The original statement was: "Women do not understand the basic concepts of math".

The responses were graphic illustrations of the truth of that statement. They demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of the basic concepts of the bell curve, coupled with a serious unwillingness to debate, discuss, or even analyze that point. The prohibition against men criticizing women is a serious problem with women in positions of authority:

jmj@trg.saic.com (Julie) Kathryn Tewson <asharte@u.washington.edu> responded to "I'll say. What a bunch of inflammatory garbage. 2. I am female. I got a 730 on the math SAT. I got an A in calculus. Am I exceedingly unusual?" Me too. You sound like a weirdo, no question. I've known a lot of women with similar scores and abilities. To be precise, more women than you could shake a stick at....... [Precise??] 3. What do you think about the fact that when junior-high and high-school age girls are placed in female-only classrooms, both their grades and their SAT scores improve? Lies! Lies! Villainous feminazi bon-bon eating money-grubbing soap-opera watching pink-slipper-wearing lies! ****foaming at the mouth**** My PSAT math score was in the low sixties, predicting an SAT score in the low six hundreds - a year later, my math SAT score was in the low seven hundreds. So much for the claim of 'exact predictor' and 'unchanging ability'.

jmj@trg.saic.com (Julie) "K. Tewson" <asharte@u.washington.edu>replied to "Julie - are you lying are just stupid? Nobody said that women who scored over 500 were liars. The statement was that scoring over 500 did not make females competitive to men.": <*usual richard-waving drivel snipped* > From where do you get this assertion that the men in this "room" couldkick her butt at math? Why, Asharte, haven't you been paying attention? 99.9% of them outscored her on the SAT, according to "fathers" pathetic, cobbled-up "statistics". Which, of course, measures math ability. And all the women you know who claim to have scored above 500, or whatever it was, are just liars, like most sense-of-honor-free women. And why did you misspell Daniel's name? Just because a man is not a misogynist does not mean he's undergone a sex change. Such "insults" are the refuge of schoolchildren, and desperate nutjobs who are losing arguments. Cheers! Julie

cmurphy@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Cynthia Murphy) Kathryn, replied: 1470 combined, in my case. it just goes to disprove [not only the] rabid spew but the sort of drek camille paglia and my middle-school guidance counselor both put forth about rapacious aggression being necessary for intellectual prowess. (just to bring up another point out of the blue....or not so...) i don't mean to brag but i have known so many really brilliant women and i'd just like to ram that man's fake statistics down his bigoted throat. talk about pathologically bitter misogynists....

paix@ix.netcom.com (JJK), replying to jroberts@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jason Robertson): But I do know that most of the great scientists/mathematicians/authors/artists/conquerors/ rulers/whatever have been males.I just threw that last part in because I'm EVIL EVIL EVIL. It is true, however.

You're not evil, but you don't think very well. If you had twelve children to raise and a house to run, how many books would you write? How much of mathematician would you be if you were never taught any math? How much could you do outside of the house if you were beaten into submission regularly and legally regarded as property? THINK ABOUT IT. [And now that women are down to about 2 children to worry about what is the problem now?]

fishy@ix.netcom.com I'm glad I'm not the only one who can't stand "fathers", I'm so sick of his emotional problems taking over the newsgroups I read. I refuse to read his posts now, so I have to ask, what was his SAT score? Or was he too afraid to post it? The most recent statistic I read about SAT scores said women did better than men on the verbal part and that men did better on the math part. [Per CEEB, men score 6% higher in verbal when this was posted.]

desmay@interaccess.com (Dean Esmay), replying to Christie@aol.com "Your bell curves fail to explain how I could have scored 690 in math on my SAT test back in high school. They would also fail to explain how I was able to earn two degrees in Physics, argueably the most math-intensive major other than Math itself. I graduated with honor, by the way. I am not an Einstein, and am not claiming to be. There are many women in this country who scored higher than me, which is exactly my point. I had a good score, but know I am not the top .1% of all women. Which means there are quite a few others who have scored high in math also.

