First off, if anyone subscribes/buys the TLS, please pick up a copy of this week’s issue; my brother’s book is very favorably reviewed within the pages of the world’s most important literary magazine. No link to the review yet.
I read the National Review on-line, even though I think it’s a silly magazine. This morning, Carrie Lukas writes about Danica Patrick, the racing sensation:
The Indy Racing League’s new rookie phenomenon, Danica Patrick, is breaking ground — and not just with her performance on the race track. Last month, Patrick finished fourth in the Indianapolis 500, the best finish by a woman in the history of the nearly century-old race. Her response to sexist remarks made by Formula One boss, Bernie Ecclestone, during a “congratulatory†phone call, deserves equally enthusiast applause.
When talking to Patrick, Ecclestone remarked that “women should be all dressed in white like all other domestic appliances.†He also repeated this bizarre sentiment in an interview. This wasn’t the first time Ecclestone has made offensive remarks. According to an Associated Press story written about the phone call, in 2000 Ecclestone told Autosport Racing magazine that for a woman to compete in Formula One, “she would have to be a woman who was blowing away the boys. … What I would really like to see happen is to find the right girl, perhaps a black girl with super looks, preferably Jewish or Muslim, who speaks Spanish.â€
Patrick’s reaction to the weird, sexist comments? She shrugged them off: “I was a bit confused. …So I don’t really know what to think about it. I don’t know if he was talking about someone else or the majority or what, I’m not really sure. Or, maybe that’s his real feeling. If that’s the case, then you know, [it] doesn’t really matter because I’m racing in the Indy Racing League."
So far, so good. Then it’s Lukas who gets weird:
It’s a refreshing change from the overreaction we have come to expect when someone is confronted with offensive behavior. Patrick could have called for Ecclestone’s resignation or fueled a media frenzy to investigate the “boys club†of auto racing. She could have demanded that Formula One create a nonprofit seeking to achieve greater gender balance in auto racing.
But she didn’t. She’s in the Indy Racing League, after all. Some jerk’s remarks are small potatoes.
Compare that reaction to the hysteria surrounding Harvard President Larry Summers’s comments about gender at an academic conference earlier this year. When Summers dared to suggest that it was worth exploring how innate differences between the genders contribute to the dearth of women in the upper echelons of science — a legitimate line of inquiry — female professors and their radical feminist sisters went berserk. They weren’t just offended, they were personally distraught. One wilting violet described nearly fainting after hearing Summers’s offensive words.
Bold is mine. Gosh, Carrie. Where to start? Danica Patrick was responding to a personal insult directed at her (by Ecclestone, whose Formula One circuit is about as exciting as watching paint dry, and I say that as a former F1 fan). The critics of Summers were responding to a staggering generalization about women as a whole. Ecclestone, as Patrick points out, has no oversight over IRL racing in this country, so his opinion is essentially irrelevant. Feminists were angered by Summers because, as president of Harvard, he is in a position of authority over thousands of bright young women whose aptitude for hard science he openly questioned. In other words, Ecclestone was personally offensive to Patrick; Summers was professionally offensive to hundreds, even thousands of women in the sciences. I’ll agree that Danica Patrick showed grace in her response, but the offense was simply not comparable.
I’ve known lots of women in the sciences. A good friend of mine got her Ph.D. from Caltech in chemistry in the 1980s, when it was far more male-dominated than it is now. Every day, she endured the humor at her expense; almost every day, someone questioned whether she belonged there. She succeeded, and indeed, she still loves Caltech. But she understands why women were "distraught" at what Summers had said. When the legitimacy of years of work is called into question because of your sex by the highest leader at your university, to be personally hurt is hardly an overreaction.
Ecclestone’s "appliance" remark was so odd that even folks in the anti-Danica camp seemed a bit bewildered by it. His influence in Danica’s racing league is somewhere between negligent and non-existent. Patrick could afford to shrug off his bizarrely offensive words because they had no real power to affect her career. Summers, as president of America’s most prestigious private university, has infinitely more weight in the lives of women scientists than Ecclestone does in the Indy Racing League. Patrick’s personal graciousness, as laudable as it is, cannot be used as an exemplar of how feminists ought to respond to the inexcusable remarks of a man in Summers’ position.
This is a really great post. I study psychology at but have to say that i’ve never had any bad experiences in my department. However the preponerance in the higher ranks is towards the men. What’s cheering is that there are some really good, talented women coming up, beginning to even things out. Comments like that of Summer’s could be really hurtful to people personally, and to people professionally as it may put people off going into those areas, or put other people of hiring women.
