Video: Sotomayor explains how men subconsciously discriminate
posted at 4:05 pm on June 19, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Greg Hengler has this interesting but relatively unsurprising clip of Sonia Sotomayor explaining in 1986 the difficulties women face in male-dominated professions, such as the law, as Sotomayor claimed on Good Morning America. The clip comes from a round-table discussion by successful women on the hurdles they faced in succeeding in a man’s world. Mostly, it’s standard boilerplate, except curiously for Sotomayor’s complaint about dating:
Honestly, I don’t find her description of the mechanism of bias all that surprising or objectionable. Certainly, people internalize their own experiences and rely on them when making subjective decisions on hiring and promotion; in a more positive context, it’s called instinct, and any good hiring manager has to rely on it. In 1986, I’d agree that the women’s movement had yet to overcome that built-in bias in hiring and promotions, but that’s changed in the last 23 years as women moved upwards. “Images of success” are as female as male now, and as ethnically diverse, too.
But the complaint about dating I find strange. If a woman tells a man she’s too busy to see him three times, should she be surprised when he stops calling? If he kept calling, some would define that as stalking. Sotomayor endorses a remarkably passive role in this instance, because the solution to this problem would have been to suggest another day on the schedule when declining an invite.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Hey Sotomayor:
2.to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately: to discriminate between things.
Maybe the other option for the guy wasn’t so fugly. You look like you fell out of the top of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.
CMonster on June 19, 2009 at 4:41 PM
While all 3 will end up in the same place, I do believe Reno will find a special place for her “reward”.
Jeff from WI on June 19, 2009 at 4:41 PM
And the 90′s and 00′s were?
This should, if nothing else has, immediately disqualify her. I won’t hold my breath, though.
SouthernGent on June 19, 2009 at 4:42 PM
She’s not inherently unattractive. She’s auditioning a suit of militancy, that apparently fit nicely, because she wears it to this day.
What a waste. With a smile, the woman could be quite lovely.
RushBaby on June 19, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Giggity, giggity, gig-gi-ty.
Geronimo on June 19, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Invite Janet Reno…………..
…………… and then we have a party.
Seven Percent Solution on June 19, 2009 at 4:43 PM
If I didn’t know better, I’d swear you are saying that women are not as good as men at anything outside the kitchen and having babies.
ProfessorMiao on June 19, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Leave her alone. She has to convince herself there is some reason other than the Cagney and Lacey hairdo she was sportin’
tommylotto on June 19, 2009 at 4:44 PM
That dude looks like a lady.
InCali on June 19, 2009 at 4:44 PM
To be perfectly honest, we had a system. We used the, eh hem, fat chicks as indicators of nearby cute chicks. Tuna fishermen use the same process, where they look for schools of dolphins because tuna usually are in the vicinity. Dolphins are easier to spot. ;)
Same thing with young women in bars.
BobMbx on June 19, 2009 at 4:45 PM
Sonia, did you never hear of Dorothy Parker’s comment about women who wear glasses?
Wethal on June 19, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Oh please tell. Because I don`t know but I`d like to.
LSUMama on June 19, 2009 at 4:45 PM
I love watching the women’s movement
CMonster on June 19, 2009 at 4:45 PM
Whoa…who the hell ran over Tammy Faye?
That clip is hilarious!
bluelightbrigade on June 19, 2009 at 4:46 PM
You would figure that a “wise latina woman” would have that whole “playing hard to get” thing properly figured out.
I also dont believe that anyone would have bothered to call her twice, nevermind three times.
wildweasel on June 19, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Man, that’s some slutty flight attendant outfit she’s wearing.
faraway on June 19, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Hey . . . . I resemble that remark.
How about Sotomayor and Hillary Clinton? On second thought, with all the brittle bones between the two of them, it might be too dangerous.
AZCoyote on June 19, 2009 at 4:47 PM
This is standard issue stuff you can read in any ABA or state or local bar journal, in any month, for the last 20 years.
My developing impression of her is….unexceptional, standard issue lib.
james23 on June 19, 2009 at 4:47 PM
I cannot relate with her. I am not a woman. But, being a heterosexual male who had an active dating life, I can relate with a man potentially feeling a woman is not interested when that man is in hot pursuit and the object of his affections just can’t, or won’t, make herself available. On the other hand, I also learned early on that some women absolutely love being pursued. Some simply adore being the center of someone’s universe. Who wouldn’t? So the pursuit is sometimes part of the ‘game’. It took me many months of trying, including doing some fairly goofy stuff in an effort to woo her, to get the woman I loved to even go on a first date with me. Eventually we got married.
