Apparently comments made by this guy Summers at Harvard have things really heated. Nancy Hopkins was sitting there listening to him, when he said something about innate differences being the reason for the low representation of women in acedamia's science departments. No wait, he 'suggested' innate differences as one of several possible explanations that warrant exploration. Anyway, whatever it was he actually said, (I looked for an actual quote, but it seems to be buried among all the editorials ranting about this shit, none of which have actually quoted him) this Nancy Hopkins. her quotes made it all over the news, said this...

"felt I was going to be sick. My heart was pounding, and my breath was shallow." And, "I just couldn't breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill." She said if she had not bolted from the room, "I would've either blacked out or thrown up."

I've read some of the shit people are saying about this, I don't have the time really, but I did anyway. I like this take on it, expressed by several people. This Nancy woman has been outspoken on feminist issues. One could assume that she would be beyond, and reproachful of women, using theatrics to emphasize a point. Some would suggest women are good at being 'drama queens', and response to such suggestions would get one branded as a conservative chauvanist. (I think I spelled that right) Yet here is this Nancy woman, obviously using theatrics. Seems she has no problem jumping into the 'drama queen' role. The point being, she's not helping her side of the debate much, by displaying the very traits that provoke some people to make the remarks that she loves to hate.

Maybe that's it!! She's doing her part by keeping the debate alive! She would never say that though I don't think. This Summers guy, on the other hand, has stated several times since that his aim was exactly that, to spark debate enough to inspire real research.