335 replies to this topic

[Anileve]

Harvard chief angers women
January 19, 2005


The president of Harvard University has provoked a furore by arguing that men outperform women in maths and sciences because of biological difference, and discrimination is no longer a barrier for female academics.

Lawrence Summers, a career economist who served as treasury secretary under president Bill Clinton, made his remarks at a private conference on the position of women and minorities in science and engineering.

Dr Summers offered three explanations for the shortage of women in senior posts in science and engineering, starting with their reluctance to work long hours because of child-care responsibilities.

He went on to argue that boys outperform girls on high school science and maths scores because of genetic difference. As an example, he told the conference about giving his daughter two trucks. She treated them like dolls, and named them mummy and daddy trucks, he said.

Dr Summers also played down the impact of sex bias in appointments to academic institutions.

He said: "The real issue is the overall size of the pool, and it's less clear how much the size of the pool was held down by discrimination."

At least half of his audience were women. Several said they found the remarks offensive.

"It was really shocking to hear the president of Harvard make statements like that," said Denice Denton, who is about to become president of the University of California at Santa Cruz.

Others said Dr Summers's comments were depressingly familiar. "I have heard men make comments like this my entire life and quite honestly if I had listened to them I would never have done anything," said Donna Nelson, a chemistry professor at the University of Oklahoma.

Nancy Hopkins, a professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who walked out midway through Dr Summers's remarks, said: "This kind of bias makes me physically ill. Let's not forget that people used to say that women couldn't drive an automobile."

During Dr Summers's presidency, the proportion of tenured jobs offered to women has fallen from 36 per cent to 13 per cent. Last year, only four of 32 tenured job openings were offered to women.

The Guardian, The New York Times

[gamavor]

As I stated on many occasions American Academia SUCKS!

"This" country needs serious mental repair!

[Stormig]

What BS. Almost all my life, from grade school through to university and beyond, women have played well in the fields and administration, as well as, if not better than, men.
My personal opinion/experience is that men display more standard deviation - there are the extremely, excentrically smart, and then there are total block-heads, both of these in comparison with women. We women are more consistent, have a sturdier column to hold the roof, if you will. It comes from our biological superiority, as not being prone to such aberrations also means we are less susceptible than men to certain mental or other illnesses, birth defects, etc. Perhaps it also has something to do with the fact that under normal conditions, 51% of all human births are female - Y-chromosome sperm seem to lose the game before they start!
Now, if I were to express the above in front of an audience, they'd call me a femiNazi, yet this turd is given a pat on the back for saying men outperform women, which simply isn't true - my closest rivals in maths in high school were all ladies.

[Nakharar]

He went on to argue that boys outperform girls on high school science and maths scores because of genetic difference. As an example, he told the conference about giving his daughter two trucks. She treated them like dolls, and named them mummy and daddy trucks, he said.

I find that rather sweet.

[Anileve]

What BS. Almost all my life, from grade school through to university and beyond, women have played well in the fields and administration, as well as, if not better than, men.
My personal opinion/experience is that men display more standard deviation - there are the extremely, excentrically smart, and then there are total block-heads, both of these in comparison with women. We women are more consistent, have a sturdier column to hold the roof, if you will. It comes from our biological superiority, as not being prone to such aberrations also means we are less susceptible than men to certain mental or other illnesses, birth defects, etc. Perhaps it also has something to do with the fact that under normal conditions, 51% of all human births are female - Y-chromosome sperm seem to lose the game before they start!
Now, if I were to express the above in front of an audience, they'd call me a femiNazi, yet this turd is given a pat on the back for saying men outperform women, which simply isn't true - my closest rivals in maths in high school were all ladies.

I have to agree with the above. I have known many women who pursued careers in science and math, and excelled. Women are generally more dedicated to achieving excellence in grades. Science is a very broad field, there are many different subdivisions. I have known many women who went to Med schools, as well as majority of forensic science consisting of women who do exceptionally well in chemistry. Many women also chose Mathematics as their major, and I can say with confidence, that unless you really like the subject you would not even attempt to pursue it, for it's not really financially rewarding.

The only scientific field I find where men are the predominant group is a technical field. I really couldn't understand why, but I think I can offer a dubious psychological analysis, technological science is very dry, women are usually turned off by it due to the absence of emotional element; there is a minimal human contact. That, perhaps, is a result of social factors, where women are encouraged to be more open about their feelings and seek comfort in the group of their friends. And we know the common stereotype where men are more "bottled up." I believe that is the only reason why there is a smaller number of women in that field, and understandably so. I think the inflated gene theory is crap. And let me be the first one to say it, but as painful as it sounds to my own ear, I find that compared by percentages men still surpass women in intelligence, at least in my experience.

