Harvard Chief insults women--suggests genetic inferiority.

[hardheadjarhead]

Harvard Chief Defends His Talk on Women

By SAM DILLON

Published: January 18, 2005


he president of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers, who offended some women at an academic conference last week by suggesting that innate differences in sex may explain why fewer women succeed in science and math careers, stood by his comments yesterday but said he regretted if they were misunderstood.

"I'm sorry for any misunderstanding but believe that raising questions, discussing multiple factors that may explain a difficult problem, and seeking to understand how they interrelate is vitally important," Dr. Summers said in an interview.

Several women who participated in the conference said yesterday that they had been surprised or outraged by Dr. Summers's comments, and Denice D. Denton, the chancellor designate of the University of California, Santa Cruz, questioned Dr. Summers sharply during the conference, saying she needed to "speak truth to power."

Nancy Hopkins, a professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who once led an investigation of sex discrimination there that led to changes in hiring and promotion, walked out midway through Dr. Summers's remarks.

"When he started talking about innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn't breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill," Dr. Hopkins said. "Let's not forget that people used to say that women couldn't drive an automobile."

Remainder of article at:

http://nytimes.com/2005/01/18/natio...&en=bf850d692ab7cba9&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Note a subscription is required. It is free.

Regards,


Steve

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Another example of how sexism is alive and well in academia.

Of *all* the gender studies on girls vs. boys, men vs. women, all the difference that have been found overall (and presumably not due to local environmental influences) are in spatial processing.

Boys - better at absolute direction (i.e., on an overcast day, in the middle of nowhere - "Which way is East?")

Girls - better at direction with landmarks (i.e. "We need to go past the brick building and turn at the strange rock on the side of the road.")

Similar processing differences with math, I believe, but I'll have to check on that.

Gee, reminds me of the time (not just once!) when I had someone who was supposed to be responsible for my education and mentoring sit down and do me the honor of expounding upon why women don't get ahead in science.

It was really inspiring, esp. since his *wife* is the faculty member.

 

[Tgace]

I dunno, does that imply women are "inferior"? I always sucked at math myself, does that make me "inferior"? My sister teaches science and can do math in her sleep. I think the guy here is talking about generalization. I always thought it was well known that women were supposed to be "naturally" better at language skills and males at spatial reasoning, math.

I can buy we all have general traits due our genetics, so as long as the guys not saying "dont hire women for math/science jobs" whats the big deal?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

In the name of a fair trial, rather than burning the guy at the stake, the end of the first page of the article reads as follows:

"He discussed several factors that could help explain the underrepresentation of women. The first factor, he said, according to several participants, was that top positions on university math and engineering faculties require extraordinary commitments of time and energy, with many professors working 80-hour weeks in the same punishing schedules pursued by top lawyers, bankers and business executives. Few married women with children are willing to accept such sacrifices, he said."

So it seems that, at least on this record alone, he's not saying anything about women's innate capacities, like claiming their brains are hard-wired against hard sciences, but merely a societal (sociological?) thesis as to why there's less women in the S & E fields. For the MT board members who usually base their arguments on issues of social roles and dynamics, this shouldn't be that hard to process. Furthermore, I don't remember reading any conclusions or normative statements on his part about any proper roles for women, just a potential explanation for an employment phenomenon.

That being said in his defense, I'd really like to know what else he was basing this possible explanation on. The article listed the above as merely the first factor; first among how many? And without any study that I saw any concrete reference to, it seems like his presentation was based mostly on conjecture, which you really don't want to bring to an academic conference when you know what you're going to say is going to piss people off.

I think he screwed up, and shouldn't have gone to the conference with just a "hey, whatdya think" conjecture meant only to ruffle feathers. However, I didnt read any claims about women's proper roles on his part, and don't think that he should, immediately at any rate, be stamped with the label of sexist.

 

[ghostdog2]

Why would any sensible person assume that any and all differences between sexes are only skin deep? There are real and meaningful differences between the sexes; is it likely those differences are limited to simple appearance variations?