Great Blog Hugo, really good to see some male feminsts out there. keep doing what you are doing
rx
Looks like the literary gifts run in the family! Congratulations to your brother! I’m going to order the book, sounds like something I should read for my growing historical background.
I see ‘now’ how the remarks made by Summer were an insult to all women.__ This is a good example of how the feminist struggle is far from over!
Hugo, you apparently don’t understand what Summers said. He simply theorized that the dearth of women in science might be in part due to innate biological differences. He did not impugn the professional credentials of individual women who are already successful, like your friend at Caltech, he simply offered a possible explanations re. the relative numbers of men and women in the sciences. (And BTW, those same theorized innate biological differences could explain why there are so few men in social work, women’s studies, education, etc.)
His theory has merit and is supported (and refuted) by some good science. However, because of the shameful hysterics by the likes of MIT’s Nancy Hopkins (who BTW is the same person to foist the wild allegation that women were discriminated against at MIT - see here, here, and here), and her fellow feminist ’scientists,’ now more people than ever have serious doubts about women in science. Hopkins did more harm than good in that situation, but Larry Summers was worse because he caved to the feminist juggernaut.
Ecclestein seems like a dull-witted twit, so he can be dimissed as such. But Summers should know better, and IMO he should have been fired from his Harvard gig precisely because of his spineless apologizing and kowtowing in the aftermath of Hopkins’ swooning and hysterics.
Hugo, you apparently don’t understand what Summers said. He simply theorized that the dearth of women in science might be in part due to innate biological differences. He did not impugn the professional credentials of women who are already successful, like your friend at Caltech, he simply offered a possible explanations re. the relative numbers of men and women in the sciences. (And BTW, those same theorized innate biological differences could explain why there are so few men in social work, women’s studies, education, etc.)
His theory has merit and is supported (and refuted) by some good science. However, because of the shameful hysterics by the likes of MIT’s Nancy Hopkins (who BTW is the same person to foist the wild allegation that women were discriminated against at MIT - see here, here, and here), and her fellow feminist ’scientists,’ now more people than ever have serious doubts about women in science. Hopkins did more harm than good in that situation, but Larry Summers was worse because he caved to the feminist juggernaut.
Ecclestein seems like a dull-witted twit, so he can be dimissed as such. But Summers should know better, and IMO he should have been fired from his Harvard gig precisely because of his spineless apologizing and kowtowing in the aftermath of Hopkins’ swooning and hysterics.
Ooops - sorry for the double posting. I don’t know what happened.
Hey, when’s the last time Ecclestone’s been in a kitchen, anyway? The ’50’s? I guess “women should be dressed in stainless steel like all other domestic appliances” doesn’t have quite the same ring, no?
Sigh. Mr. Bad surely recalls that Summers said he intended to provoke his audience. He also stated that women’s innate lack of scientific ability was a far greater factor than discrimination in their underrepresentation in the sciences; he pointed to his daughter’s referring to a ‘mommy truck’ as an example of this.
Danica Patrick isn’t stupid. She probably also realized that shrugging off the remarks would get her a lot farther than pointing out what an incoherent ass Ecclestone was.
I don’t doubt that Patrick is quite familiar with F1 and knows that Ecclestone is a crazy old coot. I too am in the habit of blowing off the comments of crazy old coots.
I kinda look at as my guy friends vs. my professor. When my friends make idiotic sexist comments, it makes better sense to roll my eyes (and maybe punch them in the shoulder, they seem to respond to negative enforcement) than to actually explain to them why what they said was harmful.
If a professor goes “Women are just innately worse a physics” I go to the head of the department, because he is in a positon of authority and “just shrugging it off” is to my detriment and that of every other girl in the class.
Mr. Bad, do you honestly think that the differences are purely biological? You don’t think envirnment compliments/reinforces biology?
My dad, who I had written off as a staunch anti-feminist years ago, finally told me something that blew me for a loop, that relates to this and I’d like to share:
“Way back when Title IX was inacted, we had a girl’s basketball team. Jesus, I thought “What idiot is wasting my wrestling money so these girls who obviously can’t play can look like morons”? These girls looked awkward, like they had muscles in the wrong places, and they threw like they were five. Now that it’s thirty years later, I’ve realized something. These girls were playing for the very first time. It was exactly like my friends when we first learning how to play ball. I see these girls now, from Cara’s (my smallest sister’s) age all the way up to the professional leagues, and these girls really know what they’re doing. If your little sister’s team played the boys team, I’d put money on your sister’s team over the guys. Every year the girl’s get better and better, and the gap between the girls and the guys get’s smaller and smaller. So maybe, it wasn’t that girls suck, maybe it’s just that it makes a difference if you’ve been immersed in the game since you were knee-high to grasshopper. And myabe it makes a difference if you have a coach with some experience working with girls instead of guys, and you have techniques to work with”.