[Nakharar]

The male dominance in the technological field so entrenched they will do their utmost in trying to prevent women gain an entry into their domain. It has less to do with social interaction and dryness of the field as trying to preserve their last foothold and conceal their male insecurity. They have the outlook of a country club establishment, puffing their cigars and grumbling about their bleak future while awaiting the Amazones who are about to crash the gates.

[Azat]

The male dominance in the technological field so entrenched they will do their utmost in trying to prevent women gain an entry into their domain. It has less to do with social interaction and dryness of the field as trying to preserve their last foothold and conceal their male insecurity. They have the outlook of a country club establishment, puffing their cigars and grumbling about their bleak future while awaiting the Amazones who are about to crash the gates. 

What a bunch of BS. That post stinks from a mile away

[Nakharar]

Ha ha ha! I know it does. You must be one of them

[Azat]

Ya I must be.

[Stormig]

The only scientific field I find where men are the predominant group is a technical field. I really couldn't understand why, but I think I can offer a dubious psychological analysis, technological science is very dry, women are usually turned off by it due to the absence of emotional element; there is a minimal human contact. That, perhaps, is a result of social factors, where women are encouraged to be more open about their feelings and seek comfort in the group of their friends. And we know the common stereotype where men are more "bottled up." I believe that is the only reason why there is a smaller number of women in that field, and understandably so. I think the inflated gene theory is crap. And let me be the first one to say it, but as painful as it sounds to my own ear, I find that compared by percentages men still surpass women in intelligence, at least in my experience.

I'm not too certain about the encouragement for human contact bit, but one thing that did steer me toward one profession out my field (as I enrolled in university) where I had 3-4 choices was not wanting to spend the rest of my life in either type of lab or to do computer simulations all my life. I wanted something more field-work type, maybe managerial, where I could meet people often. Unfortunately at this time I'm not there, but I hope to. The best I'm doing now is role as facilitator for a couple of petty tasks we outsource now and then.
I also wanted to take it easy, as I find my comfort and peace of mind extremely precious - I therefore haven't had to face or won't have to face such prerequisites as 21 credits of advanced mathematics alone like one friend has should I want to further my studies onto a Ph.D. "Happiness" is subjective but the truth of the rate of potential realised is determinate - I have been lazy and have goofed around quite a bit and regret none of it. And I think that the fact that I am female has helped, as, were I male, I would have had all these pressures on me to focus and excel, giving me the privilege/leeway to engage in bizarre sexual encounters usually deemed inappropriate for women or what have you to "take my mind off things"... In that respect I truly do think we ladies "have it made"... And so what if I am not an academic? I don't want to be bothered and have my memories of long-gone nerdy high school days to go by.

[Harut]

http://www.npr.org/t...storyId=4458855

http://www.npr.org/t...storyId=4458519

[Anonymouse]

How dare anyone admit that there are natural, biological differences between the sexes that may account for the inequality that we so observe!

[Stormig]

How dare anyone admit that there are natural, biological differences between the sexes that may account for the inequality that we so observe!

It is not inequality. If it were, I certainly know where some would be ranked.

[Arvestaked]

Men and women are different because they play different roles. It doesn't mean one is better than the other. I don't attribute success in the sciences as being proof that one gender is better than the other.

That being said, I do believe men tend to be more intelligent and creative. Women are better at multitasking and are not as easily distracted. Men are less consistant (as someone else mentioned) but it is the instance of higher creativity and intelligence that really pushes things forward and anything less is just support for the individuals who possess those traits. Creativity is actually very important. There is a certain intelligence which, although deserving of reverence, is more geared toward doing what is instructed and is dependant on understanding and duplicating preexisting ideas. This is how I look at racial issues as well. Asians are intelligent but in a less creative and more mechanical way, making it more common for them to improve on concepts that already exist, but creating those concepts is often left to Caucasians, who are more creative in there intelligence. I do believe that men possess those qualities more often but they are countered (as someone mentioned) by equivalent negative traits. Both genders will be balanced in terms of function and impact and that means nobody is better. But it does mean that men tend to make the differences, whether positive or negative.

Now, I don't know just how well this Harvard guy articulated himself but I get really fed up with people's adverse reactions to opinions about gender differences. Why is it so hard to believe that differences are not limited to anatomy? What law says such a thing? I will tell you the law: the social law of political correctness. There is no other authority. None. It is socially acceptable to praise women and attack men and anything else leads to people saying "This kind of bias makes me physically ill." Really? And the hypocrisy and blindness of which you wreak is potentially infuriating and stunningly embarassing.

[DominO]

Care to bring evidences to support what you claim?

First about creativity... is there any evidences that the artistic community is constitued of more men than women? I want data, not anecdotes.

