Women Lack 'Natural Ability' In Some Fields, Harvard President Says

[apnu]

We are taught that sexism is a bunch of men sitting around talking about women as "skirts" and "dolls" and that they should be in the kitchen baking pot-pies if South Park's Cartman is to be believed. But the truth of sexism, like racism, is very different from what we are popularly taught, it is a quiet thing working in the background like a cavity that your aren't aware of. Sexism lives in a world today that is very institutionalized and its perpetrators go to great lengths to explain away their actions. Prattling about 'quotas' and seeking academics to reinforce their asinine and out-dated perspectives. (Oddly enough we have a history of doing this with white on black racism but explaining why we do it is out of fashion right now.)

And so, I give to you a shining example of modern sexism -- the president of Harvard University says there aren't many women in the maths and sciences because they lack 'natural ability' in those subjects. Funny enough, he tries to explain it as a hypothesis and not his private views -- as if that makes it all the better. Oh how I loathe thee, let me count the ways

http://www.local6.com/education/4090001/detail.html


CAMBRIDGE, Mass -- The president of Harvard University prompted criticism for suggesting that innate differences between the sexes could help explain why fewer women succeed in science and math careers.

Lawrence H. Summers, speaking Friday at an economic conference, also questioned how great a role discrimination plays in keeping female scientists and engineers from advancing at elite universities.

The remarks prompted Massachusetts Institute of Technology biologist Nancy Hopkins - a Harvard graduate - to walk out on Summers' talk, The Boston Globe reported.

"It is so upsetting that all these brilliant young women (at Harvard) are being led by a man who views them this way," Hopkins said later.

[trotsky]

1. Ah, those college campuses...

bastions of evil liberal thought, I tell ya! :mad:

[lapislzi]

2. I lack a natural ability to fertilize ova

but I still have hope for parthenogenesis. I would also submit that Mr. Summers lacks a natural ability to bear and nurse live young.

Other than that...Mr. Summers can kiss my high functioning, capable ass.

I hope he retires before my daughter enrolls in 2012.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

32. okay, i am a woman, and the mother of a woman who is brillient in math and

science. She aces all her courses, math and science courses included, and she is in a pre med undergrad program. But, she does seem exceptional. Certainly there will always be people who are exceptions to the usual. Don't we have to consider that there may be a grain of truth to this? A psychologist named Kohler, famous for his study of moral developement, has theorized that men and women, while they may attain the same level of moral development, have differrent moral standards, a different moral approach. Some anthropologists have said that cavemen wandered far from camp in search of game, whereas cavewomen stayed close and leared what plants were growing nearby, and exactly where. Some persons have given this thesis as an explanation of why men more commonly use cardinal points to guide them, whereas women more often use landmarks. This theory taken to heart by FIDE, the world governing body of chess organization, and applied to a chess board, is why men's and women's world championships are held as separate events, because, while we may not like it, the truth is, there are more male chess grandmasters than female. Okay, well, let's not examine this comment with prejudice, and let us celebrate any differences between men and women, for that's what makes the world go round.

[One_Life_To_Give]

3. Discussion? Yes

There should be scientific debate about these issues. We should not be constrained by some rigid dogma that insists women are men without a Penis.

[lapislzi]

6. Maybe men are just women without ovaries

The very fact that people seem to need these categories and distinctions is problematic. I found your comment telling--that women somehow "lack" something. Are you suggesting that women start out in the minus column?

Why should the differences be important? It just goes further down the divisiveness road.

[One_Life_To_Give]

9. Still need to understand the differences

Some may be that we don't know what we don't know.
Is it meaningfull that if a seperate a infant/toddler from it's mother by a pane of glass. The sex of the infant/toddler can be determined by the reaction of the infant/toddler.

Should I not teach men to trust a womans sense of smell, since they have a better sense?

Should we ignore the impact of gender in the outcome of Stroke?

[lapislzi]

12. For one thing

It's very different to point out gender differences than it is to suggest that one gender lacks certain "natural abilities." There are certainly differences between the genders. The question remains what part nature, what part nurture? And how significant? It may be that females evolved a more highly developed sense of smell to identify their offspring, or some such thing. Or they may be socialized to have a more discriminating sense of smell and genetics has nothing to do with it.

For another thing, by the time a kid is a toddler (say, 12 - 18 mos.) it's already been socialized by its caregivers to one or the other gender. That's not a meaningful determinant.

