Harvard Row Over Sex And Science

[Anoushik]

anoushik; a feminist!??!!

anoushik,

Aren't you too young to be old fashioned?

Aren't you too intelligent to become narrow minded?

 

She may not look "rosy," but she surely inspires character, determination and strength!

 

Old Armenian Woman (Max Sivaslian)

style_images/master/snapback.png

[Arvestaked]

On the other hand, dusken, I see where you are coming from. It’s difficult to delve into this discussion without surrendering to the common stereotypes. All views are bound to be subjective based on a personal experience and observation, thus one will always seek the means to arrive to his predisposed belief as it is always possible to find claims to support it. Just as an intelligent woman, being a part of a group which has been trashed and belittled throughout history by some of the greatest minds of science, philosophy and literature to name a few, will naturally reject such theories because it enters a realm of self validation. No one in their right mind would willingly agree with a claim that they are inferior, moreover “inherently inferior” so that they must accept their fate. However we do have a shining example of such subordination in religion, where women were considered to be born cursed and thus must accept their doomed fate and submit to the more sensible and superior being – man. I don’t think that in this day and age we want to accept such primitive and fanatical mentality.

 

I am not asking anyone to accept that they are inferior. First of all, I specifically said that the genders were equal in terms of their contributions to the species or society. Secondly, my point was not to convince people that I am right. I posted in response to the violent reactions that people aimed at the Harvard professor. I am not saying people need to agree with him but I do believe that these reactions result from social norms and the general social intolerance for gender differences. It is not a result of there being a preponderance of evidence to support the contrary. In essence, my (a hypothetical 'my') view is as good as your view and, therefore, accusing me of being ignorant, or whatever other adjectives come to fruition on lips quivering with anger, is entirely unreasonable. I did mention that the argument to be made in favor of the female should not be that they are equally intelligent or possess equivalent potential but that it is possible that they are equally intelligent or possess equivalent potential. And I also structured my initial responses to highlight that both genders contribute differently and not that one gender is superior. There is no such thing. At least not in my opinion.

 

I also have to point out something which Domino questioned. Evidently you have determined from your observation that men are naturally more intelligent than women. You’ve brought examples of creativity and multitasking, but those are not determinateness of intelligence but rather individual attributes which indicate strengths and weaknesses. A man may be more creative and a woman may multitask, that hardly  amounts to intelligence, I’ve met a lot of boneheads who multitask brilliantly, as well as creative fools. Intelligence is a very broad platform, which can be split into numerous categories.  I think we even had a thread on intelligence and smartness.

 

I said that, from my observation, men tend to be more intelligent than women and that they tend to possess, more frequently, the potential to be truly great. My mentioning creativity and multitasking were illustrations of what I believe are different forms of intelligence of which the two genders would exhibit different strengths. As I just said, I believe that men more frequently happen to possess the potential of being truly great. Throughout history, and this has nothing to do with gender, changes and improvements and discoveries and revolutions et cetera were dependant upon the extremes of society -- the people who exhibited very uncommon characteristics. I believe those characteristics to be more common in men. I agree that intelligence is a broad idea that can be split into different categories. I never implied otherwise. Sure there are creative boneheads but a person with exceptional visuospacial processing and higher math abilities is probably working for the person who has exceptional visuospacial processing, higher math abilities, and creativity. One of the big kickers for me to have the opinion I do is logic. I have never witnessed the same degree of illogical day-to-day behavior from men as I have from women. Certainly one can say (and I have heard it) that women tend to be more emotional and that makes it seem like they are less logical. Unfortunately, this goes back to what I have said in other posts. You cannot quantify emotional involvement in decision-making. Showing that it is possible that someone is not operating at his or her full potential is no indication of what that potential is. Where am I going with this? Well, is it possible that in such a scenario, a woman has the same potential as a man? Yes. But is it proven to be so? No. Is it unreasonable for someone to believe in a difference in the potential? No. Would such an individual deserve to be attacked or called ignorant? No.

 

Having stated that, I have to mention that men have absolutely atrocious habits and characteristics far more idiotic than “did you see what she is wearing.” I can list at least a hundred, prevalent to the social stereotypes. Same can be said of women. I still believe that the only differences affecting both genders in greater numbers is attributed to social factors, not biological.

 

Of course they do. I hate men as much as I hate women.

