Harvard President Shows His Bias

[Math Is Hard]

About time he apologized. Now how about he step down and let someone else take the helm.

I wouldn't be surprised if Harvard replaced him soon with a female president.

Two advantages I can see to this strategy:
1) Harvard can redeem itself in the eyes of an irate female science community
2) They can pay the new president less money
:grumpy:

 

[Moonbear]

I wouldn't be surprised if Harvard replaced him soon with a female president.

Two advantages I can see to this strategy:
1) Harvard can redeem itself in the eyes of an irate female science community
2) They can pay the new president less money
:grumpy:

Oh, don't think someone at the level of president will accept less money. It's actually great where I am now. We have both a female president and female provost, and they've been doing a great job. The only thing I was pissed about is a local magazine did a story on the university president (along with stories on several other notable people in the community), and in her article, they made some stupid comment about her choice of hosiery (apparently when they interviewed her, she was wearing stockings with some bold pattern on them), and then my dept chair (male) actually said to me he was looking forward to checking under the table to see what she was wearing at a banquet we were both attending. Yes, my dept chair is an a$$! :grumpy: I'm really hoping he's the next to go when they get a new dean here (rumor had it the previous dean was very close to axing him, but left before the deed was done).

 

[Math Is Hard]

Oh, don't think someone at the level of president will accept less money.

It was a facetious comment. Forgive me, I've had a rough day and I'm feeling a little flippant and cynical.

The only thing I was pissed about is a local magazine did a story on the university president (along with stories on several other notable people in the community), and in her article, they made some stupid comment about her choice of hosiery (apparently when they interviewed her, she was wearing stockings with some bold pattern on them),

If they'd interviewed a man there would have been very little (or no) fashion commentary.

and then my dept chair (male) actually said to me he was looking forward to checking under the table to see what she was wearing at a banquet we were both attending.

He sounds like a real gem.

 

[Moonbear]

\If they'd interviewed a man there would have been very little (or no) fashion commentary.

Indeed, all the other "notables" they interviewed in that issue were men, and not even a hint about their socks, or any other article of clothing (despite the one wearing a really goofy looking bow tie in the photo included...why not comment on that?). I canceled my subscription to that magazine.

 

[gravenewworld]

You need to read today's wall street journal's opinion section. A female prize winning faculty member at Harvard even agrees with the president of the school. She even criticized the female president of MIT who was present for just simply leaving in disgust because she claimed the Harvard President was "biased".

 

[gravenewworld]

I don't think that educators are responsible for the lack of women in the sciences either. For god sakes from K-12 grade I would say 95% of my teachers were female. Blaming the lack of female interest on the school system is just an excuse.

 

[franznietzsche]

I don't think that educators are responsible for the lack of women in the sciences either. For god sakes from K-12 grade I would say 95% of my teachers were female. Blaming the lack of female interest on the school system is just an excuse.

Have you ever seen a liberal studies major that was good at math? Me neither.

 

[Moonbear]

I don't think that educators are responsible for the lack of women in the sciences either. For god sakes from K-12 grade I would say 95% of my teachers were female. Blaming the lack of female interest on the school system is just an excuse.

Um, yep, and the other 5% were the male math and science teachers! There are also a lot of K-12 teachers who teach math and science wrong! I had to devote a good deal of time when teaching general biology to undoing misconceptions about biology learned in high school. I would expect it only gets worse with physics and chemistry when there are even fewer qualified people to teach in schools.

 

[jammieg]

I couldn't find much in particular on what he said from the links, it seems mostly about actions and heresay, maybe even hyping up for more appealing news story due to the lack of specific quotes, because if there were specific quotes we could judge from them wether his reasons are faulty, but the quotes seem to be from other people about what he said not what he said by itself and in what context. I don't think there's enough first source information from these reports to really judge what is going on and I'm too lazy right now to ask The Google God.