That being said, for the life of me, I cannot find any information on her that shows she has had any substantitive experience, or even that special something, other than perhaps her race and her sex in the eyes of a ‘progressive’, that warrants an appointment to the most powerful club in existence in our country. The thought of her being part of the Supreme Court of the United States is not a comforting thought.
SilverStar830 on June 19, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Absolutely not. You should have heard the conversations I had with my son regarding girls…you’d have thought I hated them (well, okay, so maybe I don’t like those teenage twits calling and texting my son at all hours, throwing themselves at him like ho’s but that’s another issue)…
..but I also don’t think women should be slaves to whatever men want. And if I’d had a daughter, I would have told her that.
ladyingray on June 19, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Well let’s see. Women invented engineering. No… wait: howsabout navigation? No… sculpture? I know, the wheel! prolly not. Uh, medical arts? Law! No. I know they must have invented like, sports or something, I just can’t remember which ones. Roads? I know, lumberjacking! Nah. Witches, I think most witches are women, or at least used to be. I dunno, but they prolly invented lotsa things.
Akzed on June 19, 2009 at 4:48 PM
(pssst….over here……they invented abortion…pass it on)
BobMbx on June 19, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Or maybe they would think Sotomayor was trying to collect her dead mothers benefits.
portlandon on June 19, 2009 at 4:50 PM
The real question is
Would lorien hit that?
blatantblue on June 19, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Nah, that had to been a dude. Nothing more anti-female than abortion.
Akzed on June 19, 2009 at 4:51 PM
I’m sure she believes she’s been raped many times in the minds of men, even though she looks like Rosie’s stunt double.
If this is the level of people this country keeps regurgitating for important positions, we are so totally screwed.
Hening on June 19, 2009 at 4:52 PM
My first impression was that she doesn’t like Richard and would favor a partner with more whY
CMonster on June 19, 2009 at 4:52 PM
I hate the use of “unconscious” regarding the workings of the mind. I equate “unconscious” with somebody who just got knocked out – and who isn’t really thinking anything. ‘Cause, well, he’s been knocked out.
It seems to me that “subconscious” is the correct term.
But, the use of “Congressman/Congresswoman” instead of “Representative” disgusts me, too. Inasmuch as a Senator is a member of Congress, too.
Maybe I just get pissed-off easily.
OhEssYouCowboys on June 19, 2009 at 4:52 PM
You people are so mean. Just wait until Obama enacts dating reform. The Kennedy-Waxman Relationship Reform Act will level the playing field and bring social justice to matchmaking.
rw on June 19, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Wrong. The mid 1980′s were the height of the “if you’re a woman you’re guaranteed a promotion” period.
That time frame is the period when many companies were reacting to lawsuits that ended blatant discrimination against women. Trust me, because I know. I worked for the phone company, which was one of the worst offenders of female discrimination as written, public, company and union policy.
The worst of it ended long before I was hired as an operator in 1979. In the 50′s and 60′s telephone operators were required to wear hats and gloves, dresses or skirts with hose, and be unmarried. When an operator got married they were fired.
By the time I was hired in 1979 that had all been changed. I could even wear jeans to work. But even then, while operators were union, we had our own separate contract and did not have bidding rights to tech jobs that were for men only.
If you broke your leg and were out of work for 6 weeks you got paid. But if you got pregnant and took 6 weeks off, you did not get paid. If you had a heart attack and were out of work for a year, when you came back you still had the same job and seniority, but if you took a year off to have a kid, and if you got your job back, you had to work 5 years uninterrupted to get back your seniority.
By 1985 the phone company was at the losing end of enough lawsuits for gender discrimination that they started promoting women to management faster than your head would spin. The union was a little slower in catching up, but I managed to pass the tech test and get a tech job. A couple of years later the tech test was dumbed down so much that any moron could pass it.
1986 would have been right around the time that if you had a vagina you were considered a genius.
Jaynie59 on June 19, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Ha!
Like the angry fist of God my friend. Bet on it.
SilverStar830 on June 19, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Thanks for saving me the effort on the response.
Perhaps Professor Miao will enlighten us with the long list of contributions that women have made to the advancement of Man.
progressoverpeace on June 19, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Mommy, tell the boys it’s time to play dolls and house!!!”
Akzed on June 19, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Your starting to worry me. Did you by any chance have a bigger sister?