 

Your opinion on social and biological differences is fine. But it is also fine to feel otherwise, which is what I have been posting for. I have not been posting to convince people of my opinion. You think the differences do not go beyond social habits. Ok. But I say it should not be taboo to question that or disagree with it. You have vulva. I have a penis. You have ovaries. I have testicles. Your have a wider pelvic bone. I have a narrower pelvic bone. You have more estrogen. I have more testosterone. These are all biological differences. Why is it unreasonable to feel that there may be other biological differences? It is not. But it is socially unacceptable to mention that you feel there may be.

 

As for sciences, I think Stormy has mentioned that she’s met a dozen females who have exceptional math skills as well as scientific. Women are believed to have better verbal skills (that’s arguable) because they are encouraged to be more open about their feelings, in order to convey them with satisfaction articulateness is required. Men are given soldiers to play with, building blocks, puzzles and other strategy and competition evoking games, thus sharpening and developing their systematic and consistent pattern of thought. All of this is changing, thus you see more women entering other than secretarial fields.

 

I have also met a dozen females that fit that description.

 

Sure you see more women entering more intellectual fields. Of course oppression has snuffed women's potential in past history. However, that still goes back to what I said about the oppression not proving a potential.

 

But let’s not forget that this revolution is still relatively new, considering that it started only from the early 70’s, as opposed to decades of male domination of scientific fields. Now children of both genders are encouraged to pursue higher education, join sports and other extracurricular activities to develop their minds and bodies as opposed to just fulfilling their gender roles. In addition, I have mentioned this previously, feminism is largely dying out in this country where gender gaps are disappearing, but in other parts of the world women are still subjected to the stone age male mentality. As an example please take a look at the following article. A woman in Egypt is being scrutinized because she didn’t opt for a silent abortion and a resealing of her hymen to prevent a scandal and a shame to her family, and not to be considered a damaged material without a potential of a future marriage. In a country where abortions are not allowed, but secret marriage pacts which encourage affairs among the wealthy married males.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/26/internat...6paternity.html

 

Yes, there is still crappiness out there. We will see how everything pans out in the coming centrury.

 

Having said all this, once again, I don’t understand your definition of intelligence and how one can differentiate between genders in terms of intellect. Unless of course it only extends to the circle of people you associate yourself with.

 

If you are not able to define intelligence then it is as unreasonable for you to have an opinion about equality as it is for me to have one about certain inequalities. That is the "I am right until proven wrong" mentality (and no matter what some say, I did not do that). In terms of my opinion. It does not matter how I view intelligence because I am not trying to be persuasive on behalf of my position. That fact is that, my experiences have left the impression on me. When someone asks "What is intelligence?" in a manner that is intended to discredit the opinion of variance in potential they are inevitably arguing against the idea of intelligence altogether. But you cannot argue that there is something there that makes an impression on people whether it has been defined precisely or not.

Edited January 28, 2005 by dusken

[Siamanto]

anoushik; a feminist!??!!

anoushik,

Aren't you too young to be old fashioned? ''

Aren't you too intelligent to become narrow minded? ''

 

She may not look "rosy," but she surely inspires character, determination and strength!

 

Old Armenian Woman (Max Sivaslian)

style_images/master/snapback.png

Shhhhhhh....Be quiet! ''

style_images/master/snapback.png

If I should take what's said literally, then I shall ask: why would I do that? What's in it for me?

 

If I should analyze it and fill in the dots, then why would I mind if "Shhhhhhhe'll Be quiet!"

 

On second thoughts, can it be that I'm misreading you and your subconscious is saying: " Shhhhhhhall Be quiet?"

If that is the case, please feel free to do so!

[Arvestaked]

test Edited January 28, 2005 by dusken

[Stormig]

All this talk of intelligence and what makes another more intelligent - male vs. female, lefty vs. righty...

I do stand by what I said, though - and it's not a scientifically established fact, just my own observation on "brightness"...

 

That said, and although not related to science, I found these two interesting:

 

       

Space Policy

Volume 16, Issue 3 , 16 July 2000, Pages 167-169

 

An all-woman crew to Mars: a radical proposal

 

Geoffrey A. Landis, 

 

Ohio Aerospace Institute, NASA Glenn mailstop 302-1, 21000 Brookpark Road, Cleveland, OH 44135, USA

 

Available online 31 July 2000.

 

Abstract

It is logical to propose that if a human mission is flown to Mars, it should be composed of an entirely female crew. On the average, women have lower mass and take less volume than males, and use proportionately less consumables. In addition, sociological research indicates that a female crew may have a preferable interpersonal dynamic, and be likely to choose non-confrontational approaches to solve interpersonal problems.

 

I honestly didn't like it that it started out with "it is logical that"...