Second of all, intelligence is a very vague term, and we know now how that there are many, many kind of intelligences... to claim that men are more intelligent than women, one must support this with actual datas, and here I am not talking about datas with numbers on the limit of detectability, in a point that if those numbers were to represent the efficiency between a placebo and a medication, it would be considered as not so statistically significant.

What parametters of intelligence do you measure, and why?

And finally, when speaking about equality, by saying equality we do not imply that they are same, and deny them being different, this is one thing, it is another to claim that women tend to have less intelligence and creativity than men, without any support.

Men and women are different because they play different roles. It doesn't mean one is better than the other. I don't attribute success in the sciences as being proof that one gender is better than the other.

That being said, I do believe men tend to be more intelligent and creative. Women are better at multitasking and are not as easily distracted. Men are less consistant (as someone else mentioned) but it is the instance of higher creativity and intelligence that really pushes things forward and anything less is just support for the individuals who possess those traits. Creativity is actually very important. There is a certain intelligence which, although deserving of reverence, is more geared toward doing what is instructed and is dependant on understanding and duplicating preexisting ideas. This is how I look at racial issues as well. Asians are intelligent but in a less creative and more mechanical way, making it more common for them to improve on concepts that already exist, but creating those concepts is often left to Caucasians, who are more creative in there intelligence. I do believe that men possess those qualities more often but they are countered (as someone mentioned) by equivalent negative traits. Both genders will be balanced in terms of function and impact and that means nobody is better. But it does mean that men tend to make the differences, whether positive or negative.

Now, I don't know just how well this Harvard guy articulated himself but I get really fed up with people's adverse reactions to opinions about gender differences. Why is it so hard to believe that differences are not limited to anatomy? What law says such a thing? I will tell you the law: the social law of political correctness. There is no other authority. None. It is socially acceptable to praise women and attack men and anything else leads to people saying "This kind of bias makes me physically ill." Really? And the hypocrisy and blindness of which you wreak is potentially infuriating and stunningly embarassing.

Edited by Fadix, 24 January 2005 - 05:06 PM.

[Anoushik]

I do believe men tend to be more intelligent and creative.

How dare you? Such ignorance.

This is how I look at racial issues as well. Asians are intelligent but in a less creative and more mechanical way, making it more common for them to improve on concepts that already exist, but creating those concepts is often left to Caucasians, who are more creative in there intelligence.

This is because that's how they've been conditioned to become. Look at their public education.

It is socially acceptable to praise women and attack men and anything else leads to people saying "This kind of bias makes me physically ill."

How can you say that when throughout history and still continuing now women have been constantly told that they're stupid, unintelligent, not good enough, etc? Actually we are very intelligent considering how far we've come despite being made to believe that we are not good enough! Of course your manly ego can't handle that. This is not the dark ages anymore. Your physical powers are not worth much but men still want to belittle the women.

[Arvestaked]

Care to bring evidences to support what you claim?

No. I never suggested that anything I said was factually based. It is my opinion based on my observations. I am not seeking to convince anybody of anything but rather, by expressing my opinion, show that any claims of intellectaul equality that are automatically surrendered to are potentially unreasonable and are being accepted because of political correctness and not unbiased studies or observations. Studies seeking to illustrate female intellectual equality were probably mostly initiated after it became more socially acceptable, when speaking publically, to praise women. Reading studies on something like this is completely useless, in my opinion because they will always be biased, regardless of the sides taken. That is why I give more importance to my observations. My observations have shown that women have the tendency to be less logical, less analytical, and less creative and this is observed along with the fact that men can be stunningly stupid and destructive. I hate the "this is what I believe because it sounds more moral and I will believe it until you show me evidence otherwise" game.

First about creativity... is there any evidences that the artistic community is constitued of more men than women? I want data, not anecdotes.

First of all, creativity is not limited to the artistic community. That is not what I meant. Secondly (and we'll use painting as an example), go here and determine, for yourself, the ratio of represented men to represented women. And observe in recent history (within the last 100 years) how many female artists are in fact widely accepted as important, even postumously, if need be. Very few. Now I'm not saying that gender bias had nothing to do with that but Georgia O'Keefe, Helen Frankenthaler, Lee Krasner, and Frida Kahlo did it. But where are the others? And the only reason I'm even showing this is because you asked for numbers so there is no point in anyone turning around and saying "that's because they were oppressed."

Second of all, intelligence is a very vague term, and we know now how that there are many, many kind of intelligences... to claim that men are more intelligent than women, one must support this with actual datas, and here I am not talking about datas with numbers on the limit of detectability, in a point that if those numbers were to represent the efficiency between a placebo and a medication, it would be considered as not so statistically significant.

First of all, the word "data" is already plural. I'm not trying to be a pain but, in all sincerity, that will actually irritate me after a while.