I hate and despise the way "fathers" answers this question; he's obviously being a very big jerk just to get your goat. However, I'm afraid he's got a point; if you understand math that well, then you know perfectly well what a bell curve is and how it works, and so it should be obvious that someone like you and some others you know are simply on one end of the curve. It means that it's easier to find men with your level of math ability, not that women don't exist at all at that level. [Now you really do understand what she knows "perfectly well".]

From: mab025@mathssun5lancs.ac.uk (Mr Brian Williams) schrepf@informatik.uni-muenchen.de (Ulrike Schrepf) writes: |> Well maybe you should have told that my math-teachers on school and college |> - I would surely never have made head of the class, if they had known I |> couldn't have understood it properly. |> So, maybe I was wrong twiddling my thumbs in the math-classes and waiting |> for some fathead boy to understand even the most simple principles of calculus? Gosh, maybe I never understood what it really was about and managed |> to pass my exams on pure luck? |> Let's compete at math, come on, since you're male and by definition brighter |> than poor female me you can easily beat the poor abilities I've aquired |> while going for my M.S. at university. Ulli your reply illustrates perfectly that women are no good at maths or logic.

Fathers, he was talking about HISTORY, not how things are for women today. One hundred years ago, the average woman was not taught more than elementary math. She was not allowed to vote and she was expected to run a household and care for lots of children. Today, there are women in every field of math and science. There are women who run countries or help run them. There are women artists and writers and thinkers. No one was talking about TODAY. Fathers, any shred of intellect you might have had has obviously been swept away by your prejudices against women. You don't even have reading comprehension anymore! Jen [Hillary, Joan Rivers, and Lorena Bobbit come to mind.]

Fishy@ix.netcom.com (Amy Medina) replied: Why don't we all just stop posting �n response and maybe he'll go away... he's annoying a lot of people, seldom has anything of intellect or intelligence to add to the group, and has blatently ignored requests to stop cross posting all his horse-manure. Let just stop responding.

"Women are demanding that they get the best jobs even though 99.9% of them score worse than the worst man in math". K. Tewson <asharte@u.washington.edu> replied "you are a LIAR. To start with, YOUR OWN STATISTICS state that women score 16% lower on the SAT than men. Therefore, *16%* of women score lower than the lowest male score. I refuse to believe that the twenty or so women I know who scored above the 700 level on the math portion of the SAT were the only ones in the country who did so." jroberts@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jason Robertson) replied: "Obviously you don't hang around these math geniuses much, do you? Where in the hell did you get that random "16% of women score lower than the lowest male score" stuff? Nobody has said anything like that, and it cannot be inferred from the statistics floating around."

ahall@cs.uml.edu (Andrew Hall) writes: Excuse me math illiterate. 200x worse is orders of magnitude greater than a 16% difference. Specifically two orders of magnitude. Your math is probably worse than the fifth grader. I expect my six year old daughter is better than you at math. I majored in math and the best teacher I ever had was a woman. She is (was?) one of the best mathematicians in the world. Here field is topology. SO get a clue, and a good shrink. [Could this man have had a male math or English teacher anywhere along the way?]

ALLENDB%DFMS@dfmail.usafa.af.mil (DIANE B. ALLEN) I don't know who first came up with this "99.9% of women score worse than the worse man", but it is completely ludicrous! While I don't have the time nor the patience to explain probability and the Normal distribution (I teach a college probability theory course), let me give you a few basic facts about SAT scores (data is comes from the College Board concerning the 1994 test): The median score for men was 500, meaning that 50% of the men taking the math portion scored 500 or better. 38% of the women scored 500 or better. Since more women than men took the SAT, (557,323 vs 493,063) this equates to 211,783 women and 246,532 men scoring better than 500 on the math portion. So if an employer were to use SAT scores as a basis for employment (which is silly, but I'll go with it for argument's sake), those women should be able to compete equally with those men. There seems to be a few probability-ignorant people out there who feel that because men ON AVERAGE score better than women, this means that "Men are smarter than women" or "Men are better at math than women", implying that ALL men do better than ALL women. It makes it worse when these people go around talking about the statistical basis for all this, when they clearly do not understand probability and the proper use of statistics.