[One_Life_To_Give]

14. Transgender experiences?

For another thing, by the time a kid is a toddler (say, 12 - 18 mos.) it's already been socialized by its caregivers to one or the other gender. That's not a meaningful determinant.

I have trouble reconciling the it's all social environment, with the experiences of the transgender. There appears to be more there than just "Social Conditioning". But unless we are willing to ask the questions, we may never know what differences are environmental and which are biological.

e.g. The overwhelming majority of Women EE's I have met, chose to work in Software as opposed to hardware. Why?

Should we assume it is arbitrary environmental conciderations that caused this and push women to enter hardware?

[lapislzi]

24. Interesting, if rare, example of hardwiring trumping socialization

The operative word in your post above is "choice." Why do women "choose" software over hardware? Good question. It's not a matter of "pushing" women to hardware, but finding out why these choices occur. Are they, in fact, choices at all, or the result of hardwiring?

I'm not taking a position; I'm just throwing it out there.

[ProfessorGAC]

19. Not Sure I Buy That

The study of differences also leads to deeper understanding of similarities and how to bridge the differences. That seems a worthwhile endeavor, no?

To ignore the differences in some weak effort to avoid divisiveness seems like avoidance.
The Professor

[lapislzi]

23. Point taken. I know there are differences

but as I said above, observing and studying differences is a far cry from suggesting that one gender lacks "natural abilities." To "lack abilities" would suggest "disability," yes? Looking at it in terms of simple differences WITHOUT the value judgement, is, imo, far more productive.

[ProfessorGAC]

27. We're In Agreement

I was just reacting to your "why examine the differences" implication. I certainly don't agree with Harvard's prez. I don't think there are any scientifically valid studies that indicate gender specific intellectual capacities. I think we know the male and female mind works differently, but that's a functional, not capacitative difference. I've never seen anything that would support this guy's perspective.

And yes, examining differences, without value judgment would be most appropriate. That's sort of the point of experimenting and studying in the first place. If one had predetermined results based upon values before actually doing the research and getting the facts, one would be a conservative.
The Professor

[TeacherCreature]

36. Welcome to the Bell Curve.

These remarks should be treated as the mindless swill that they are.

To "investigate" these "theories" would be a waste of time and money better spent "investigating" how idiots like this get to become University Presidents.

Also--why sexist mythology continues to persist on so-called "progressive" message forums.

[UL_Approved]

4. Get out your stereotypes, its party time!!!

Looks like the Bush mandate has the closet bigots coming out of the woodwork today. I guess that if you let one smart-assed student get rowdy in detention, you quickly lose control of the situation.

Of course, education at Ivy League schools is all about the name anyway. They are a joke when it comes to education.

[Acryliccalico]

5. Ignorance knows no boundaries

His mind set is off :grr:

[punpirate]

7. Word I get from some Harvard people...

... is that Larry Summers is an asshole to everybody and about everything except investors and philanthropists. That's the only reason why he's still around.

[TeacherCreature]

37. He is hated at Harvard. He drove Cornell West away and torpedoed

A Women's Studies program that had already atatrcted its major funding.

He is a swine and shoyuld be forced to resign in shame for his crude and ifgnorant remarks.

[Freebird12004]

8. *grrrrr*

:mad:

[Burma Jones]

42. You're Cute when you're Angry, Pumpkin...................

Love,
Larry Summers

[Freebird12004]

43. why ~ thank you

:eyes: :hi:

[China_cat]

10. Oh let's see

yes, I'm lousy at math and science even though they were some of my favorite subjects until I got to junior high. Where I found out that I was supposed to take home ec and was barred from shop (where math, at least was taught in the practical instead of the theoretical).

Where, in the public school I went to, girls were barred from physics and trig courses and were only reluctantly allowed to take anything more than basic algebra.

Yes, this WAS a lot of years ago. But we are the ones who have had to try to break through our own conditioning that we 'can't' do these things in order to allow our daughters to at least consider that they are capable and is only now trickling down to our grand-daughters who are allowed to say 'yes I can'.

And the president of Harvard is in the generation of males who were educated by proxy that women can't, and don't even realize that we weren't permitted...or were strongly discouraged from even trying.

[spooky3]

11. If he had made the same comments about African Americans

would he still have his job?

Since he claims to be a good social scientist, perhaps he should bother himself to read the research literature on math abilities of girls versus boys and when scores start diverging, test bias, etc. Oh wait, that might cast doubt on his sexist views...