Maybe with science it matters that girls still are socialized to play with dolls and guys are encouraged to blow-things up.
When my friends make idiotic sexist comments, it makes better sense to roll my eyes (and maybe punch them in the shoulder, they seem to respond to negative enforcement) than to actually explain to them why what they said was harmful.
Why be friends with people who make idiot sexist comments they refuse to be called out on?
Honestly? Lack of options. I live in North Dakota.
These are the best of the worst.
And, at least they’re not intentionally sexist. And they have good taste in music, movies, and activities, and never once has made a judgement call on my sexual behaviors. They talk about interesting things, they are incredibly loyal, and they put up with the resident “feminazi”.
Myth, the vast majority of people are sensitive to criticism.
These are the best of the worst.
Ouch. Move!
Myth, the vast majority of people are sensitive to criticism.
I know. And the vast majority of people are also sensitive to having it pointed out when they are being bigots. But nobody tells an African-American man that he should smile and shrug it off when his white friends say racist shit, or that he should be concerned they might react poorly if he criticizes their racism. Nobody’s ever told me that if a friend makes a flatly anti-Semitic “joke” that I should make nice and let it go because they didn’t mean anything by it.
It’s just us broads who are supposed to have a sense of humor and not offend anyone’s fee-fees.
Living in ND is…educational. And tuition/rent/food is very very cheap.
And ND is better than the Bible belt. Trust me on this one, at least the cops actually prosecute people.
I believe you.
Mythago: “He also stated that women’s innate lack of scientific ability was a far greater factor than discrimination in their underrepresentation in the sciences.”
As a lawyer, you know better than this, Mythago. As a feminist, of course, you insist that this is what he meant, as do most of the others around here, but as a lawyer, you know perfectly well that this is not what he said. And it is disingenuous of you (and everyone else who does this particular swoon) to keep repeating this misrepresentation. It is a Nazi technique, you know: repeat a lie often enough and loud enough, and people will eventually believe it. I invite you to quote directly from his speech, although we have been down this path before.
And I, for one, believe that it is part of his responsibility to be provocative.
I, for one, believe that it’s pathetic to “be provocative” and then turn around and act shocked, shocked that you did in fact provoke people.
but as a lawyer, you know perfectly well that this is not what he said.
stanton, have *you* read the speech? I would understand if you hadn’t, because he refused to release the text for some time.
There are three broad hypotheses about the sources of the very substantial disparities that this conference’s papers document and have been documented before with respect to the presence of women in high-end scientific professions. One is what I would call the-I’ll explain each of these in a few moments and comment on how important I think they are-the first is what I call the high-powered job hypothesis. The second is what I would call different availability of aptitude at the high end, and the third is what I would call different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search. And in my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the order that I just described.
Although admittedly, I overlooked the line where he “did a very crude calculation, which I’m sure was wrong and certainly was unsubtle, twenty different ways,” but of course goes ahead and lays it out for us with solid-sounding numbers. He then follows up with a discussion of discrimination, which he believes exists, but not so much, presenting the tired old ‘discrimination couldn’t exist because of market forces’ argument.
Oh, and the thing with the trucks:
So, I think, while I would prefer to believe otherwise, I guess my experience with my two and a half year old twin daughters who were not given dolls and who were given trucks, and found themselves saying to each other, look, daddy truck is carrying the baby truck, tells me something.
I’ve a better way to settle the issue. Just let both sides work with livestock a while. Nothing like working with stubborn animals who don’t want to do what you want them to do to even out the playing field.
FWIW, my husband and I couldn’t get the calves loaded this morning. My husband left for work, then our 15yo daughter and I went out there to work with them. She and I got it done. We saw the situation differently, thought about it differently. That difference in thought made the difference in ability to get the darn things loaded. (She’s a pretty good hand with loading sheep as well.)
In case none of y’all have noticed, I tend to get a bit testy when it comes to these types of “discussions.” Where I come from, most folks don’t have the time for these sorts of arguments. We’re all too busy working to worry about this stuff.
If you’d like to hear about some “male attitude,” I’ve a story that was related to me yesterday. A lady with whom I do business is the manager of the company for which she works. She has an 18yo male employee who’s been in her face far too often. He gets in her face because he doesn’t respect a female manager. He’s not fired (yet) because he owes the owners some money, and he’s working it off. In a couple of weeks, though…
When women around here have to deal with discrimination, that’s the type we deal with - usually younger men who haven’t learned any better. They’ve yet to learn that it doesn’t matter what the gender, race, or religion of your co-workers - everyone has to pull their own weight. He’ll either learn, or he’ll keep that chip on his shoulder and develop a “victim” mentality as he goes from job to job, getting fired over and over because of that chip he’s carrying around.