 

However, the next is even more interesting.

 

The Journal of Men's Health & Gender

Volume 1, Issue 4 , December 2004, Pages 341-344

 

The case for an all-female crew to Mars

 

William J. Rowe MD, 

 

Former Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine, Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, USA

 

Accepted 24 September 2004.  Available online 2 December 2004.

 

Abstract

A strong case can be made for an all-female crew, aged under 30 years, to Mars. The incidence of endothelial injuries on earth is six times higher in young men than in young women. On spaceflight, there is a far greater risk of endothelial injuries, with an accelerated aging process, complicating oxidative stress, and a Mg ion deficit with a self-sustaining inflammatory process. Pharmaceuticals in general are contraindicated because of malabsorption, and potential impairment in hepatic and renal perfusion. Also some pharmaceuticals deteriorate in space possibly associated with increased radiation. This prevents therapy for men in an attempt to compensate for their vascular disadvantages. Women have a considerable advantage because of endothelial protection, provided by estrogen, greater uptake of Mg in progressively diminishing storage sites in skeletal muscle and bone, and a physiological loss of iron, which is conducive to oxidative stress. Both estrogen and Mg are antioxidants and calcium blockers and compensate at least partly for diminished spaceflight vascular endothelial growth factor, thereby enhancing endothelial function, repair and angiogenesis. The only apparent disadvantage of an exclusively women crew for a Mars mission, may be the advisability of their avoiding space walks during menstruation, because of the greater risk at that time of decompression sickness. The optimal time would be during the follicular stage.

 

Keywords: Females; Women; Spaceflight; Estrogen; Magnesium; Endothelium

 

("Journal of Men's Health"??? )

[Stormig]

This is today's -

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Jan29.html

 

Raise Your Hand If You're A Woman in Science . . .

 

By Virginia Valian

 

Sunday, January 30, 2005; Page B01

 

 

For the past two weeks, my e-mail in-box has overflowed with messages

from women -- and some men -- about the hypotheses recently offered by

Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers to explain the dearth of women in

the academic sciences. One woman wrote, "It is not surprising that

people are angry when they see such full-blown contemptuous arrogance."

Others were shocked at his apparent insensitivity: Had he no concern for

the female students and faculty in math and science at Harvard or other

academic institutions?

 

That's an important question. Although we can't do anything about

Summers's method of calling for more research into whether women and men

have innate differences when it comes to mathematics and science (he

told an economics conference on Jan. 14 that he was trying to be

provocative), we can address the resulting controversy. There is a

wealth of data about men and women in science, about cognitive sex

differences, about the effects of expectations on people's behavior, and

about unintended misjudgments of women and men.

 

Summers is not alone in his lack of awareness of the compelling evidence

of the power of small differences in how we treat boys and girls, men

and women. Yet those differences, I would argue, provide a better

hypothesis than innate sex differences to explain the gap between the

numbers of men and women in academic jobs in the sciences.

 

Nor is Summers alone in being unaware of the large set of experiments

showing that well-intentioned people, intelligent people, people who

believe in a meritocracy -- people, in short, just like many successful

college presidents -- consistently underrate women's abilities and

overrate men's.

 

The finding that emerges from the research, in experiment after

experiment, is that bias is a problem not because it is deliberate, but

because it is the outcome of assumptions of which we are not consciously

aware. Take, for example, a study published last year by New York

University professor Madeline Heilman and her colleagues. The

researchers asked people to rate individual men and women who were

described as holding the position of assistant vice president in an

aircraft company. The evaluators' job was to rate how competent and

likable the employees were. They were given background information about

the person, the job and the company.

 

In half the cases, the employee was described as about to have a

performance review (his or her competence was thus unknown); in the

other half, the person was described as having been a stellar performer.

 

When the evaluators had received no information about how well the

assistant VP was doing in the job, they rated the man as more competent

than the woman, and rated them as equally likable. When the background

information made clear that the person was extremely competent,

evaluators rated the man and woman as equally competent. But both men

and women rated the highly competent woman as much less likable than her

male counterpart, and considerably more hostile.

 

Thus, in evaluating a woman in a male-dominated field, both male and

female observers see her as less competent than a similarly described

man unless there is clear information that she is a top performer. And

in that case, they see her as less likable than a comparable man.