LSUMama on June 19, 2009 at 4:55 PM
If a woman tells a man she’s too busy to see him three times, should she be surprised when he stops calling?
Back when I was…less experienced, I’d give a woman three strikes. Now? I’m pretty much in the one and done mind set.
I R A Darth Aggie on June 19, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Come on people!!! She will do a great job upholding the constitution. It was written by our forefathers. Old white males…oh never mind
HoustonRight on June 19, 2009 at 4:59 PM
She will be in charge of “stain” removal.
faraway on June 19, 2009 at 5:01 PM
I am sure she knows men. In fact I bet she has a lot of experience of not hearing from them again after one date.
Her defense mechanism of laying out a busy busy schedule was before the first date and is a defense mechanism against anticipated rejection. Sotmoayor is putting on a front and has all her career.
seven on June 19, 2009 at 5:02 PM
I don’t recall anyone saying women excelled at child-rearing or kitchen duties.
TMK on June 19, 2009 at 5:03 PM
LOL silver star380
blatantblue on June 19, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Whatever the content of the video might be, I’m not gonna watch this one. You don’t even wanna know where my head was 23 years ago, so I’m certainly not gonna use something someone else said back then (short of treason or an incitement to crime or something) to formulate an opinion of that person in the present day.
That said, I oppose Sotomayor based on her recent rulings and statements. But I also know Obama’s got worse than her up his sleeve.
Barneys Bullet on June 19, 2009 at 5:04 PM
So men subconsciously discriminate?
And that’s more damning than the conscious assertion of [long-term] bigotry?
I saw these ‘monsters’ bullying their way across campus during the 80′s; they were delusional psyco-bitches back then.
This ‘woman’ thinks a tampon is more ‘empowering’ than our Constitution.
Let her near the levers of power at you own risk.
You have been warned
CPT. Charles on June 19, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Well that’s just about made my day.
I’m going to go home and take a nap.
Chaz706 on June 19, 2009 at 5:04 PM
What stirkes me here as so strange is this: If Sotomayor was such a feminist back then, why didn’t she ask the guy out herself. I mean he asked her three times and each time she says she is busy on the specific date, so why didn’t she then follow up with asking him out? She’s complaining about how women don’t have the same opportunity because of discrimination, yet when she had the opportunity to be in his shoes, she doesn’t. This does not bode well for feminism. LOL! I dunno, I kinda like an old fashioned guy. Makes me feel liberated.
bloggless on June 19, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Ed,
Could you not show that picture again? My monitor fractured.
Thanks.
BuckeyeSam on June 19, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Is it such a bad thing for guys to have their own preferences and priorities? Or, should they be slaves to whatever women desire?
JadeNYU on June 19, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Hey some men pay extra for that.LOL
LSUMama on June 19, 2009 at 5:05 PM
I have always thought that those who could read minds must be incredibly smart and Sotomayor can even read subconscious minds! Wisest Latina evar!!!
MB4 on June 19, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Sotomayer describes how SHE overty discriminates.
Piece of crap better not make it into the court.
Spiritk9 on June 19, 2009 at 5:07 PM
When I was in law school, the angry women taught Con Law – now, they get Supreme Court nominations.
That’s progress.
Now that I’m on the subject. Angry, Socialist men used to teach Con Law, too – now they make Supreme Court nominations.
How far we’ve come.
OhEssYouCowboys on June 19, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Sotomayor is stuck in the past with her own prejudices. Might that be what “colors” her instincts today?
Oops, sorry, forgot. Shes a “minority”, ergo cannot have any prejudices.
GarandFan on June 19, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Sotomanure to the highest court, parley-voo?
Sotomanure to the highest court, parley-voo?
She has a foul temper and spews such a crock
On her la Raza has a full head lock
Hinky, dinky, parley-voo
InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on June 19, 2009 at 5:10 PM
She might sleep her way to the lower middle, if she was lucky.
Cicero43 on June 19, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Sotomanure to the highest court, parley-voo?
Sotomanure to the highest court, parley-voo?
She has so many delusions it would make Freud’s knees knock
And her face would stop a cuckoo clock
Hinky, dinky, parley-voo
InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on June 19, 2009 at 5:12 PM
A man called her three times? Hadda be either Stevie Wonder or Governor Paterson.
guntotinglibertarian on June 19, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Boy, will she be humbled by Scalia and Roberts.