Where I come from, most folks don’t have the time for these sorts of arguments. We’re all too busy working to worry about this stuff.
Does that make sexism go away? Neat!
Nah, doesn’t make it go away completely. But it does make people have less patience with it.
Yes, Mythago, I have read the speech. And I appreciate that you supplied a quote, though I’m a bit surprised. So exactly where, in this quote, did he say “that women’s innate lack of scientific ability was a far greater factor than discrimination in their underrepresentation in the sciences”?
He was calling for research into the reasons for the disparity, as you know. He said that he thought the research would show the three factors he listed as being the cause, and he believed they would be in the order he listed. Even granting that his #2 factor boils down to a lack of “innate ability” of women (which it absolutely does not, IMHO), he did state that this factor is “far greater” than discrimination, which is in his factor #3. And with or without his anecdote of the “mommy truck” he was clear that he was stating what he THOUGHT research would show, and that research needed to be done on the matter. Mythago, angry as this makes you, he absolutely did NOT say what you and so many others accuse him of saying. You (and the rest) do feminism no credit when you insist that your interpolations of the facts actually ARE the facts.
Caitrona: I actually agree with most of what you say. But why so critical of debate? My experience is that debate requires me to clarify my own thinking, and it also requires me to understand where the other person is coming from, and why they hold opinions different from my own. Good faith debate - and this differs from ideological attacks on perceived opponents - is educational to both the participants and the observers.
I would like to know if you believe that there are innate differences between the natural abilities of men and women (in genreal, of course - there are always exceptions), which were in evidence when you and your daughter were more successful in loading the calves than your husband.
stanton is correct and mythago is wrong - Summers offered up “innate biological differences” as one of several (i.e., three) possible causes for the disparity between men and women in science and engineering, and I never said otherwise (i.e., that only biology was at play). Feminists have vigorously misrepresented what he said in a blatant attempt to exploit the situation, and to their credit, it worked. This time.
There are many forces at work re. the distribution of men and women among various professions, etc. I believe that the most powerful forces affecting the numbers we observe - in descending order - are personal choice, followed by discrimination and then innate biological differences. But when recognizing discrimination, I’m sure nobody here will be surprised when I say that the most powerful and significant discrimination at play vis-a-vis women in science and engineering is discrimination against men, not women.
Affirmative action has favored women in science and engineering for about 30 years now, so this has tilted the playing field in favor of women for at least that long. Despite this discrimination against men, they still outnumber women in science and engineering, therefore there’s at least one more powerful force affecting the male/female distribution. When you follow the careers of women in science and engineering, whether or not they have been the beneficiaries of affirmative action, many times you see that after they get trained in a science or engineering field they choose to switch careers and work in a more “characteristically female” job after a few years. (Interestingly, this makes a good case for arguing that programs like ADVANCE which provide significant resources to encouraging women to go into science and engineering fields are a waste of scarce resources and thus should be eliminated) Therefore, IMO, choice is the most powerful force and discrimination, while present, actually works to suppress the imbalance we observe.
Biology is certainly a factor, but how much of a factor has yet to be determined. However, judging from the broohaha caused Nancy Hopkins’ (and other hysterical feminists’) episode of the vapors, it will be a long time before any such research gets conducted, and if it finds the ‘wrong’ results (i.e., confirms biological advantages for men) you can bet your bottom dollar that the findings will have a very hard time seeing the light of day. Unfortunately, that’s the way academia works - or rather doesn’t - these days.
So exactly where, in this quote, did he say “that women’s innate lack of scientific ability was a far greater factor than discrimination in their underrepresentation in the sciences”?
stanton, I’ve linked to the entire speech. I’ve posted his “this may be bad math, but I’m going to present it as fact anyway” line. And again, he presented the ‘market argument,’ which says that discrimination must be very very minor because the market would have wiped out institutions that practice it.
Funny how everybody thinks ‘personal choice’ operates in a vacuum.
Antigone wrote: “Mr. Bad, do you honestly think that the differences are purely biological? You don’t think envirnment compliments/reinforces biology?”
No, and I never said the phenomenon is purely due to biology. But to say that biology is not a factor is equally disingenuous and ignores good, valid science.