Why is a scientific analysis of gender capabilities an "insult"? Are we so thin skinned that everyone must always be deemed exactly the same? Seems to be so.
If you think this is a fire storm, try it with race.

 

[rmcrobertson]

A scientific analysis isn't an insult, of course. Off-the-cuff, unsubstantiated claims that just happenj to recylce the same old geneder stereotypes may very well be.

As mentioned, it'd be useful to know what this particular academic was basing his remarks upon.

It remains possible that it wasn't much.

Try:

http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/burtaffair.shtml

 

[Gin-Gin]

Granted, it could be the spatial processing differences that Feisty mentioned, but a biochemical thing? I'd have to see some research results before accepting that idea. However, Dr. Summers' point about the time commitments required for top Math & Engineering faculties sounded a bit more credible. I know women at work who have cut down on their responsbilities, work at home, work half-days, etc. so that they can spend as much time with their children as possible. (I'm not saying that ALL working women do that, just some that I know, plus "60 Minutes" did a story a couple of months ago about how more professional women are leaving high-paying/hard-earned careers to have a family. But that's for another thread...)

As to why fewer women succeed in Math & Engineering careers, I honestly don't know if it's socialization or biology (or both). :idunno: I'm not an expert, but I understand that the professor was trying to "provoke" the audience into discussion & that the talk was "designed to be off-the-record so that participants could speak candidly without fear of public misunderstanding." IMHO, he did stimulate discussion--that's why the NY Times article was written in the first place (& why we're discussing the article now). Unfortunately, he probably won't hear the end of this for a long time because of the way he made his point.

Btw, according to the NY Times article he never used the word "inferior."

Just my observations.
:asian:

 

[bignick]

Women are so good at everything else, why can't guys at least have math?

Seriously though, we know that different people learn differently. A person may be able to comperehend one subject better than others. Like someone said earlier, men and women are different. If you look at the science fields there is a predomination of men. The question is where do these differences arise or come from? Is it because men and women are "wired" differently? Or is it due to enviromental and sociological factors and context that cause less women to pursue the science fields. For me, when I was young I developed an intense love of reading. My parents read to me all the time and was encouraged to read on my own when I could. However, my brother who was only 2 and 1/2 years older was raised under the same circumstances and he's not a big fan of books. He's not any less intelligent than me(don't tell him I said though, I'll never hear the end of it). Why did we end up different, same parents, same circumstances, two very different learning styles and abilities. The main college entrance exam in my area was the ACT. It's scored on a scale up to 36 overall and broken into 4 categories Language, Reading & Comprehension, Math, Science Reasoning. Of course, when I took all those "fun" standardized tests I aced the reading & comprehension portions of the test. You would think that I would do well on the Language portion, but that was my worst area. My reading score was a 36, my language was somewhere in the mid to high 20's. I also aced the Science Reasoning with a 35, but my math scores were right around my language scores. Two areas where you would think there would be a correlation, but it just goes to show that people are different. Neither of my parents graduated from college. My dad is honestly probably one of the best people with arithmetic I know. He was a farmer and he had to deal with "simple" math all the time. He can do arithmetic in his head faster and more accurate than just about anybody I've ever met(including math professors). However, my mom is the one that helps out with my younger siblings math homework because of the logic and reasoning involved. She's just a lot better at it than my dad. Are men naturally better at the processes involved with math and reasoning? It is possible. But I doubt it. I would look more towards it as a result of sociological factors. Let's face it for the most part of western civilization it has been men that are in control. It would be interesting to see how people raised in a more matriarchal society do well next to people of similar standing in a normal western society. But then again, what do I know about any of this....I'm a computer science major...and computers don't care whether your a man or woman, they make your life equally as miserable...

 

[hardheadjarhead]

In the name of a fair trial, rather than burning the guy at the stake, the end of the first page of the article reads as follows:

"He discussed several factors that could help explain the underrepresentation of women. The first factor, he said, according to several participants, was that top positions on university math and engineering faculties require extraordinary commitments of time and energy, with many professors working 80-hour weeks in the same punishing schedules pursued by top lawyers, bankers and business executives. Few married women with children are willing to accept such sacrifices, he said."

Not many parents, man or woman, would consider putting in that much time on a job and neglecting their children. I recall business guro Tom Peters advocating that people put their jobs before their families in order to attain success. I have reservations about that advice.

In any case, Summers' main antagonist in this fray said she didn't disagree with this premise. She did take exception to the following:

"In citing a second factor, Dr. Summers cited research showing that more high school boys than girls tend to score at very high and very low levels on standardized math tests, and that it was important to consider the possibility that such differences may stem from biological differences between the sexes."

That does indeed suggest he's citing innate differences between the sexes and its impact on performance. In presenting this hypothesis to "stimulate" discussion he apparently failed to note that correlation does not equal causation...and now he's doing the "dancing bear" act to try and rationalize his comments.

The issue of innate gender abilities had allready been discussed by others. In the abstract below Catherine Weinberger at UC Santa Barbara notes that others had suggested innate abilites or lack thereof were influencing participation in engineering, sciences and math (EMS). Yet she found that men outnumbered women two to one in those areas even when their test scores were equal. She writes (emphasis my own):

"We find, contrary to prevailing theories, that female EMS graduates do not have higher self-confidence, stronger work orientation, weaker family orientation, or lower planned or actual fertility than mathematically talented female college graduates with other majors. We do find strong evidence that role models affect the participation of mathematically talented women in EMS fields."

Another web site gives us this:

"Women perform significantly better than men at all levels of education from high school to graduate school, but they do not perform better in general on standardized tests such as the quantitative SAT and GRE tests. Chipman and Thomas (1985) show that gender differences in mathematics performance do not emerge until high school where more men enroll in trigonometry and calculus (26% and 8%, respectively) than do women (20% and 6%, respectively) with the same percent enrollment in algebra (66% men, 69% women) and geometry (54%). The lower standardized test scores appear to be explained by high school course selection and by demographic and socioeconomic factors and not by genetic differences (Hornig (1987)). However, high school grades in mathematics for women are not less than those for men, though men have tended to have more years of preparation in mathematics at the high school level."

In speaking of the high attrition rates of women in the EMS fields:

"A major factor influencing graduate students' persistence with a degree is the availability of financial aid. Haven and Horch (1972) and the 1981 Survey of Doctorate Recipients showed that women receive less aid than men and Harris (1972) found that women tended to come from wealthier families, presumably because, in the absence of other aid, only these women could afford this education."

Further:

"In a study at the University of Illinois, Berg and Ferber (1983) found that, despite equality of financial inducements, the attrition rate for women was still higher than that for men. They suggested that women students have a lower involvement with faculty and were less likely to be treated as colleagues."



http://www.aera.net/grantsprogram/abstract_list/Abstracts/Abs-RG-00000035.html

http://www.awm-math.org/articles/notices/199107/billard/node2.html

I leave you to Google. This is a hot topic on the internet--or as our President would say--"the internets". Type in "women sciences test scores" and you'll have much to point and click at.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Spanner]

It is interesting to see how much people are influenced by social conditions. My mother went to a fairly traditional all-girls school where they were heavily discouraged from studying 'men's subjects' like maths and science. She duly studied humanities at University, but didn't exactly shine and only just scraped through the course. Years later, she's found that she shines at maths teaching, has done a masters degree in maths ed and now travels round schools, working with other teachers to improve the standards of maths education. My father experienced the exact opposite and was pushed into maths and science subjects that he hated and showed no aptitude for.

Even though I am quite young, there was still a lot of discrimation when I was at school regarding 'girls and boys' subjects. At primary school (age 8-11) we split off into groups on friday afternoon and the girls did needlework and the boys played on the computer!! And this was only in 1986!! However, I have managed to get over this lack of exposure to BBC B computers and have forged a career in IT .

At my secondary school (11-16) I remember that the physics teacher was very sexist, although I have only realised it since. He was always making comments about the girls 'not being able to concentrate on this sort of thing'. In retrospect, it seems obvious why no girls ever took physics at higher level. Ironically, when they got a new younger teacher in they ended up with more girls than boys.

I suspect that maths and science within academia contain a lot of people, male and female, who are roughly the same standard, with only a few who have a really outstanding 'natural' disposition to the subject. The achievements of the majority will mostly be influenced by the quality of tuition and mentoring they have had up until that point, by their own confidence, and by how hard they are prepared to work.

 

[GAB]

Hi,

The best thought I could come up with is, it goes back to the 3 R's.

Some of you will think, well it is only one R, where did he get that Idea???

If you have to google and spell check all the time, then you won't get this either.

Regards, Gary

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Of *all* the gender studies on girls vs. boys, men vs. women, all the difference that have been found overall (and presumably not due to local environmental influences) are in spatial processing.

Boys - better at absolute direction (i.e., on an overcast day, in the middle of nowhere - "Which way is East?")

Girls - better at direction with landmarks (i.e. "We need to go past the brick building and turn at the strange rock on the side of the road.")

Ah! But did they control for the fact that men will NOT stop to ask for directions? If not, that could skew the results.

One would think that if men and women combined their senses of absolute direction with direction via landmarks they'd actually avoid getting lost on family trips. Recall the Gary Larson cartoon of a man and woman driving on the moon, and the woman says "NOW look where the earth is! Move over and let me drive!"

Regards,


Steve

 

[AC_Pilot]

Men tend to have certain genetic abilities

Women tend to have certain genetic abilities

They are supposed to join and make a yin/yang sort of team.. not fight about their differences. Only evil wins when women try to be men and men try to be women. Feminism in it's current distorted form has actually been a big net loser for all concerned, including women. This is why we see so many successful career women in their 30s/40s desperately trying, when it's usually too late, to understand men and trying to marry and have a family. They were cheated and lied to by feminism. The early women's rights movement would utterly refute the current sick and degenerate argument that women are the same as men and the lie that "a woman does not need a man". Women are finding out this truth when it's too late and they are older and alone. In fact they have been taught to intimidate men, and they still don't get why men are not interested in them. Early women's rights activists simply wanted equal rights to property ownership and voting, etc.. the movement was hijacked in the 1960s by women like Betty Friedan, who was an awowed communist

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Oh now this is going to get interesting...

 

[Phoenix44]

Thank you for that insight AC Pilot.

 

[Flatlander]

AC_Pilot in bold:

Men tend to have certain genetic abilities

Women tend to have certain genetic abilities

They are supposed to join and make a yin/yang sort of team.. not fight about their differences.
Supposed to? According to whom?

Only evil wins when women try to be men and men try to be women.
Evil? Define this evil. How does it win?
Feminism in it's current distorted form has actually been a big net loser for all concerned, including women. This is why we see so many successful career women in their 30s/40s desperately trying, when it's usually too late, to understand men and trying to marry and have a family. They were cheated and lied to by feminism.
So, how many women are we talking about here? Are they personally claiming to have been lied to, (if so, where?), or are you projecting your general "inference"?
The early women's rights movement would utterly refute the current sick and degenerate argument that women are the same as men and the lie that "a woman does not need a man".
The implication in this statement is that a woman does need a man. Would you care to expand on that proposition?
Women are finding out this truth when it's too late and they are older and alone. In fact they have been taught to intimidate men, and they still don't get why men are not interested in them. Early women's rights activists simply wanted equal rights to property ownership and voting, etc.. the movement was hijacked in the 1960s by women like Betty Friedan, who was an awowed communist
What is the mechanism through which women have been "taught to intimidate men"? How does communism relate to this issue?

If it seems as though I'm asking a lot of questions, that would be because in the process of offering this group of unsubstatiated assertions, you've left too many questions, and no answers. So, please clarify your position.

 

[Tgace]

Well, there are obvious physical differences (thank goodness), why is it such a leap to think that there are other inherent differences as well? The problem arises when we try to place value on those differences. "In general" men have more upper body strength than women, that dosent mean that there are no exceptions. It also dosent mean that in the grand scheme of things that it matters very much. However, I doubt the world record in the bench press is going to go to a woman. It wont go to me either. The fact that some woman may take offense to that statement dosent change the genetic fact. It also dosent mean that Im necessarily stronger than she is. We need to separate the emotion and politics from our genetic differences if these studies are going to mean anything.

And on the issue of if women need men, we need them just as much. The world minus either of us would have ended this whole "existence" thing pretty quickly.

 

[Gin-Gin]

We need to separate the emotion and politics from our genetic differences if these studies are going to mean anything. And on the issue of if women need men, we need them just as much. The world minus either of us would have ended this whole "existence" thing pretty quickly.

Well said. :asian:

 

[AC_Pilot]

AC_Pilot in bold:

Men tend to have certain genetic abilities

Women tend to have certain genetic abilities

They are supposed to join and make a yin/yang sort of team.. not fight about their differences.

Supposed to? According to whom?
I believe by G-d. But even lacking faith in that, it is obvious to anyone who looks at the animal kingdom for parrallels. There can be no procreation without male-female joining and there fore no future for the species. Females cannot properly raise children alone any more than men can. The children are the ones who suffer the most, whatever the ostensible reason for the situation. Human children always do better when they have a father and mother.

Only evil wins when women try to be men and men try to be women.
Evil? Define this evil. How does it win?

The evil wins because it hates humanity and is seeking to obliterate it. It is succeeding . This began at the symbolic "tree" in the garden of Eden (hint: it was not an actual tree and the serpent not an actual serpent, it's symbolism) It wins by destryng families and wreaking havok on basic moral codes which have saved us from anarchy and self destruction for thousands of years. Whenever humans have strayed from basic and ancient moral codes they have been obliterated. This basic structure of a family unit and simple moral codes has transcended religion and cultures and has kept societies stable.

Feminism in it's current distorted form has actually been a big net loser for all concerned, including women. This is why we see so many successful career women in their 30s/40s desperately trying, when it's usually too late, to understand men and trying to marry and have a family. They were cheated and lied to by feminism.
So, how many women are we talking about here? Are they personally claiming to have been lied to, (if so, where?), or are you projecting your general "inference"?

It's obvious if you one is paying attention to the society around them. Many older successful career women are very, very unhappy and even if they don't know how they were lied to, they know something's wrong.. they have gone against the natural order by denying their natural need for a husband and family. They could have had a career as well, if they had done things differently, but they were lied to: "You don't need a man to be happy". And they bought the lie and now are older, bitter, antagonistic to men because that's what the marketplace has taught them to do to make it. Incompatable with a successful marriage.

The early women's rights movement would utterly refute the current sick and degenerate argument that women are the same as men and the lie that "a woman does not need a man".
The implication in this statement is that a woman does need a man. Would you care to expand on that proposition?

Does a female wolf need a mate?
Does a female eagle need a mate?
A woman without the love of a man can never be happy, no matter how many lies she tells herself. I think males are the same way.. without a good woman a man becomes far less that he could have been, and his character development suffers. i feel sorry for those of both sexes who cannot find the right person, or were not willing to make the sacrifice true love requires.
It's so obvious ..I will also say that those women who buy the lie will not reproduce or not in great numbers and problem mostly solved in one or two generations.


Women are finding out this truth when it's too late and they are older and alone. In fact they have been taught to intimidate men, and they still don't get why men are not interested in them. Early women's rights activists simply wanted equal rights to property ownership and voting, etc.. the movement was hijacked in the 1960s by women like Betty Friedan, who was an awowed communist
What is the mechanism through which women have been "taught to intimidate men"? How does communism relate to this issue?

Read these two articles for more info. look around the homepage for more articles:
http://www.savethemales.ca/000180.html

http://www.savethemales.ca/290502.html

If it seems as though I'm asking a lot of questions, that would be because in the process of offering this group of unsubstatiated assertions, you've left too many questions, and no answers. So, please clarify your position.

No problem, happy to talk about it. Peace, Steve

 

[rmcrobertson]

Show of hands--besides me, who on this forum actually knows anything about feminist discussion and theory?