But then even if he is offensive, sometimes people getting one angry causes one to prove them wrong...but seldom by changing others, it's when people change themselves that they improve...conflict breeds strength, and stubbornness, and even close-mindedness; so what brings one peace, and comfort, and open-mindedness can also brings them apathy and indetermination.

 

[Moonbear]

Apparently, Harvard has tapes of the conference, but won't release them or transcripts. Think they might have reason to hide something?

 

[Dust]

Causing a fuss/forcing him to retire only serves to propagate the females are submissive/fragile creatures stereotype. It's essentially saying that as females have such a low sense of self, even suggesting the notion males have a slight advantage in abstract ability will automatically cause women to believe they're worthless at science and quit altogether.

http://www.now.org/press/01-05/01-20-Harvard.html - This doesn't really do much for the feminazi image either.

When someone asserts you cannot do something which you rightfully know you can do, the automatic response is to try even harder to prove the person wrong. So if anything, his comments have in a way, helped genuinely talented women. Besides, if his "motive" was really to genuinely shut off women from the university, there are certainly more direct, effective ways he could do it, which certainly wouldn't involve stating his "intentions" out in the open. It would happen so obliquely that there wouldn't be time for an outcry.

Back to his original comment, I don't think his suggestion for concrete, scientific research on the differences between the sexes will take place anytime soon, or ever. The little that has been done is already suppressed, and all that remains is Psychology's ridiculously broad "women are empaths, men are systemisers". However, even Psychology in it's vagueness states men have an advantage in spatial reasoning (as a polar opposite to women's superior multi tasking), which is essentially the same as what Summers said.

The best way to resolve this is just to ignore Gender altogether and focus on ability in the field. If it becomes more of a "we need x amount of women otherwise we're sexist", then it can only result dilutation. Leave gender debates to feminism.

 

[Moonbear]

Causing a fuss/forcing him to retire only serves to propagate the females are submissive/fragile creatures stereotype. It's essentially saying that as females have such a low sense of self, even suggesting the notion males have a slight advantage in abstract ability will automatically cause women to believe they're worthless at science and quit altogether.

I disagree. He's in a position where he really can hold back women in their careers even if they are many times over better than the men. I hardly think women going after him to resign perpetuates a submissive stereotype. It says people can't get away with perpetuating stereotypes, especially people in positions of authority to override hiring/firing/promotion/tenure decisions regarding those whom he considers inferior.

By the way, I wouldn't suggest he be asked to retire. Do you think I want to reward him with a cushy Harvard retirement/pension package for this? No, I want him to be asked to step down and let him decide if his ego can handle returning to a regular faculty position rather than that of an administrator.

 

[Dust]

I disagree. He's in a position where he really can hold back women in their careers even if they are many times over better than the men.

In what way? What could he enforce? Even in the unlikely event that men being genetically advantaged did somehow become a dictum, the scientific method would still stand. It would still be based around empirical assertions. Fields wouldn't distintegrate into "you're a female, so everything you say is necessarily wrong". Summers didn't say anything near this intensity, yet he's still being blasted, so I doubt circumstances could even begin to get that bad...

Yet even if things somehow unrealistically did degenerate to this extreme, it would only work to make exceptional women stand out. Besides, it would be a lot of work conspiring against 50% of the population, remaining undetected whilst maintaining the demands of a position, wouldn't you think? As the chance of executing such a plan is slim, the cost high and the reward low. Like I said, he would've stuck to the shadows if this was his intent.

I hardly think women going after him to resign perpetuates a submissive stereotype.

But the reasons given for asking him to resign certainly do. It's indirectly insinuating that women have no way of not believing/suscribing to a stereotype/comment about gender characteristics when in place (at the very least a significantly more difficult time than men), and therefore need affirmative support from outside sources. This, along with the related studies often bunched together to force the point (e.g. High school girls test scores lower significantly when boys are present or some such) hardly serve to put across absence of weakness...

It says people can't get away with perpetuating stereotypes, especially people in positions of authority to override hiring/firing/promotion/tenure decisions regarding those whom he considers inferior.