You continue: “My dad, who I had written off as a staunch anti-feminist years ago, finally told me something that blew me for a loop, that relates to this and I’d like to share:
“Way back when Title IX was inacted, we had a girl’s basketball team. Jesus, I thought “What idiot is wasting my wrestling money so these girls who obviously can’t play can look like morons”? These girls looked awkward, like they had muscles in the wrong places, and they threw like they were five. Now that it’s thirty years later, I’ve realized something. These girls were playing for the very first time. It was exactly like my friends when we first learning how to play ball. I see these girls now, from Cara’s (my smallest sister’s) age all the way up to the professional leagues, and these girls really know what they’re doing. If your little sister’s team played the boys team, I’d put money on your sister’s team over the guys. Every year the girl’s get better and better, and the gap between the girls and the guys get’s smaller and smaller. So maybe, it wasn’t that girls suck, maybe it’s just that it makes a difference if you’ve been immersed in the game since you were knee-high to grasshopper. And myabe it makes a difference if you have a coach with some experience working with girls instead of guys, and you have techniques to work with”.
Maybe with science it matters that girls still are socialized to play with dolls and guys are encouraged to blow-things up.”
Sure, it probably still matters, but as I noted in another post, even when girls are given special programs to raise their interest in science and math, many times they choose to leave those professions for ones that to them are more fulfilling. Are you saying that those choices can’t possibly be based at least in part on basic biological differences? I find it interesting that feminists are more than happy to brag about women being innately better at things like “multitasking,” “nurturing,” “communicating,” etc., but whenever one tries to point similar strengths that men (might) have, feminists get all worked-up and say that it’s only due to “sexism,” “discrimination,” or some other standard excuse.
And actually, I like Title IX just fine, and believe that enforcement should be expanded to include all aspects of the original intention of the act. Title IX calls for equality of opportunity in all areas of education for men and women, not just sports, so I think that the DOE should be going after schools to provide equal funding and facilities for men in areas such as healthcare, social events, housing, academic programs (e.g., men in education, social work, etc.), scholarships, etc. However, to date, only imbalances where women are disadvantaged are addressed, and this needs to change. The act isn’t a problem, but the way that it’s enforced certainly is.
mythago said: “Funny how everybody thinks ‘personal choice’ operates in a vacuum.”
Funny how mythago and other feminists think that women are so immature, weak and easily manipulated that they can’t make their own personal choices, but rather, let others (i.e., society) force them to decide according to external attitudes.
I would think that ordinary, capable women would find that sort of patronizing feminist attitude to be quite insulting.
Mr. Bad. Ooh, you’re such a badass:
“You’re a Nazi for saying Summers said X.”
“But he said it. Here’s the quote.”
“Oh, you just have no respect for women.”
Okay, then.
BTW, if every personal choice is made in a vaccuum and sexism is a non-factor, then please explain to me why I know dozens of women who have changed their names upon marriage, and have not yet met a man who has done the same? And why I don’t know any married women whose children have their surname and not the father’s surname? Is it that there’s a roughly 50/50 split and I just know weird people? Is it that women have an “oh, no, call me whatever you want” gene? Or gosh golly gee, could it POSSIBLY be that there’s sexism and women are expected to give up their names while men are not?
Hi theorajones,
There’s no sexism in the examples you describe - nobody forces women to take their husband’s name, etc., they do so by choice. As for men taking women’s names, I have serveral male friends who took their wife’s name, thus, the entire family has the same hyphenate last name.
Try again.
Mythago: I guess I missed where you linked to the speech (though I’ve seen it before), but you quoted nothing at all that said any particular factor was “far greater” than any other factor. What he did say was that research should be done, and that he thought the research would show the reasons for the disparity to be as he listed them, in that order of importance. The second factor he listed could be construed to imply lack of innate scientific ability, but unless I’m missing something, he gave no indication of what he thought the degree of difference between these factors would be. You supplied the degree of difference (”far greater”) and attributed it to Summers.
As for “choices made in a vacuum”, that’s another discussion. The choices, with or without sexist social pressures, do not imply innate lack of scientific ability.
And he was calling for research to get a better understanding of the reasons behind these differences. He was ready and willing to have his thinking put to the test, in other words. Would that many who reacted so strongly to his speech were so willing.
If he was so ready and willing to have his thinking put to the test, he might have bothered to read a little of tons of scholarly work that’s already been done on the subject. Credibility he hasn’t got…
theorajones: You are correct that, in marriage, women overwhelmingly take the name of their husbands, though there are counter-examples. You have theorized that the reason for this is societal anti-woman sexism. You have provided no evidence to support your theory. The “what else could it be?” notion (along with the childish “gosh golly gee” attitude) is not compelling. I know it works at Pandagon and Alas - and the Contessa loves it. But it really is weak. Discounting other possible explanations - flippant ones or otherwise - also confers no validity on your own theory.
