Comments on: Larry Summers: 3 Strikes, You’re OUT!

By: Common Sense Political Thought » Blog Archive » Dead Man Walking

Common Sense Political Thought » Blog Archive » Dead Man Walking — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:05:28 +0000

[...] already stirred the pot to beyond boiling. That made him an Official Sexist, and not a few people didn’t want the now former President of Harvard to have any role in the Obama Administration. Deviance from the Official Line is Not To Be [...]

By: Larry Summers gets a big “F” for AIG… : The New Agenda

Larry Summers gets a big “F” for AIG… : The New Agenda — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 02:40:18 +0000

[...] wrote a piece titled Larry Summers: 3 Strikes, You’re OUT! in October 2008 when Summers was first rumored to be a candidate for Treasury Secretary. Just to [...]

By: Hillary’s Village Blog » Blog Archive » “The Year Women’s Media Lost Their Center”

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 06:24:58 +0000

[...] it his hiring of Summers, the infamous President of Harvard who was fired from that position for claiming one of the reasons women were not [...]

By: Obama’s message to women : The New Agenda

Obama’s message to women : The New Agenda — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:01:23 +0000

[...] appointment. Whatever Summers’ gifts in terms of economic policy — and those are debatable — he’s an intellectual trainwreck when it comes to gender. His absurd and groundless [...]

By: Kiuku

Kiuku — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 03:13:14 +0000

I’d like to personally express my intolerance for Rabbit and Christian Lux’s “arguments” on this forum.

By: Dr. K

Dr. K — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 22:31:14 +0000

Rabbit,
You’re half right. I have little tolerance for people misusing research in my discipline in order to further a social agenda, or to reinforce social prejudices. Psychology has a long, sordid history of such, which I would perhaps be willing to discuss with you, in a forum where such a discussion is appropriate. This forum is intended for other purposes, however, which I’m sure you can understand, and which you should respect.

Summers was not speaking merely as a researcher, he was speaking as the chief administrator of a highly respected academic institution. If you don’t understand the implications of this role, you’re hardly an objective observer, or sympathetic to the unfortunate uses to which his words would predictably be put [as, in the most generous of interpretations (likely not warranted in Summers' case), was he].

This is a feminist forum. It is ludicrous to suggest we here are in some way obligated to address all critics who happen along. If you want to trot your dog and pony show out somewhere else, let me know where, and next time I’m inclined to go chasing windmills, I’ll respond. Otherwise, provide meaningful contributions here and demonstrate some alignment with the goals of this site, or take yourself someplace where your contributions will be appreciated.

By: rabbit

rabbit — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:45:25 +0000

Dr. K:

Is that your answer? To silence those who you disagree with, whether they be Summers or Christian Lux?

There has been much discussion about whether Summers’ conjectures were correct. Great. That should be discussed. But even if we eventually find that there is no innate biological basis to differences in performace, should Summers be ostracized and demonized for talking about it?

Dr. K, you seem intolerant towards those who say things you don’t agree with.

By: Dr. K

Dr. K — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:28:50 +0000

DawnC,
Well, my sister’s husband, actually, but I’m pretty sure he’s a very rare exception.

By: Dawn C

Dawn C — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:21:45 +0000

“Also, Summers commented that women aren’t as successful because they can’t put in 80 hour weeks like the men. Give me a break. I’d like to see a log of how those 80 hours are spent. Women who balance family and work know how to use their time more efficiently because they have no other choice.”

Those 80 hour work weeks that men put in are subsidized by the women in their lives who take care of them and the house and the kids so that they can work those hours.

Who does that for women?

By: Dr. K

Dr. K — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 18:51:24 +0000

Hello Nat,
People like Christian Lux are hardly worth responding to, really. The internet is full of these guys, who seem surprisingly eager to disseminate what amounts to a pre-packaged argument. What they persistently refuse to consider is that they are attempting to answer an astoundingly poorly-asked question, and they stubbornly cling to their framing of it, presumably because of its consonance with their world view.

What Christian Lux would really like is an opportunity to present further support for his perspective, and further attempts to challenge or refute him really only enable him; it is an invitation for him to further present his pre-formulated case.

I would suggest that any further comments made by Christian Lux, or any other concern trolls of his stripe, be moderated and allowed to dissipate into the ether. Let this new class of genteel, academic bigots take their dog-and-pony show elsewhere. I’ve already seen it, and I hardly need to sit through it again to tell you that it stinks.

If any of local scholarly writers elected to take this issue on head-to-head, that might be a different issue. In the meantime it’s just more burdensome distraction by someone who considers Larry Summers to be a victim, and is certainly no ally to the causes promoted by this organization.