Solaris

Thank you Anoushik!

Mouse, The thing is that I don't have the patience of the QueBeceR, to reply to all that flow of troubled conscience you'll post here. Wanna believe in nonsense such as that mythical 'genetic difference' affecting women's aptitude to sciences – if that makes you feel good– be my guest. You may also believe in gremlins and leprechauns, I don't mind a bit. In your case, it's not dangerous. It is however dangerous if major universities abound in male chauvinist pigs in decision-making positions, like that a-hole of Larry Summers. Still, it looks like he had to eat the humble pie after all.

That thing he has with the word "equality" is quite unhealthy. It can't really be so hard to understand that "equality" is not an obscure quantitative concept but a well-defined legal, social and political one. Males, even coming from the same country, still have an awful lot of personal differences - let's say one has a talent for music with a very foggy notion of the multiplication table, the other is in science, the third guy grows vegetables and the fourth is an all-around low-life. Their general aptitudes, concrete reactions and overall behavior in everyday life are different. They are different – so following his totally incoherent logic (or rather the lack of it), also unequal. Nevertheless, they are at least nominally "equal" before the law, have "equal" rights and should have "equal" opportunities. The same obtains in the case of women. It looks like almost every user in this thread has tried to explain him this very thing in her/his own way, but to no avail. It's pretty obvious that Mouse sticks to his prejudice and you can't get him with rational arguments. No matter what he claims, if two things are not "equal", one has to be "superior", and this is what it is all about, good ole male chauvinistic gibberish. One may wonder what's the implication of this "established male superiority"? Abolishing universal suffrage? I just don't see what's the point of arguing with him over that, QueBeceR. Let him enjoy his testosterone in peace.

Stick-figures with a penchant for "Stepford mop-heads", as you put it, are apparently unable to discuss such delicate matters and thus tend to turn the thread into something closer to their own concerns. I'm afraid the whole thing is turning into a sterile debate over something that is essentially a non-issue.

I see… I'm a newbie and haven’t had the time to gain such a deep insight into the subtleties of veteran members' relationships… Still, whaz wrong with some female forumers being "prone to that male aggressiveness and lack of femininity" if, as it turns out, that's what the doctor ordered for surviving in a men's world? That's perhaps not the result of a "drop of androgen" but a normal evolutionary development? Apparently gender stereotypes are so deeply embedded in your brain that they make you consider this occurrence of coherent logic in a female as an anomaly caused by some hormonal disorder. I smell something quite like inferiority complex here... And hasn't it occurred to you that it's perhaps you or your discussion techniques that provoke aggressiveness in otherwise innocuous females?

Thanx QueBeceR! BTW, I'm quite impressed by the quality of discussions in this forum. And I really like your signature...

Dusken, In truth it is observed that white men have excelled. Your logic would also suggest that white men excel black or Asian males, "unless it is shown that black or Asian males are equal". The current state of affairs appears to be the corollary of the typical patterns of discrimination, and implies that the most privileged group has excelled most, nothing more and nothing less.

Mouse, Don't believe everything you read. Not every "article" that appears to suit your line of thinking has to make sense. Congenital adrenal hyperplasia/CAH isn't some mysterious condition making women immune from "sexist messages" but a well-known disease affecting both females and males. Severe cases are rare, affecting only one in 14,000 patients, but mild forms of the disease may occur in one of every 100 to 1,000 persons (your article doesn't even have the figures straight). The condition is caused by a deficient synthesis of a hormone called cortisol, and the severity of the condition is determined by the degree of enzyme insufficiency. According to American Family Physician, March 1, 1999 by Michael A. Deaton, John E. Glorioso, David B. Mclean: "The hallmark of congenital adrenal hyperplasia is inadequate production of glucocorticoids. Patients with mild congenital adrenal hyperplasia are frequently unable to mount sufficient stress responses to trauma and infection. Glucocorticoid precursors accumulate in these persons and are converted to androgenic steroids, causing shortened stature, early puberty, severe acne, and virilization and infertility in females. Mineralocorticoid synthesis can also be affected, resulting in electrolyte disturbances, hypotension and syncope. … Even mild congenital adrenal hyperplasia can result in life-threatening sinus or pulmonary infections, orthostatic syncope, shortened stature and severe acne. Women with mild congenital adrenal hyperplasia often present with hirsutism, oligomenorrhea or infertility." I can't see what's the relevance of pointing to a rather nasty disease to prove that women are not "equal". And if you quoted that shallow piece of literature to show that hormones do affect human behaviour, then you're forcing an open door. It's common knowledge that they do. For instance, excess testosterone causes aggressivity - and many overzealous a bodybuilder has gone berserk after pumping the stuff into his ripply arm or round bottom. But that's all about behaviour, not intellect. In the context of your Harvard brouhaha, it can be more about women's ability to elbow their way up to a Dean's job rather than their intellect and aptitude in exact sciences.