Wednesday, March 02, 2005

We're Here, we're feminists, we're still relevant (I swear!)

Carrie Lukas over at NRO has an interesting take on the Larry Summers flap at Harvard.

She posits that the reason that the hard-line feminist cabal have been so relentless since his January mistake of challenging politically correct orthodoxy that there could, just maybe, who knows, we haven't studied it, be a physiological or biological reason for differences in higher-level achievement in math and hard sciences is because the Feminists (capital F) are trying to assert their relevance.

Lukas writes:

The effort to take down Summers, for what objectively appears a modest infraction against feminist orthodoxy, parallels the strategy advocated by many hawks in the war on terror. Toppling Saddam was a strategic move, they argue, because other countries are now more wary of crossing the United States. If Larry Summers is ousted for failing to tightly toe the liberal line, the feminists will prove their ability to punish future would-be dissenters. That's appealing for the gender warriors, but terrible for a Democratic party scrambling to project empathy for middle-American values.


"We're here, we're Feminists, and we're still relevant (no, really, I swear, ask anyone)!"

This is reason enough for him to stay put. It's time to end the Feminists attempts to continually divide us by sex and keep the gender wars raging. He probably needs words of encouragement.

Larry Summers

Harvard Corporation has already expressed its support. Good on 'em.

Three cheers, lads!

2 comments:

Carmen said...

Now now. "The Feminists' attempts to divide us by sex"? I hope you're capitalizing Feminist there because it's the name of a radical, militant, and less-than-insightful organization of man-haters, not because you are generalizing feminism as an inherently divisive philosophy. Look at history, Mr. Boatswain, and tell me which set of mores has been more divisive: the feminist movement, which encourages appreciation for both male and female contributions to everything from home life to big business to politics? Or the patriarchal approach, which defines social roles strictly by gender and prohibits certain lines, both real and symbolic, from being crossed? You are calling "divisive" a group that protests a college president rationalizing the underrepresentation of women in science by attributing it to inherent differences in men and women? There is nothing that says that the question can't be researched, if some biologist or geneticist wants to take on the project. But it certainly isn't the place of a college president to make publically speculative statements to excuse the failure of educational institutions to bring more women into the sciences. There's a time and a place, and Summers quite simply put his foot in it.

Boatswain's Mate said...

I'm talking about the professional Feminists, capital F, not your work-a-day person who believes in simple equality of opportunity.

I'm talking about the militant Feminist, who views everything in a "us v. them" paradigm, the types who won't countenance anything that goes against the "we're just as good as men in everything, and you better like it, and heaven help you if you don't, and to the extent that we're not, it's only because male opporession and patriarchialism!" types.

Summers made a comment that might make a good study, but the professional Feminists won't have a bit of it, for fear of what the results might be.

Summers said nothing that warrants this level of opprobrium. But the professional Feminists are using this as a platform to show they still have strength.