 

The result of the experiment by Heilman and colleagues is typical of

other research: Both men and women give men the benefit of the

competence doubt. Why do we do this? Because we're like Summers: We have

conceptions -- what psychologists call "gender schemas" -- of what it

means to be male or female. We tend to see males as capable of

independent action, as doing things for a reason and as getting down to

the business at hand. We tend to see females as nurturing, communal and

expressive. So which person, man or woman, seems a better fit for the

job of assistant VP in an aircraft company? One guess. You can expect

similar results in other male-dominated fields -- such as the sciences.

 

Although an abundance of research of this sort exists, it has not become

part of our common understanding and thus has not yet redressed the

imbalances between men and women in professional life. With that in

mind, it's useful to look at the three challenges that Summers presented

in his speech to men and women who think elite institutions need to move

faster to increase the number of women on their faculties. His comments,

as reported by those who heard them, highlight some of the most common

and enduring misconceptions.

 

Summers claimed, echoing the neoclassical economics view, that

discrimination is too costly to institutions to last. Over the long haul

-- perhaps a very long haul -- discrimination will wither away, this

line of thinking goes. Here's the rub: Harvard has a $20 billion

endowment. Thus Harvard -- and other rich schools -- can afford to

neglect a lot of female and minority talent and have shown a willingness

to do so. The problems women experience in getting promotion and tenure

are exacerbated at high-prestige institutions, as is shown by "From

Scarcity to Visibility," a book that examines gender differences in the

sciences. The deep pockets of elite schools allow them to buy the

services of a lot of very talented white men. They may be paying too

much for those men, but they can afford it.

 

Meanwhile, people at institutions with heavy teaching responsibilities,

few resources and insufficient staff have neither the time nor the money

to perform the scholarly research they were trained for and that might

win them jobs at more prestigious institutions. Women are

overrepresented at such underfunded institutions, where they cannot

reach their full potential. So when Summers looks around, he will

mistakenly think that he isn't missing anything: Where, he will say, are

all those super-productive women that I'm supposedly not hiring? And

he's right, in a way. Those potential stars are performing beneath their

abilities -- just like their white male counterparts who aren't at elite

schools. What society is losing out on isn't immediately apparent.

 

Another point often raised is that women don't put in the hours, and

Summers followed that line, too, when he suggested that women don't want

to work 80-hour weeks. The implication was that women wouldn't wind up

at, or stay at, a place like Harvard. The first assumption is that

80-hour workweeks are a necessary condition for intellectual creativity

and excellence, for either men or women. That assumption has very little

data going for it. The second assumption is that women who do put in

80-hour weeks receive the same rewards as men. That assumption has a lot

of data going against it, as we have seen.

 

By far the most provocative discussion inspired by Summers's comments is

whether women may be innately inferior to men in math. Women do score

lower, on average, than men on the standardized math tests that are part

of the SAT and GRE (Graduate Record Examination). We already know, from

research by sociologists Yu Xie of the University of Michigan and

Kimberlee Shauman of the University of California (who were examining

the reasons that women do -- and don't -- leave science), that the

differences on math tests do not account for the gender gap in who

chooses to major in science. The gender gap persists even when you take

test scores into account. So in a sense the question is moot.

 

We also know that the differences within each sex are far larger than

the average difference between the sexes. And we know that sex

differences in math are smaller than cross-national differences. One

study, comparing the United States, Taiwan and Japan, found that

Japanese girls in grammar school scored almost twice as high on certain

tests as American boys and almost always scored distinctly higher.

 

Maybe Asians are innately better at math. If so, following Summers's

reasoning, Harvard should be preferentially hiring Asian women over

American men. (We don't know what's behind the large cross-national

differences -- although education is key -- and, as Americans, we're a

little reluctant to think we're inferior.)

 

In the meantime, we don't cultivate women who are strong in math. A

study of seventh- and eighth-graders in the top 1 percent of math

performers shows that the girls do not improve their scores over a

four-year period to the same extent that boys do; nor do girls in that

top pool continue in math and science at the same rate as boys. We

cultivate and nurture mathematically inclined boys. And children -- like

adults -- have a tendency to fulfill expectations. We expect boys to

excel at math and treat them accordingly. Shouldn't we do the same for

girls?

 

There is one cognitive ability that appears to be linked to sex

differences in hormones. It's called mental rotation: the ability to

look at a picture of a three-dimensional block figure and imagine it

rotated in space. Males are much better than females at this task

(although, with practice, someone of either sex can improve), and that

result appears to be related to testosterone level. Girls who have

experienced excess androgen in utero show higher mental rotation scores

than normal girls. That's the kind of evidence we need to demonstrate a

hormonal connection. We don't have that evidence for math or other

cognitive differences. Does mental rotation ability matter? Maybe for a

couple of scientific fields, but on balance, differences in math

abilities seem better accounted for by differences in what we expect of

women and how we treat them.