Tara: So are you saying that we already fully understand all of the reasons for the disparity in male/female representation in the hard sciences, and no further research is needed?
Tara said: “If he was so ready and willing to have his thinking put to the test, he might have bothered to read a little of tons of scholarly work that’s already been done on the subject.”
Given that the “tons of scholarly work that’s already been done on the subject” provides an ambiguous and imcomplete picture, I think that it’s quite possible that he did indeed read the literature because his thesis is consistent with what has been published in valid, peer-reviewed sources.
Do you have any proof that Summers did not do his homework before offering his hypotheses?
“Do you have any proof that Summers did not do his homework before offering his hypotheses?”
I don’t need proof. I would just like to see some halfway compelling evidence.
Tara, can you cite some published scholarly work which, if read by an unbiased and intelligent individual, would clearly preclude them from doing any speculation of the sort that landed Dr. Summers on the feminist xxxx-lists?
you quoted nothing at all that said any particular factor was “far greater” than any other factor
I already posted the rather rambly paragraph where he ranked the factors in that order: reluctance to put in the time, inability, discrimination. In his discussion of innate ability, he first admits that his math is slapdash and could be completely wrong (but presents it anyway), then offers his daughters as anecdotal evidence. In his discussion about discrimination, he speculates that discrimination isn’t really that pervasive because if it were, you’d expect somebody to exploit all that underutilized talent. (This, btw, is the Libertarian market-analysis view. Discrimination either doesn’t exist, or it’s fair.)
Well, I *thought* I posted the link. TypePad apparently doesn’t like plain links. Here it is:
Speech
So my best guess, to provoke you, of what’s behind all of this is that the largest phenomenon, by far, is the general clash between people’s legitimate family desires and employers’ current desire for high power and high intensity, that in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination.
So you’re right: he didn’t say that the first two factors are much greater than discrimination. He said that discrimination and socialization are “in fact lesser factors.” Quite different!
Funny how mythago and other feminists think that women are so immature, weak and easily manipulated that they can’t make their own personal choices
So all sexism is either blatant and open use of force or it is nonexistent. I assume that Mr. Bad will never point to anything but physical force or the strictures of law as influences on men’s choices–say, to support a family rather than be an at-home dad.
Mythago: “So you’re right: he didn’t say that the first two factors are much greater than discrimination. He said that discrimination and socialization are “in fact lesser factors.” Quite different!”
Yes indeed. Quite different. And I expect you and others to continue to misrepresent the man in this way. And I expect you to continue to brush off as unimportant the fact that he qualified the entire speculation as nothing more than a “best guess,” with further research needed in order to know for certain. Nor did he state how strongly he held the opinion that this guess reflected, but I expect that you (and others) will continue to assume that this is more than a guess - that it is reflective of a deeply held conviction about the inherent inferiority of women.
The modern-day heretics only get symbolically burned at the stake, but convictions and punishment are no less certain than in the original inquisition. Logic and evidence (and even innocence itself) have the same value in defending the accused as they did in the original, which is none.
mythago said: “In his discussion of innate ability, he first admits that his math is slapdash and could be completely wrong (but presents it anyway), then offers his daughters as anecdotal evidence.”
And this is different from the type of ‘evidence’ feminists offer up all the time for their whacked-out, cockamamie theories how?
I’ll tell you how: At least Summers admits that his math is “slapdash,” which is a lot more honest and forthcoming than the feminist horse manure we’re constantly exposed to.
We’re constantly exposed to “feminist horse manure?” Well, then, man, plant a garden with it! Don’t let it just got to waste!
Sorry, but still doing farm business, and it bleeds over to everything else. But seriously, when given manure, GROW SOMETHING!
Caitriona said: “We’re constantly exposed to “feminist horse manure?” Well, then, man, plant a garden with it! Don’t let it just got to waste!”
My brothers and I are way ahead of you Cait - we’ve planted a men’s rights movement in the horse manure laid down by feminism, and it’s growing quite well thankyouverymuch! :)
From what I can tell, it’s producing it’s own quantity of “fertilizer,” Mr. Bad. Hate breeds hate. Both sides are doing very well with their breeding programs.
So, we’re supposed to just “be nice?” We tried that for the last 40 years and look where it’s gotten us so far.
Naw, I think our current revised plan is apt to do better than the former “ask nicely” approach. Besides, we’re not about hate, we’re opposing hate, i.e., feminism. There’s a big difference between us and feminism.
Yeah, for one thing, women are ACTUALLY oppressed.
