicality of what i'm studying and lecturing me about my loans.</p>
<p>dcircle: It won't help to attempt to change the subject. Junk science is just that: junk, as is junk environmentalism and, yes, junk genderism even when you brown your nose enough to garner an "A" in the class. There is no arguing fact. That's why you failed to produce any examples you claimed had existed. You may try advancing your assertions in China and southern Asia or in most of the nations comprising Africa, you know, those ultra fair, advanced and modern societies that really know how to treat women, the places I'm sure you'd prefer to live. Let's see how far you get before mysteriously "disappearing" off the face of the Earth. All for the cause, right?</p>