 

The National Science Foundation has recognized that the nation loses out

if colleges and universities squander the talents of women faculty

members. And if women are going to thrive in math and science, academia

has to change. To speed that change, the NSF has awarded ADVANCE

Institutional Transformation Awards to 19 schools, of which Hunter

College, where I teach, is one. And there are already results from this

ambitious new program: These schools are hiring more women, improving

their promotion and tenure policies, and doing more to ensure that women

have the resources to do their best work.

 

Summers now says he was wrong to have spoken in a way that has sent an

unintended signal of discouragement to talented women. He also has

pledged $25 million to promote the hiring of women and minorities at

Harvard.

 

That message would have been a welcome addition to his comments at the

Jan. 14 conference. The most important message, though, is that if we

raise expectations of women in science -- and give them the resources

they need -- they will make it to the top.

 

Author's e-mail:

 

gender.tutorial@hunter.cuny.edu

 

Virginia Valian is a professor of psychology and linguistics at Hunter

College and the CUNY Graduate Center in New York and the author of "Why

So Slow? The Advancement of Women" (M.I.T. Press).

 

 

 

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[Anonymouse]

and be likely to choose non-confrontational approaches to solve interpersonal problems.

 

 

Are you kidding? Women are some of the most confrontational cats known to man. I take it you've never seen what goes on inside the ladies room.

[Stormig]

Are you kidding? Women are some of the most confrontational cats known to man. I take it you've never seen what goes on inside the ladies room.

style_images/master/snapback.png

No, I haven't. I have been too busy observing what goes on inside the men's room.

[Anonymouse]

No, I haven't. I have been too busy observing what goes on inside the men's room.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

That would explain it.

[Arvestaked]

Yes, women are more confrontational and more likely to be upset as they approach the problem.

 

Oh, and let me add that I have drawn that conclusion from personal experience and am not going to post a scientific abstract to support my claim.

Edited January 31, 2005 by dusken

[Anonymouse]

Yes, women are more confrontational and more likely to be upset as they approach the problem.

 

Oh, and let me add that I have drawn that conclusion from personal experience and am not going to post a scientific abstract to support my claim.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I'd say personal experience has formed alot of the beliefs I have.

[Stormig]

Most of my current colleagues are ladies, and we tick like clockwork. And, no, I don't work for a women's magazine. Either way, the minority that males are consider themselves lucky.

Point is, men try to look "cool" and maybe they are more outgoing indeed - but at the end of the day they'll have irreconcilable differences with whoever and would rather die than admit it. Pride. What can I say. Just because some men have problems with ladies doesn't mean ladies are confrontational, ya know. Of course, it depends on the professionalism - but that's another issue.

[Armen]

Women never try to look "cool", are less outgoing than men, do not have irreconcilable differences with whoever, and even if they have they always admit it. Also, they do not have a pint of pride. Impressive Stormig ... If you write one more this kind of thing I will order a monument to that Harvard professor.

[ckBejug]

From what I have read so far it seems like everyone who has commented so far is basically giving their own opinions of the opposite, or same, sex and generalizing these opinions to be their view of the population of women or men as a whole. In fact, in the five pages of this thread as well as probably all the other threads in this 'Gender Issues' forum I bet we can see the same thing over and over again... Women are like this, and men are like that, and men are better at this but women are better at that, women do this and men do that, but women do it better and men do it worse, blah, blah, blah... I can understand what everything that everyone is saying means, I just don't understand why you are saying it.

 

Let me explain. Why should I care, for example, that the past 5 pages have been devoted to the discussion of whether or not women are just as good, if not better, at the sciences, than men are. Why should I care about the discussion of whether or not women get more emotional and/or confrontational when trying to solve problems? Why should there ultimately be a gender that is the ‘winner’ in that all members of that gender are known to be smarter, harder working, better at math or science or whichever subject matter, better at solving problems, better at understanding concepts, better at listening, and I could go on… We all know that intelligence level is a varying thing that differs from one person to the next. We all know that problem solving abilities are personal abilities one either has or does not have, again this varies from one person to the next. We all know that cooking abilities vary from one person to the next, and so on and so forth to every single thing that we are fighting over, trying to relegate to either something ‘men are better at’ or ‘women are better at’.

