It's been more than five years when Lawrence Summers shocked hardcore feminists in the U.S. Academia by stating the obvious - namely that the different proportion of women in exact and physical sciences could be related to their biological differences.
Among sensible people, Summers himself would be understood as an amusingly naive feminist who is eager to buy trucks to his daughters. But at Harvard, he was not only failing to be feminist enough but his lack of feminism was even unacceptable.
Now, in 2010, four years after his mostly forced resignation, the New York Times still find it appropriate to attack Summers. A Tamar Lewin wrote an article called
Howard Georgi didn't. He said that having a female president doesn't make a difference but "not having Larry" does. A pretty bad kick into the balls from a person who would pretend to have been Larry's friend and who would play tennis with him.
Despite the stunningly artificial attempts to social-engineer a higher percentage of women in physics, the numbers aren't changing. Georgi admits: “Women who concentrate in the field are happier now,” he added, “but there hasn’t been a dramatic change in the numbers coming in, and that’s a little frustrating and puzzling.”
The airplanes don't land.
Well, I am sure that if someone gets extra tens of thousands of dollars a year for having a vagina, or similar advantages, she may be slightly happier than before. But I wonder whether long years of experimental evidence fail to be enough for Mr Georgi to realize that his opinions about women's innate aptitude could be a pseudoscience, after all. So far he seems more certain about his delusions that an average Muslim fundamentalist.
And that's the memo.
Hat tip: Media Research Center