He might also want to take a look at the MIT study of discrimination against women scientists. Before it was undertaken, the MIT president said he thought the problem was largely just "perceptual", which means he doesn't believe much discrimination existed. To his credit, the MIT president made a very public statement after the study showed him wrong admitting his mistake, and calling for immediate changes not only at MIT but elsewhere.

[windlight]

13. Isn't it the other

way around?... as a male i have looked into the gender differences to some extent... and from what i have read in the human race sex is defaulted to female but when a hormone is present maleness is devolped... so doesn't that mean men are women plus a hand full of hormones during pregnancy? and unless you can _Prove_ those hormones effect mental abilities then isn't it a default that women by in large fully capable of ANYTHING any human can do?... and given that starting point, isn't environment that keeps women from excelling in math and science. Hence it is idiots like this that keeps women from entering and excelling at elite universities.

[One_Life_To_Give]

20. Brain Differences?

I read somewhere that part of the male development includes;
A period where the growth of the brain is concentrated in the development of the left hemispere. At the expense of connectivity between the two hemispheres.

Speculation has been that women are more likely to use both hemispheres to solve problems. While men focus only on the left hemisphere. So in many fields of science women probably have a inate superiority.

[lectrobyte]

15. I'd have hoped that even if someone was President of Harvard

and really thought that way, they'd be smart enough not to say it out loud where it would get in the press, if that makes any sense.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

16. economists are highly qualified to make these remarks

:eyes:

[ProfessorGAC]

18. Hey! Watch The Economist Cracks!

The Professor

[BiggJawn]

17. And I thought "The Peter Principle" was only functional on MY campus...

I just realized today that I'd have to lose about 60 points on my IQ to ever hope to be advanced...

[opihimoimoi]

22. The Peter Principle is alive and well...actually gone Ebolaesque a few

years back resulting in Bushies in the oval Office.

[NewJeffCT]

21. While I can see gender coming in the way...

While I can see gender coming in the way if a woman wanted to play in the NBA or NFL, I cannot see it coming in the way in any sort of intellectual field. And, women certainly wouldn't succeed in the NBA from a lack of intellect, it would just be that they are naturally smaller and not as strong as men. (Yes, I know there are some exceptions, but there is a significant physical difference between male & female pro athletes...)

[apnu]

25. Finally we have a winner!

Geez... math and science is NOT something that one gender can posses better another since math and science are human made things attempting to explain the natural workings of our universe. Math is made up! and if you really dig into the subject you'll find, at its core, that the concept of even and odd numbers is shaky at best. In Discrete Structures, even and odd have to be proven, and even then they are considered to be a hypthesis at best.

The fact is, women have trouble in math and science because they are not taught to appreciate math and science like men are. Society teaches women to abhore math and scicence and show little interest. However when women dig into math and science they've always shown the same abilities as men to under stand the subject.

Come one people! This is modern, blatant sexism trying to explain why Harvard has, under this president, rejected women from the university simply because they are women and for no other reason.
(I'm a guy and I can see this plainly)

How different is this guy's sexist comments to this famously racist comment: "Let's face it - black people are just better than us at basketball. Of course, they're not very smart, but that's not their fault!"

Anybody crowing that this president isn't a sexist is drinking the W kool-aid

[ChairOne]

28. The concept of even/odd is shaky?

ROFL. Only to people who don't know much of anything about math... It's completely straightforward for the rest of us...

Math is "made up"? lol. That Newton - always spinning yarns! What a great work of fiction the Principia was! ROFL.

[apnu]

30. wrong on both counts

Even and Odd aren't proven -- they are theoris. Period. As a layman you take advantage of even and odd as a concept but tell me can you prove an even and odd as a fact? Since even and odd are theories and not fact, they can be disproven. However, no one has been able to disprove them yet. Just like Einstien's Theory or Relativity not only took over and changed Newton's findings, it is also a theory just like most of Newton's work.

Also, gravity is not mathematics. Math is only a language used to explain the physical universe, so, yes, math is made up just as all languages are made up.

[ChairOne]

33. Sheesh. At least use basic grammar....

Sentences, claims, beliefs are things that can be proven - proven true or proven false (i.e., disproven).

There's no such thing as "proving a concept" any more than there is the "hungry color green" - the grammatical categories don't match up.

If what you mean is: what's the difference between even and odd numbers, that's easy enough to anyone who knows even the smallest bit of math:

Out of the natural numbers (that is, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...), the *even* numbers are picked out as being of the form 2*n for some natural number n. The odds are picked out either as not-even, or directly, as being of the form 2*n + 1, for some natural number n.

Done.