jmj@trg.saic.com (Julie) Tewson" <asharte@u.washington.edu> responded to Cynthia Murphy "And if NO women are doing well on the SAT, then where do cases like you and me and Julie come from"? What about my high school classmate, female, who cracked a PERFECT SCORE on the SAT? Are we *all* transsexuals? Probably just fembitches (actually I kind of like the ring of "fembitches" - kind of sassy - not too logical, though - what other kind of bitches are there, fer cryin' out loud?)

holzman@tezcat.com (Daniel B. Holzman) replied to: " SATs predict GPAs. GPAs predict math ability. But SATs don't predict math ability because "the designers of the test do not claim that that is what is predicts?" It is more accurate to say that they [SAT scores] are not proven to predict math ability. The reason that they are not proven to do so is that even the designers of the test do not claim that that is what is predicts. Which makes it rather stupid, or dishonest, to treat them as if they do predict math ability; and especially stupid, or dishonest, to claim them to be a more reliable illustrator of math ability than Collegiate GPAs themselves.

Aaron Boyden <6500adb@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> In this context, I have at least anecdotal evidence that if ability is something permanent, it isn't something measured by these tests. On every standardized test I took prior to entering college, I scored in the 99th percentile in mathematics. In fact, I scored perfect on the PSAT and the Math II achievement test. I scored a 680 on the SAT math when I was in seventh grade and took it as part of a special program. In the course of my first couple of years of college, I decided that regardless of how good I seemed to be at it, I really didn't like math all that much, so I switched to a liberal arts major (philosophy) and took no math or heavily math-dependent classes for three years. On the GRE, I scored in the 89th percentile in math. It was first test in my life where I scored lower in the math portion than in the verbal portion. The verbal score, better than I'd done before, undermines the otherwise plausible hypothesis that I'd simply damaged my brain with alcohol and unhealthy food in the course of my undergraduacy. My scores at least seem to depend heavily on my recent practice in the area in question, and I doubt I'm unique in that respect. I'd be curious to see studies if there are any, though.

In <3p2s0c$fr@noc.usfca.edu> bordka00@ac.usfca.edu (Bordi) writes: I may be wrong, just thinking - with my lesser than perfect female brain, that I read somewhere we WERE the same until social pressures to conform to femaleness starts somewhere in the 6th and 7th grades. Then again, I am sure men would just like to live alone on a space station one hundred years from now. Just think sports, sports, and more sports. Sports are statistical aren't they. Whew, I knew it was genetic.

laser.11@ix.netcom.com (Daniel Evans) As to the statements that children in mother-led households are less intelligent than others.....My mother was divorced when I was in my teens. My SAT score was 1460. My siblings' scores were equally impressive. My daughter, who is now 5 1/2 , reads on a fourth-grade level. She started reading when she was two years old.

Kelley Piper <lounge@fub46.zedat.fu-berlin.de> My, I seem to remember waiting for the boys to figure out math while I was busy doing 40 step proofs in geometry (to see if it could be done another way) just to keep my boredom down. Perhaps in a majority (or maybe a minority, because as far as I know noone is 100% sure) the brains of women and men function differently, but as I feel I am proof (670 Math SAT score as a sophomore in high school) this is not the case and just leads to the further seperation of men into technical fields and women into the humanities.

CAOwens@ix.netcom.com (Christine A. Owens ) replying to: "A 3.6% difference is rarely considered "Not statisticly significant.", and it is very significant in this instance as well. If you were building semiconductors you would consider 0.08% "statistically significant, and this is one-fourty-fifth as big as 3.6%. With all due respect, you have to realize, and should acknowledge, that your making such a blanket statement reveals either your disdain or your lack of comprehension of statistics, and perhaps math in general.

As you should know -- having claimed a knowledge of statistics, statistical significance is relative to the population being measured; and, in SAT scores, 3.6% is NOT statistically significant.