 

Now then, what happens when we finally come to an agreement about who the winner is in any or all of the above things I mentioned? I’ll tell you. Nothing at all!! It doesn’t make a difference in my day to day life who is better at what. Does it make a difference in your day to day life whether or not it is certain that ‘men are better at’ doing a, b, and c and ‘women are better at’ doing d, e, and f? No! So, what exactly is the purpose of all the arguing and griping and trying to one-up each other in a debate that is going nowhere? No one is the winner! No one can say for certain that men in general are ‘better at’ doing particular things because you can’t generalize for such an enormous population of people.

 

Say we all decided today that men are better at something and women aren’t as capable as men in that particular subject. How would knowing this fact change your day to day life or the life of anyone else for that matter? It wouldn’t, would it? Everyone would still be going about their daily lives and nothing would be any different that it was before it was decided that ‘men are better at ____’. So why do we still argue?

 

As for the reason this thread was started in the first place, I think that it should be obvious from this "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." that he does indeed have some kind of bias against women. Or is it some random coincidence that since he has been on board there's been a lack of women faculty members qualified for tenure positions? Yeah, right.

 

And another thing... even if he was trying to provoke questioning and studies in this 'biological' difference between men and women and whether that is the reason men have more of a presence 'in the sciences' how would one go about looking at actual biological differences. I can't imagine any study that could go to the biological roots of any kind of difference. I can however see social/psychological studies that might show that women are just as capable as men, but women have been 'left behind' in the sciences because men who have paved ways in sciences have been narrow-minded jerks in the past. Case in point: "Nor is Summers alone in being unaware of the large set of experiments showing that well-intentioned people, intelligent people, people who believe in a meritocracy -- people, in short, just like many successful college presidents -- consistently underrate women's abilities and overrate men's."

 

Even such a generalized study that might possibly find a biological difference (hahaha) between men and women and scientific abilities wouldn't mean anything because there are tons of women out there who are smarter/more capable at the sciences than men and tons of men out there who are smarter/more capable at the sciences than women and we can't honestly say that one gender is more capable than the other.

 

By the way... Hello all.

Edited February 1, 2005 by Justlooking

[Arvestaked]

From what I have read so far it seems like everyone who has commented so far is basically giving their own opinions of the opposite, or same, sex and generalizing these opinions to be their view of the population of women or men as a whole. In fact, in the five pages of this thread as well as probably all the other threads in this 'Gender Issues' forum I bet we can see the same thing over and over again... Women are like this, and men are like that, and men are better at this but women are better at that, women do this and men do that, but women do it better and men do it worse, blah, blah, blah... I can understand what everything that everyone is saying means, I just don't understand why you are saying it.

 

Let me explain. Why should I care, for example, that the past 5 pages have been devoted to the discussion of whether or not women are just as good, if not better, at the sciences, than men are. Why should I care about the discussion of whether or not women get more emotional and/or confrontational when trying to solve problems? Why should there ultimately be a gender that is the ‘winner’ in that all members of that gender are known to be smarter, harder working, better at math or science or whichever subject matter, better at solving problems, better at understanding concepts, better at listening, and I could go on… We all know that intelligence level is a varying thing that differs from one person to the next. We all know that problem solving abilities are personal abilities one either has or does not have, again this varies from one person to the next. We all know that cooking abilities vary from one person to the next, and so on and so forth to every single thing that we are fighting over, trying to relegate to either something ‘men are better at’ or ‘women are better at’.

 

Now then, what happens when we finally come to an agreement about who the winner is in any or all of the above things I mentioned? I’ll tell you. Nothing at all!! It doesn’t make a difference in my day to day life who is better at what. Does it make a difference in your day to day life whether or not it is certain that ‘men are better at’ doing a, b, and c and ‘women are better at’ doing d, e, and f? No! So, what exactly is the purpose of all the arguing and griping and trying to one-up each other in a debate that is going nowhere? No one is the winner! No one can say for certain that men in general are ‘better at’ doing particular things because you can’t generalize for such an enormous population of people.

 

Say we all decided today that men are better at something and women aren’t as capable as men in that particular subject. How would knowing this fact change your day to day life or the life of anyone else for that matter? It wouldn’t, would it? Everyone would still be going about their daily lives and nothing would be any different that it was before it was decided that ‘men are better at ____’. So why do we still argue?

 

As for the reason this thread was started in the first place, I think that it should be obvious from this "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." that he does indeed have some kind of bias against women. Or is it some random coincidence that since he has been on board there's been a lack of women faculty members qualified for tenure positions? Yeah, right.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

 

I do not think everyone was arguing to prove that one is better than the other. Some were arguing that they are balanced and I was pointing out that people expressing certain opinions meet with hostility for social reasons and no other.