So, the fact that I said "tend" would suggest that in most cases (those cases being observations of various examples of intelligence) men would be dominant. I did mention the example, from my observations, of the female's superiority in terms of focus and multitasking and that is arguable a form of intelligence where women would be more dominant.

In terms of the vagueness, I will say that I mean it to be a generalized view of intelligence that is dependant upon how I view it.

And finally, when speaking about equality, by saying equality we do not imply that they are same, and deny them being different, this is one thing, it is another to claim that women tend to have less intelligence and creativity than men, without any support.

I am not pointing to an implication. There is a general distaste for accentuating the differences between the genders, though it has been more acceptable in recent times to make claims of female dominance than the other way around.

My claims are not entirely without support. It is observable through out history that men have have the most influence. You can tell me all you want that this is a matter of oppression but the fact remains that oppression cannot be quantified and therefore cannot be factored in. If someone actually had the intelligence to phrase this conflict differently and be bold enough to say something to the effect of "It is possible that women tend to be as intelligent as men," then I would be forced to agree. However, nobody says that at all and they do not do so because of social reasons and not because there is a preponderence of evidence to support intellectual equality without contest.

[Arvestaked]

How dare you? Such ignorance.

Ignorance of what? What exactly do you feel I am in the dark about here? Nothing. You just want to view me as ignorant because I disagree with you.

This is because that's how they've been conditioned to become. Look at their public education.

Really? Conditioned by who? Their own race? Their own cultures? Exactly.

How can you say that when throughout history and still continuing now women have been constantly told that they're stupid, unintelligent, not good enough, etc? Actually we are very intelligent considering how far we've come despite being made to believe that we are not good enough!

You are not proving anything here. You, as anybody else would be, are only showing me that women have been kept from acting at their full potential but this says nothing of what that potential is. This is a big logical flaw. And it isn't about history. It's about now. It's about how people give speeches and when they get applauded. It's about how stand-up comics formulate certain jokes and how they get applauded. You are not paying attention because you are female.

Of course your manly ego can't handle that. This is not the dark ages anymore. Your physical powers are not worth much but men still want to belittle the women.

It is so easy to dismiss someone's opinion by saying things like this.

Edited by dusken, 24 January 2005 - 06:19 PM.

[Anoushik]

No. I never suggested that anything I said was factually based. It is my opinion based on my observations.

Your observations are not sufficient enough.

Studies seeking to illustrate female intellectual equality were probably mostly initiated after it became more socially acceptable, when speaking publically, to praise women. Reading studies on something like this is completely useless, in my opinion because they will always be biased, regardless of the sides taken. That is why I give more importance to my observations. My observations have shown that women have the tendency to be less logical, less analytical, and less creative and this is observed along with the fact that men can be stunningly stupid and destructive.

It's the same thing. You claim that studies can be biased. How is your "opinion" not biased. You state something to be true based on your "observations" without any facts. Don't you see that you're publicly offending women?

I hate the "this is what I believe because it sounds more moral and I will believe it until you show me

Yet you're doing the same.

In terms of the vagueness, I will say that I mean it to be a generalized view of intelligence that is dependant upon how I view it.

Yes, it is very unfortunately that society (controlled by men) has tolerated and allowed for certain group of people to make outragous claims against others. Belittling women and calling them unintelligent seems perfectly fine, doesn't it? It's time for the developed societies to make laws against ridiculing people based on their gender. What's taking so long? Well, men wouldn't want to give up their superiority yet, would they?

My claims are not entirely without support. It is observable through out history that men have have the most influence. You can tell me all you want that this is a matter of oppression but the fact remains that oppression cannot be quantified and therefore cannot be factored in. If someone actually had the intelligence to phrase this conflict differently and be bold enough to say something to the effect of "It is possible that women tend to be as intelligent as men," then I would be forced to agree. However, nobody says that at all and they do not do so because of social reasons and not because there is a preponderence of evidence to support intellectual equality without contest.

This is written with such ignorance and closed-mindedness that I don't even know why I bother. I just want to say that you haven't given any proofs in your arguments whatsoever other than the fact that you keep claiming that your arguments are based on your observations.

Edit: "ridiculing people"

Edited by anoushik, 24 January 2005 - 06:41 PM.

[Anoushik]

You are not proving anything here. You, as anybody else would be, are only showing me that women have been kept from acting at their full potential but this says nothing of what that potential is. This is a big logical flaw. And it isn't about history. It's about now. It's about how people give speeches and when they get applauded. It's about how stand-up comics formulate certain jokes and how they get applauded. You are not paying attention because you are female.
It is so easy to dismiss someone's opinion by saying things like this.

What speeches? Which stand-up comics? Is this all you have? Even so, give an example. And yes, this is about history because the society hasn't changed much.