Cicero43 on June 19, 2009 at 5:16 PM
I’ve seen her smile, and I’ve seen her look nice. It’s too bad she didn’t marry and have children, girls and boys. I think it would have taught her humility and made her wiser, and more lovely.
JiangxiDad on June 19, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Nope, no sexism here.
The Race Card on June 19, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Ed,
Could you not show that picture again? My monitor fractured.
Thanks.
BuckeyeSam on June 19, 2009 at 5:05 PM
LOL I have to refill my beverage now!
hmfearny on June 19, 2009 at 5:20 PM
What exactly is an “affirmative-action baby?”
The Race Card on June 19, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Wow, she is quite the charger I bet, battery that is.
Americannodash on June 19, 2009 at 5:23 PM
All I can do anymore is shake my head, I give up!
KBird on June 19, 2009 at 5:23 PM
In America, bias is whatever women say it is. And that’s what we’re going to get with Sotomayor on the Supreme Court.
Django on June 19, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Name the long list of contributions of women to the advancement of society. I’ll wait. Otherwise, stuff it with your “sexism” idiocy.
I’ll even make it easy for you, just name the top ten female contributions and then tell me how that compares with the male contributions.
progressoverpeace on June 19, 2009 at 5:25 PM
PC rent-a-cop.
JiangxiDad on June 19, 2009 at 5:28 PM
This interview must have been before she became a “Wise Latina”. If a wise woman is busy but interested in a guy, she’d tell him. Maybe even call him when her schedule clears. It can’t be something she is doing. Nope. It’s all out of her hands.
Hey, I’m a white male. How come I could figure this out and she couldn’t?
hepcat on June 19, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Sotomayer is definitely a Democrat Woman
http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/002188.html
txhsmom on June 19, 2009 at 5:29 PM
1. See’s Candy
2. Mrs. Butterworth’s Syrup
3. Betty Crocker Cake Mix
4. String Theory4. Nair
Cicero43 on June 19, 2009 at 5:31 PM
The more I hear about this woman, the more I love her. Scalia’s head is going to explode!! Loves it.
dcwvu on June 19, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Nope, no sexism here.
The Race Card on June 19, 2009 at 5:19 PM
.
Nice handle you got there. Some meanies here aren’t there.
.
It appears that some are just trying to level the playing field. I mean if you see any comments here that reaches or crosses the line like David Letterman did, you let me know okay. Okay then, we’re good.
Americannodash on June 19, 2009 at 5:32 PM
Egad. You want her bounced from confirmation? Just show that screencap on the news for a week.
Jaibones on June 19, 2009 at 5:32 PM
Uh, so if you aren’t a member of the sex that “invented” medicine you can never be as good a doctor as any random man?
That must explain why obstetrics is a field in medicine and many of the world’s best and most renowned chefs are men. Those poor cave women couldn’t give birth without the men’s help and once men figured out how to cook food were happy to take it over to let them invent some more stuff.
/sarc off
is it a pig or a dinosaur?
ProfessorMiao on June 19, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Dude, wrong thread. The black victimhood/white racists thread is down the hall on the left.
Jaibones on June 19, 2009 at 5:35 PM
Nope….but I do have manish tendencies. ;)
JadeNYU on June 19, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Absolutely 100% correct. What was real and what is hype or legend gets distorted as time passes and the media and academia always hammer away with the hype and the legends. The result is that people who didn’t live through the time in question see the past through a pc lens. But that’s the nature of history. Excuse me, “herstory,” to use the womens’ studies term.
Don’t forget this gem from 1980: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080319/
The ’80′s are when “Women good; men bad” first kicked into overdrive.
Django on June 19, 2009 at 5:39 PM
I think in “her experiences” that she may have been discriminated due to her being Butt-Ugly!
gregbert on June 19, 2009 at 5:41 PM
Nope, no sexism here.
The Race Card on June 19, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Are you going to defend that outfit, those glasses and that haircut? I’m a woman and I can’t do it.
hmfearny on June 19, 2009 at 5:44 PM
Heh.
There have been a few great women in science and politics. The interesting part is that there have been no great women in politics as any result of “affirmative action” (not even close) and no more great women scientists, either. Great women of the past had made it to the top of their fields on their own. With affirmative action all we get is deluged with mediocrity and worse. And then we have to put up with morons like The Race Card screaming “sexism” in order to cover for the facts of reality.