 

With regards to the discussion itself, if you carry that logic further you will argue that it is pointless to get into any casual discussion. Is entertainment itself not good enough? Why did you read the thread anyway? Did you think that reading it would somehow change you life? Did you think that posting your opinion would somehow change your and our day to day lives? I doubt it. People express themselves not so much to convince but to find common grounds. People express themselves because they want an outlet for their thoughts. People read and react for entertainment. There is nothing wrong with any of that.

Edited February 1, 2005 by dusken

[Stormig]

Women never try to look "cool", are less outgoing than men, do not have irreconcilable differences with whoever, and even if they have they always admit it. Also, they do not have a pint of pride. Impressive Stormig ...  If you write one more this kind of thing I will order a monument to that Harvard professor.

style_images/master/snapback.png

And I'll express my appreciation by ordering a monument to you next to his... Then again maybe an approximation other than "next to"...

[Anoushik]

Now then, what happens when we finally come to an agreement about who the winner is in any or all of the above things I mentioned? I’ll tell you. Nothing at all!!

 

...Say we all decided today that men are better at something and women aren’t as capable as men in that particular subject. How would knowing this fact change your day to day life or the life of anyone else for that matter? It wouldn’t, would it? Everyone would still be going about their daily lives and nothing would be any different that it was before it was decided that ‘men are better at ____’. So why do we still argue?

style_images/master/snapback.png

It might not change anything (men would continue to think that women are inferior to men) or it might change just a bit (men would be reinforced in their thinking that women are inferior to men).

 

And...

Let me explain. Why should I care, for example, that the past 5 pages have been devoted to the discussion of whether or not women are just as good, if not better, at the sciences, than men are.

You don't have to care if you don't want to. The discussion started because a member kept saying that because of certain biological differences men were more intelligent, even after he agreed that there are some things women are better at than men. When it comes to debates like this the discussion quickly changes to who's more intelligent instead of maybe acknowledging that there might be some differences.

[Anonymouse]

It might not change anything (men would continue to think that women are inferior to men) or it might change just a bit (men would be reinforced in their thinking that women are inferior to men).

 

And...

 

You don't have to care if you don't want to. The discussion started because a member kept saying that because of certain biological differences men were more intelligent, even after he agreed that there are some things women are better at than men. When it comes to debates like this the discussion quickly changes to who's more intelligent instead of maybe acknowledging that there might be some differences.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Of course there are some differences, even many. That's the whole point. Given my personal experience and the record of history, men have been more intelligent than women since men have outperformed women in intellectual endeavors. That isn't to say women are not intelligent, or men are superior. It is to say that they are different, psychologically, biologically, a position which in todays atmosphere is an unpopular position to take.

[DominO123]

Of course there are some differences, even many. That's the whole point. Given my personal experience and the record of history, men have been more intelligent than women since men have outperformed women in intellectual endeavors. That isn't to say women are not intelligent, or men are superior. It is to say that they are different, psychologically, biologically, a position which in todays atmosphere is an unpopular position to take.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

The above post is another example of contradiction.

 

You now uses the card of "differences" to make your point, while you know well that no one denies that both are different.

 

And you claim now that men are not superior. You were the same that not long ago were using the term equality. It was the same you that claimed that men and women were not equal, and now it is the same you that claim that men are not superior than women.

 

For the benefit of the readers, will you finally tell us how the term unequality can be applied in this cases when there are no "superior" and "inferior." Remark that any attempt from your part to start analysing my character as an answer will be answered by a total silence from MY part, like I have done so with your last empty post directed at me.

 

---

 

The claim that men have outperformed women in any intellectual endeavors.

 

This is total bullcrap, it is like asking two people to race the 100 m distance, and prevent one of them to run, and later claiming the victory of the second runer.

 

There are many social reasons that will explain why men have outnumbered women for all those years... to measure and compare two different things, the two must be comparable. If I take a red and yellow canary from two different regions, where the environment is compleatly different, and that the red canary lives in a poluted starving region, and that I compare the singing performance of one against the other to later claim that a yellow canary sing a lot better, I would commit a scientific fraud.

 

For you to compare men and women intellectual performance, you must first compare them in a very similar environment, where the two have the same opprtunities, chances etc. It is only those past years that women were slowly able to take their place in society, before that, since the cave men... women were far from having their places, other than having children and raising them. The process of adaptation of women to their new role has just started, and they are catching up.

[Anoushik]

The claim that men have outperformed women in any intellectual endeavors.