You can *say* math is made up all you want - and take the faux glamourous stance of saying something deep and meaningful. If you acknowledge a difference between Euler and Michael Crighton, then you're just spoutin a bunch of hooey.

Oh wait a minute - I'm falling for another sci.math crank... doh! You know actually know anything about *actual* math, or *actual* physics, or their *actual* histories do you? Damn - you got me - good one!

[apnu]

39. That's still number theory.

So you disagree that mathematics is a language? Spit out all the theorists, authors and PhDs you want. You still can't change the fact that mathematics is not 100% accurate. Therefore its shaky.

Remember, European theologians didn't have a concept of zero or negative numbers until after the Crusades brought Algebra out of the middle east. And then math changed, for Europeans at least, at that time.

Also consider the concept of different sets of infinity, that too was a wacky idea. It earned Georg Cantor a stay in the nut house, brought to him by his fellow mathematicians. But math changed again as a result of his ideas.

Oh yes, and the irrationality of the square root of 2 -- the great secret of the Greeks who almost had a civil war over that concept.

I must know nothing of math history -- you certainly told me.

Math changes, its a living, breathing language. Call me a crank if you want for thinking that, thanks for the complement.

[ChairOne]

40. You originally said there was something "shaky"....

.... about the notions of odd and even. There is nothing shaky about them. Not a single thing. And all of your armchair hack math philosophizing hasn't altered that fact.

Sure math changes, develops, evolves over time. That has, at best, epsilon-ishly little to do with odd and even being "shaky". No matter how many mostly false historical highlights you care to name.

Excellent - a knowledgeable math historian! I've never been completely clear what role was played by the uniqueness of Fourier series. Can you help?

Feel free to address your original statement: what, *specifically* is "shaky" about even and odd?

[One_Life_To_Give]

29. Do you have a transcript?

Last I heard the transcript of what this guy said is not being released. And while two women were clearly upset by his statements, whatever they were. When the Globe checked with four other women present they did not feel offended by what was said.

[apnu]

31. well there is some censorship involved

Because AP has edited the story since it came out. The first copy I read actually had stats on Harvard's hiring practices as referenced in the end of the article, but that has now been dropped.

However, his actions are suspect. If he said nothing that is bad, as he claims, why withhold a transcript. And remember, the guy is withhold the transcript, NOT Harvard or the symposium. I don't know what's going on there but it sure smells like day old fish to me.

Also, the AP article says specifically: "Five other participants in the National Bureau of Economic Research conference, including Denice D. Denton, chancellor designate of the University of California, Santa Cruz, also said they were offended by the comments. Four other attendees contacted afterward by the Globe said they were not."

Look at that carefully. Are the Four other attendees women? You don't know, they may have been women they may have not, the Globe is being cagey, or AP is.

[One_Life_To_Give]

38. Looks bad - Agreed

Yes it looks like this guy is sexist. But there is also a tendency to shout down anyone who might imply a reason other than sexism for women not acheiving on a par with men.

On the surface it looks to me like both are partly at fault in this case.

[gaia_gardener]

26. I finally dropped out of my science field

not because I couldn't handle the work, but because I got sick and tired of butting my head against huge male egos and constantly having to prove myself (over and over and over).

I did finish my degree, but found getting a job was next to impossible. And when I did get a job, I was constantly having to prove that I could do the field work and the intellectual work. It just became too big of a strain, so I changed fields. I resent it (immensely) and have to struggle against my bitterness.

I don't have daughters, but my sons are being raised to know that girls can do anything they can do - period. They are also being raised to know that men can do anything women can do. They've lived with a dad who was an at-home parent, who does the majority of the cooking, etc.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

34. think of it as a break, and go back, if you have a talent, don't let anyone

anyone cheat you out of it. If you resent leaving the field of science, than you really belonged there. It's not too late because you are not dead yet. Go back to school, and if the degree you have didn't yield a good job, get a more advanced degree. If you are dealing with the sciences, your degrees will make you employable anywhere in the world, however, it may take an advanced degree. Don't give up, little mommy!

[txaslftist]

35. AND they are icky and have cooties, too.

[Burma Jones]

41. Uhhhhhhhh, all I can say is

This is one of our greatest brains.........

http://sunnyday.mit.edu /


Oh, let's not forget Grace Hopper either..........

http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/tap/Files/hopper-story.html

[Freebird12004]

44. WOW

You really do like smart women B-)

[Burma Jones]

45. Life is hell without one at your side............n/t

[Freebird12004]

46. and it makes these cold nights - not so bad, too