Caitrona: I would still love to hear your opinion on the “innate differences” question. Do you believe that there are some areas where women, in general, have a natural advantage over men, and vice versa? If not, do you believe that it would be bigoted of anyone to hold this opinion?
Antigone wrote: “Yeah, for one thing, women are ACTUALLY oppressed.”
Really? Care to explain just how they are oppressed?
When challenged at the SYG forum, even our illustrious Hugo couldn’t provide even one example demonstrating how women (at least in the West) are oppressed, so I’d be fascinated to hear you try to do so.
“Maybe with science it matters that girls still are socialized to play with dolls and guys are encouraged to blow things up.”
Actually today boys are encouraged to blow things up and girls are encouraged to blow boys up.
A bit disconcerting at best.
“Danica Patrick was responding to a personal insult directed at her. The critics of Summers were responding to a staggering generalization about women as a whole.”
Both men made a staggering generalization about women as a whole. This is the #1 thing I hate about feminists. They will marginalize things that other women have to deal with if it furthers their agenda!
That aside, I predicted Danica would shrug it off the minute I heard the comment was made. Right from the jump she won my respect for being I’m-here-to-win, instead of I’m-here-to-make-a-statement. Congratulations to her for being as dedicated and focused as I predicted her to be.
Now if only women in Harvard would follow her lead…
“Danica Patrick was responding to a personal insult directed at her. The critics of Summers were responding to a staggering generalization about women as a whole.”
Both men made a staggering generalization about women as a whole. This is the #1 thing I hate about feminists. They will marginalize things that other women have to deal with if it furthers their agenda!
That aside, I predicted Danica would shrug it off the minute I heard the comment was made. Right from the jump she won my respect for being I’m-here-to-win, instead of I’m-here-to-make-a-statement. Congratulations to her for being as dedicated and focused as I predicted her to be.
Now if only women in Harvard would follow her lead…
I apologize for the double post.
Anywho, back to how women are actually oppressed…
From stanton:
Caitrona: I would still love to hear your opinion on the “innate differences” question. Do you believe that there are some areas where women, in general, have a natural advantage over men, and vice versa? If not, do you believe that it would be bigoted of anyone to hold this opinion?
Stanton, this is a hard thing to put into words. :-) (Doesn’t help that I’m listening to my weekly conference call while typing.)
I think that *in general*, there are physical and emotional differences in what men and women can do and in how they deal with things. Not everyone fits the generalizations.
I’ve known a few women who do very heavy “men’s work” jobs, but most women I know don’t have the physical makeup (or the want-to) to work in a saw mill or to walk through train cars of rice (*extremely* difficult to move through) in order to inspect it. I’ve known a few men who do secretarial and daycare type work, but most men I know are in either more physical work or in higher level white collar work.
I know a couple of stay-at-home dads, but most stay-at-home parents I know are moms. As much as dads love their families, there aren’t a lot who would make good stay-at-home parents, just as not all moms make good stay-at-home parents. In most families I know, the moms are the ones more focused on the emotional well-being, the dads are more focused on the family’s physical well-being.
Places where that generalization line gets crossed, IME:
1) When children are felt to be in danger, women can be just as aggressive (if not more so) as the men.
2) When children are involved in sports, either parent can be difficult.
An interesting book about women, cultural influences on their behavior, and their behavior’s influence on culture is Laurel Thatcher Ulrich’s _Good_Wives:_Image and Reality in Northern New England 1650-1750_.
Need to focus more on my conference call. I’ll try to put more thought into this later.
Caitrona: Thanks for the (preliminary) response. Of course all of this is speculation at this point, and we can only generalize about this, since exceptions abound. It’s easy to see the tendencies of women to dominate in certain spheres and men in others. We also see changes in these ares of dominance over time, as well as some where there is relative balance. To me, the interesting question concerns the reasons for the separation, which is found in just about every society, past or present, that we know of:
- Are these differences due exclusively to socialization and/or sexism?
- Might there be an innate gender factor at play, with innate feminine or masculine human qualities that influence these tendencies?
- If someone is of the belief that the second question probably an affirmative answer, is that person necessarily a bigot?
I apologize for that last question, in that it is clearly a setup to get you (via the back door) to weigh in on the Summers flap. If you would rather not go there, that’s fine with me.
I’ll get back to you this evening, if time permits, stanton. Just posting a bit now so that it won’t be so far down the list. :-)
At the moment, I’m running late getting errands done for tomorrow’s farmers market. I’ve been spending my time this morning trying to find halaal standards so that I can make sure our farm is following them so that our Muslim customers can feel secure in the quality of the meat they buy. *And* I’ve been helping the 18yo, via IM. He’s got a written final today and he’s understandably tense.