Interestingly, I’m pretty sure The Race Card would accept the theory of evolution, but couldn’t possibly imagine that Nature and evolution would carve out general differences for the genders, as only one is able to give birth. The cognitive dissonance of the affirmative action cheerleaders is deafening and fatal. This reminds me of the moron left who think that men and women should have the same attitudes about sex, when sex is totally different for men than it is for women (as only women can get pregnant and that has figured into the development of our physiologies, psyches, and cultures for untold thousands of years). I mean, you would have to be a total moron to even think that men and women should approach sex with identical attitudes. Sheer craziness.
progressoverpeace on June 19, 2009 at 5:45 PM
You keep blowing him off with excuses and he may think your not interested. Imagine that. Or maybe it is the bozo eyebrows, East German glasses and double-chin.
Ugh, MEN!
Of course if he persists its stalking. I give up.
RobCon on June 19, 2009 at 5:47 PM
And is the best criticism you can come with in 2009 for a Supreme Court nominee her fashion sense 25 years ago? The glasses were the style then. So were the shoulder pads and bright colors (the influence of Miami Vice). Look at any television program from the era.
This is about on a par with Letterman’s reference to Sarah Palin’s ‘slutty flight attendant look’.
ProfessorMiao on June 19, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Do you want to be totally disingenuous and speak about individuals or do you want to have a reasonable discussion about probabilities? You have to pick the scale you want to argue and stick to it. i.e. a random woman versus a random man. I think we all know the answer.
BTW, why have no female-dominated, female-run societies ever rose to the top, or existed for any period of time? You must have an answer to this, I would assume.
progressoverpeace on June 19, 2009 at 5:51 PM
Understand this cave creep. To marginalize a woman’s looks when the subject of discussion is her political ideology is sexist. Your ignorance of that fact is not my concern.
Your insult is well-received. Thank you punk, may I have another?
The Race Card on June 19, 2009 at 5:51 PM
Heh heh.
No. It might be in poor taste, but it’s not sexist. Go see discussions of Nostrilitis Waxman to get an idea. Bad looks are bad looks.
What fact? That I’m being sexist when I laugh at Waxman’s looks? Okey doke.
You may.
progressoverpeace on June 19, 2009 at 5:56 PM
Aside from perfectly highlighting your obvious need to use the world “black” pejoratively, what does race have to do with this? Gotta scratch that itch.
That’s how you do it folks. That’s funny!
The Race Card on June 19, 2009 at 5:57 PM
I can’t believe some of the disgusting comments I’m reading here.
Ed, women have come a long way since 1986 but from some of the responses here, you can see sexism and misogyny is still alive and well.
Christina_M on June 19, 2009 at 5:57 PM
Are you saying that none of the women currently in science deserve to be there on their merits? I guess kevlar isn’t really a very useful material.
ProfessorMiao on June 19, 2009 at 6:00 PM
Of course, the preferred scale is not randomness, but to restrict oneself to some standardized measures that have nothing to do with gender. But that leads to what is called “sexism” these days. “Disparate impact” says that if all don’t perform equally well, in equal proportions, then it is “sexist” or “racist” or “whateverist”, regardless of anything.
progressoverpeace on June 19, 2009 at 6:01 PM
This is a place where people deal with the horrific outcomes of liberal social experiments, not to regorge bumper-sticker slogans. Did you have an argument besides “ur teh sexism,” or will it be more generic liberal fleaspittle?
TMK on June 19, 2009 at 6:01 PM
She is ugly. What guy married her?
GW_SS-Delta on June 19, 2009 at 6:01 PM
You’re on to something here. I probably did some discriminating on my own.
Based on past remarks and the company you’re keeping in this thread I based your immaturity on sexism. That was unoriginal and lazy on my part.
You very well may just be immature and rude instead of sexist.
The Race Card on June 19, 2009 at 6:02 PM
You’re kidding, right?
The Race Card on June 19, 2009 at 6:02 PM
Some men are conscious in regards to women turning them off. If they drink too much, they may have inhibition malfunctions. When they sober up, there may be regret in addition to a headache.
seven on June 19, 2009 at 6:04 PM
I needed a good laugh and this thread provided it from the very beginning. What kind of desperation would give that thing three shots at a date? Had Barney Frank figured out his orientation by then?
DanMan on June 19, 2009 at 6:04 PM
Yeah, it’s a regular think tank in here. You have the audacity to belittle my remarks in the midst of a flood of middle-school gasbagging. You are a sheer joy to behold.
The Race Card on June 19, 2009 at 6:05 PM
I’m saying that there are many female faculty who are there because they are women. If you are in academia, then you know that this is a fact, not a conjecture. Affirmative action in academic hiring is totally out of control.