 

This is total bullcrap, it is like asking two people to race the 100 m distance, and prevent one of them to run, and later claiming the victory of the second runer.

style_images/master/snapback.png

[Armen]

Another way to look at this debate is to ask weather man and women set similar goals in their lives. Clearly, there are fields where each of the groups in general outperforms the other one statistically. I mean, there are fields where women "win" and there are the ones where men "win".

 

So, are the lifetime aims, goals and inspirations of women and men the same? Maybe the answer is in this question.

[DominO123]

Another way to look at this debate is to ask weather man and women set similar goals in their lives. Clearly, there are fields where each of the groups in general outperforms the other one statistically. I mean, there are fields where women "win" and there are the ones where men "win".

 

So, are the lifetime aims, goals and inspirations of women and men the same? Maybe the answer is in this question.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

True, but the problem here is that we don't know how much interest plays a role here vs performance in a given field.

[Armen]

True, but the problem here is that we don't know how much interest plays a role here vs performance in a given field.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Well, that's basically the question I am asking. Are the interests and subsequent "investments" different and why? Why is the interest more in some cases and less in others?

Edited February 2, 2005 by Armen

[DominO123]

Well, that's basically the question I am asking. Are the interests and subsequent "investments" different and why? Why is the interest more in some cases and less in others?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Obviously there are the "addaptation" thing playing a role here, and played a role for thousands of years... but since now we know more about brain plasticity, I don't know how much a role brute performances plays against interests.

[Anonymouse]

The above post is another example of contradiction.

 

You now uses the card of "differences" to make your point, while you know well that no one denies that both are different.

 

And you claim now that men are not superior. You were the same that not long ago were using the term equality. It was the same you that claimed that men and women were not equal, and now it is the same you that claim that men are not superior than women.

 

For the benefit of the readers, will you finally tell us how the term inequality can be applied in this cases when there are no "superior" and "inferior." Remark that any attempt from your part to start analysing my character as an answer will be answered by a total silence from MY part, like I have done so with your last empty post directed at me.

 

---

 

The claim that men have outperformed women in any intellectual endeavors.

 

This is total bullcrap, it is like asking two people to race the 100 m distance, and prevent one of them to run, and later claiming the victory of the second runer.

 

There are many social reasons that will explain why men have outnumbered women for all those years... to measure and compare two different things, the two must be comparable. If I take a red and yellow canary from two different regions, where the environment is compleatly different, and that the red canary lives in a poluted starving region, and that I compare the singing performance of one against the other to later claim that a yellow canary sing a lot better, I would commit a scientific fraud.

 

For you to compare men and women intellectual performance, you must first compare them in a very similar environment, where the two have the same opprtunities, chances etc. It is only those past years that women were slowly able to take their place in society, before that, since the cave men... women were far from having their places, other than having children and raising them. The process of adaptation of women to their new role has just started, and they are catching up.

style_images/master/snapback.png

=QueBeceR,Feb 2 2005, 02:50 PM]

 

I was expecting this generic response. It is often claimed that "How do you know that men would outperform women when men have prevented women from equal opportunities?" This at first may seem the politically correct position, but upon closer examination it falls on its head.

 

If in a hypothetic example, we go back to the start of the race, man and woman are about to begin the race. If they are equal as you claim, why is it that man outperformed woman in the race, and then prevented her from somehow "competing"? It only suggests that men were better at the race to outpeform women and thereby not allow competition.

 

Morever, a more realistic explanation is that men and women, being biologically and psychologically different, have had different goals ( with exceptions to the rule ). First, everywhere and at all times, males are dominant over females. Also there is a universal struggle for dominance among males. Arthur Koestler's dictum, "Wherever there is life, it must be hierarchically organized" applies to social as well as organic life.

 

Life isn't about "similar environments" or "equal opportunities". Life is characterized by inequalities and it isn't fair. Never has life been fair and never has there been a situation where all things have been equal for us to compare because the sexes inherently are different, strive for different things (males for dominance, women for motherhood). And as I said, if you go back far enough into this "race", to the start line, you will see that it was only equal then, but somehow the sexes chose different paths.

 

This belief that somehow women "would" have taken an alternative role had it not been for those "evil", "chauvinist" men is horsepucky, and similar to the Marxist belief that society and class and environment determine who we are, and not us, our biology, our self. In other words, it is external stimuli, that shapes us, not what we are inherently composed of. It is wrong and incorrect.

 

By the way, I re-read and there is no contradiction.

Edited February 3, 2005 by Anonymouse