I tried to post my response to this earlier, but TypePad was down for maintenance. So I posted my response here.
Hugo, I don’t think the maintenance worked well with your page. :-/
Stanton, just a few quick notes here. A rather lengthy response is on my blog.
To me, the interesting question concerns the reasons for the separation, which is found in just about every society, past or present, that we know of:
- Are these differences due exclusively to socialization and/or sexism?
If these gender role differences were exclusively due to socialization and/or sexism, then why would they be in nearly *every* culture, no matter what the cultural differences?
- Might there be an innate gender factor at play, with innate feminine or masculine human qualities that influence these tendencies?
As different as cultures are, I think it would be good the commonalities in gender roles between cultures, to see where there *may* be a more genetic influence among the cultural influences.
- If someone is of the belief that the second question probably an affirmative answer, is that person necessarily a bigot?
A bigot for believing that there is at least some bit of genetic influence to gender roles? Wouldn’t that be like being a bigot for believing that there is a genetic factor (which there is) for obesity? Or for sickle cell anemia?
I apologize for that last question, in that it is clearly a setup to get you (via the back door) to weigh in on the Summers flap. If you would rather not go there, that’s fine with me.
I got rather long-winded in my response to that on my blog. The thing is, IMO, there is a strong genetic factor *and* a strong environmental factor. Some people seem to be NATURAL mathematicians, even when they are growing up surrounded by people who are afraid of math. Sometimes that fear of math negatively influences those with a natural ability, sometimes it doesn’t. (As a math teacher, that’s been one of my pet peeves. NOONE should be afraid of math, IMO.)
The biggest thing I’ve seen with math, on the male vs female spectrum, is that, IME, females seem to have a tendency to not want to STAND OUT academically, so they don’t always work up to their potential. It’s harder to fit in, in high schools at least, when you think others might feel badly if you’re ahead of them academically. This is reinforced by the number of “popular” and “accepted” students who are average to a bit above average, vs the number of students who excel who are on the outskirts of the school “society.”
Caitrona,
Sorry for the delay in responding.
I tend to agree with you - that there are genetic factors at work, impacting gender roles. To what extent these factors impact gender balance in the hard sciences, if at all, I really don’t know. Speculation in this area is very dangerous, as some have discovered.
You said: ” A bigot for believing that there is at least some bit of genetic influence to gender roles? Wouldn’t that be like being a bigot for believing that there is a genetic factor (which there is) for obesity? Or for sickle cell anemia?”
Well, yes, it’s sort of like that. I guess the proper PC view goes: It’s okay to believe there is SOME role of genetics, but you must NOT cross the line by guessing that there might be more of a genetic role than XXX. You will know if you have reached the XXX line, because there are enforcers (who likewise do not know the precise genetic role) waiting in the wings to inform you of the fact, and to impose the appropriate punishment. But they will not identify point XXX in advance, because they don’t know what it is. They just know it when they see you cross it. If you WANT to know in advance, then you are under suspicion.
This sounds like parody, to me, but is it exaggerated?
I have heard many reports from teachers and psycho-therapists about girls being afraid to excel, so I assume that this does happen. Still, I don’t recall this being overt at my high school (during the Harding administration) or at my kids’ schools (Clinton era grads). In each case, girls comprised half or more of the top ten in class rank, and the majority of NHS members - and this included some cheerleaders, so popularity was not fully surrendered. Where you taught, did you have significantly more boys than girls in NHS?
I will check out your blog entry later tonight.
I’ll tell you how: At least Summers admits that his math is “slapdash,” which is a lot more honest and forthcoming than the feminist horse manure we’re constantly exposed to.
How odd. My post disappeared.
As I said previously, I think I’ll use this rhetorical tactic. Any time a feminist is shown to use bad math or science, I’ll simply point to some other group (say, the Promise Keepers) and excuse it by saying at least WE aren’t THAT bad.
I guess the proper PC view goes: It’s okay to believe there is SOME role of genetics, but you must NOT cross the line by guessing that there might be more of a genetic role than XXX.
The proper “politically incorrect” counterpart being, you can say that socialization plays some role in behavior, but you must never, ever suggest that it comes anything close to the destiny embodied in our genes.
I tend to agree with the evolutionary biologist who said that people believe if it’s genetic it’s immutable and if it’s socialization you can change it overnight–neither of which is true.
It may be that our gender influences our behavior. What’s sad is how often that simple notion is turned into weird generalizations like “boys are good at math, girls are good at language,” or as excuses to ignore socializatione–because, y’know, genetics would have had the same result anyway.