All scientists are valued by the worth of their research and inventions. Period. I’m speaking about the highest levels. Kevlar is nice and the work of a competent scientist, but I’m talking about a different level. There are a couple of women around the top, but that’s about it. The numbers at the top are not that different than they were decades and centuries ago, certainly nothing near the difference in handicaps that have been given to gain them entree at the lower and middle levels.
progressoverpeace on June 19, 2009 at 6:07 PM
I think I know your answer, but I’m sure you don’t know mine.
Your answer would seem to be that INDIVIDUAL ability and talent don’t matter. My answer is that they are the only things that should matter.
But in the meantime, you seem to be backtracking from your earlier statement that implied that if women didn’t “invent it” they are either incapable of not entitled to practice it. I’m glad that the surgeon who saved my father’s life a couple of years ago didn’t listen to you. I’m also glad that despite the fact that kevlar was invented by a woman, men don’t mind using it.
Britain was the best its been since WWII under Margaret Thatcher.
ProfessorMiao on June 19, 2009 at 6:07 PM
They are having fun, whereas you actually believe with all religious seriousness the “middle-school gasbagging” that passes for thought in your world of victimization and envious failure.
You fail because you are a failure, not because of race or sex, and no amount of muligans will make you any less of a failure.
TMK on June 19, 2009 at 6:10 PM
He must have been blind. Sorry, I had to say it. I will now go pray for forgiveness. :0)
Callie C. on June 19, 2009 at 6:11 PM
I am surprised by some of the misogynistic comments here on HA. Women are not the enemy, guys, especially conservative women. You’re not doing the conservative cause any favors by putting women down.
There have been 11 women that have won Nobel prizes for Physics, Physiology or Medicine, or Chemistry. That’s not many compared to male recipients. But keep in mind that women were not even allowed into these fields until the 40′s and 50′s. We didnt’ even have the right to vote until 1920. So women were at a severe disadvantage for a long time since we were seen as second class citizens (and still are in some countries).
Also, not a lot of women are inclined to study the sciences and many decide to put family first and not pursue careers. For example, I could have continued to advance my career in biophysics, but I decided that staying home and raising my children was more important than seeking fame and fortune (ha, ha) in academia.
Women and men are inherently different, have different talents and abilities, and complement each other. Women have contributed to society in other ways besides advancing the sciences and the law. Raising the children of the next generation falls mainly to us. It’s silly to discount those contributions.
I’m not a fan of how feminists have tried to elevate women over men. They deny the inherent biological differences between men and women. Both sexes are equally important for the future of mankind. So can’t we just get along? ;-)
drflykilla on June 19, 2009 at 6:15 PM
Er … why would you think that. I am concerned with nothing but individual ability. But, when you speak about groups, you have to talk in terms of probabilities and distributions.
To put it simply, if a woman scores higher than a man on a test, she is better at whatever that test measures. Period. But when the average man scores better than the average woman at that same test, the same conclusion about the groups can be drawn. That’s all.
I’m not sure where you got this from. I never said anything of the sort. If there is a quote of mine that led you to this, paste it and I will explain what I meant.
I was talking more in terms of what society would look like if we had only had the advances and inventions that women made versus the same with men.
Yes. I said that some great women scientists and politicians had appeared without any affirmative action. Margaret Thatcher was but one. It’s a shame she’s not running Britain, now. My point was that excellent women rose to the top without all the affirmative action crud, and that we have seen precious few brought on with the perversion of our Constitution that is affirmative action.
progressoverpeace on June 19, 2009 at 6:18 PM
Could you get me some coffe, Honey?
davidk on June 19, 2009 at 6:19 PM
And is the best criticism you can come with in 2009 for a Supreme Court nominee her fashion sense 25 years ago?
Making fun of her clothes is not sexist. Give me a break. I have plenty of problems with her:
*She sees herself as a victim
*She thinks that Black Firemen have more rights than white or Latino men.
*She belongs to The Race (HEARD OF THAT RACIST ORG?)
*She’s never “thought” about the rights of children in the womb
Spare me your Palin comment. I’m sure you were on the front lines defending her.
hmfearny on June 19, 2009 at 6:20 PM
drflykilla on June 19, 2009 at 6:15 PM
Blah, blah, blah. You’ve got to admit that some of the posts on this thread are funny. I’m a well-educated professional woman, but I still think the comments about Sotomayor’s lack of outer beauty are pretty funny.
Callie C. on June 19, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »