I’m sure you’ve heard about the stir caused when Harvard University President Lawrence H. Summers told a group at Harvard that the disproportion of women in the sciences may be because men could be predisposed to being better at that sort of thing. You might not know that he didn’t support the theory, he merely advanced it as a possibility.
Probably the funniest thing I’ve seen read in a long time, however, was that Professor Nancy Hopkins told the Boston Globe that she had to leave the lecture because she would have “either blacked out or thrown up” if she hadn’t.
Now tell me this: if you’re a woman trying to make the case that women DON’T genetically have a harder time with science, why would you claim that the presence of intelligent academic debate made you physically ill?
Jonah Goldberg at the National Review Online has a stellar piece that says, in much better terms, exactly what I’m thinking.
I thought about quoting it, but decided that you ought just read the whole thing.
[Link to NRO via Kristin.]
I think the “presence of intelligent academic debate” is itself rather debatable. Sounds to me a lot like the “intelligent” thinking on racial differences 200+ years ago:
Thomas Jefferson wrote “I advance it, therefore, as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstance, are inferior to the whites in the endowment of both body and mind.”
Have we stepped back in time?
If you ignore the striking differences between the situations then yes, they’re identical.
Unfortunately the fact that the male and female brains are wired differently is not just a theory, it’s a scientific fact. You’ll note that President Summers’ main point was that the hours required of the jobs in question “discriminate” against women disproportionately because they simply do not fit with child rearing — a task still largely taken on by women today.
The differences between men (as a group) and women (as a group) are vast and certainly includes the way our brains work, whether or not that has an effect on the innate ability of men and women to do math (and science) is the point for debate, and President Summers said nothing more than that that was a possibility — which it is.
Wishing something to be true (or false) does not make it so.
Ya know I hate to admit it, but there are some good points in that article. Nancy Hopkins managed to make a point of not wanting be treated as women were treated in days of yore by acting like the overly sensitive, unintelligent flower she claims not to be. Great. Stupendous. Gloria Steinem must be so proud. Not.
I would just like to say on behalf of female scientists: “D’oh!”
A little closed minded, isn’t she? *sigh*
*sighs*… what an interesting situation!
As a long term member of a campus organization that deals with the idea of supporting women (and men also to a certain extent, although the name may indicate otherwise) in non-traditional fields, current statistics indicate that: women are begining to outnumber men in MANY undergraduate programs, and at post-secondary institutions in general in various areas. However, many women do not go onto continue their educations in these fields past undergraduate studies, and even less gain professorships with tenure etc. This is slowly changing however.
That said… There ARE differences between men and women. There will always be. And really, how rediculous can one person be regarding this matter? We don’t have to wear idiotic undergarmets that hamper our breathing enough to lose consciousness at the smallest provocation… so why in tarnation would SHE black out? That’s simply WAY too stereotypical of her, if her point is to buck stereotypes (which evidently does not succeed even if it is).
The bottom line here is that the Mr. Summers was not supporting the theory, merely advancing it as a topic for debate. If it is so “obviously” false, then the debate ought to be a short one quickly put to rest by a mountain of facts.
If it cannot be quickly put to rest then I think we have to at least consider that it’s POSSIBLE. No?
After all — men (in general) are naturally STRONGER than women, why is it preposterous to think that men and women are naturally predisposed to certain intellectual fields? Just because it offends our overriding sense of politically-correctness? Science will not bend to PC.
my step-mother is a research biologist and runs a lab in a major east coast university. she works the vast majority of her waking hours, frequently travels to conferences all over the world, and she’s happy doing what she does.
about 10 years ago, she tried to have a baby but it didn’t work out. i think it’s very likely that if she’d become a mother, she probably wouldn’t be where she is today. there’s just no way she’d have the time!
do i think her brain isn’t physically as able as a male’s to compete in the field of science? hell no.
do i think the fact that women have children and men don’t is a major contributing factor to who gets how far in math and science career fields? of course. no question.
A few problems with that sort of “case in point” reasoning:
1. The presence of a successful woman scientist or mathmatician does not mean that all women are just as capable as all men or, more generally, that women as a group are as capable than men as a group. All it means is that there seems to be an exception to the rule.
2. “Seems?” Absolutely. When we talk about “predisposition” we’re not talking about fatalism or pre-determined certainties. In short, many people have, through hard work and dedication, made up for a lack of “god-given talent.” There’s no way for us to know if one data point (your step-mother) is an exception to the rule, or just someone who overcame a predisposition.
3. The argument that was being furthered was not that women were incapable… but that the differences in wiring make it more difficult for them. This is not something that can be disproven with one example, and I’d gather that one of two things is true either 1) It’s true. or 2) It’s VERY difficult to disprove, since feminists have been trying to shut this door of reasoning for years. Of course, whether they’re shutting it after analyzing what’s behind it or just shutting it on principle is a topic for debate as well.
…but as opposed to debating this point, which I’d guess most of us (myself included) are too woefully ignorant to really discuss intelligently, maybe we ought to get back to the issue:
What’s wrong with suggesting for discussion a theory which has been neither proven nor disproven even if, and maybe ESPECIALLY if, it makes some people uncomfortable?