It actually enforces the stance that one can't be too hasty about saying anything which might be deemed as unpopular by the general public, or you'll face losing your job and/or funding. This sets the focus on suscribing to popular views rather than on truth, which of course slows progress down to a halt. For the best example of this, look at how Genetics is being targetted.

Ironically, forcing Summers to leave would actually cause sexism. The result would be that universities around the globe really would go down the "we need x amount of women, otherwise our department is shut down" route, meaning the women are used as shield against Feminist attacks, rather than on individual merit.

I think the jist of what Summers was actually aiming for was working towards making the whole gender/social conditioning issue more acute (rather than the groggy state it is now). If it was proven without a doubt there was no significant inherent differences between the sexes, what DOES cause the difference in behaviour between men/men, women/ women, men/women could then be looked into, stopping the role confusion that is currently the case.

 

[Moonbear]

In what way? What could he enforce? Even in the unlikely event that men being genetically advantaged did somehow become a dictum, the scientific method would still stand. It would still be based around empirical assertions. Fields wouldn't distintegrate into "you're a female, so everything you say is necessarily wrong". Summers didn't say anything near this intensity, yet he's still being blasted, so I doubt circumstances could even begin to get that bad...

It has nothing to do with the field disintegrating, and everything to do with his position at a major research institution. He's the president of the university, which means he has the final authority to approve or disapprove hiring decisions and promotions to tenure. He can override department decisions. If you spend 5 or 7 years building your research career, apply for tenure, and are denied it, that is a major career setback.

The reason Harvard faculty should be calling for him to step down is quite simple. Highly qualified scientists will choose to find positions elsewhere if they are uncertain they will get fair consideration for a position at Harvard. It won't hurt science, it will hurt Harvard's reputation as a leading research institution when they lose qualified applicants, or when current faculty choose to move elsewhere and take their funding with them.

I'm also not worried about the effect this would have on women already in research careers. We've made it this far and can tell him to take a hike with his opinions. What I'm worried about are the young girls who hear this. A statement by the president of Harvard University comes with an air of authority. It is important that the fallacy of his statements be pointed out so that it is not accepted as fact.

And, regarding your statement that "Fields wouldn't distintegrate into 'you're a female, so everything you say is necessarily wrong'." (sic) really is a risk of such an attitude. Women have been dismissed in that way in the past, and have had to jump twice as many hurdles to prove themselves as men, and not in the too distant past either, so yes, that is a concern. Stop it now rather than sit back and quietly accept his statement, which only allows it to gather further strength and acceptance.

 

[Evo]

Lawrence Summers has a history of making statements that show what a cretin he is.

In 1991 when he was President of World Bank he released a memo that said "I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that". He apologized for this one too. So see, he's not a male chauvinist, he also thinks people in poor countries are worthless trash.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/world_bank_jul99.html

 

[Astronuc]

I think Summers qualifies as a 'Git'.

 

[Kerrie]

Since I really believe this article has direct relevance to our female members here at PF, I wanted to share this article I found. Hopefully it pulls up, if not let me know.

Science Editor of the NY Times-a little girl

Moon, this thread speaks volumes about all of the females who love science but somehow don't get the encouragement they deserve to pursue it as far as they can. Thank you for bringing it to light.

 

[Moonbear]

Kerrie, it requires registration at NYTimes, but the link works otherwise.

That was a great article. It was interesting that she specifically gave an example of a neuroscientist speaking of her as a little girl. I wouldn't even know where to start trying to guess which one it was. Fortunately, most of that generation are near retirement age. There are some who are not just sexist, but outright womanizing leches. :yuck:

Her story of the stigma associated with being a girl who was good in math at school really hit close to home. In 6th grade, our teacher gave out a math quiz while I had to miss class for something else. When I walked back into the room, I was given the quiz and sat down in a back corner of the room to take it while he continued the rest of the lesson for everyone else. A very short time later, I turned it back in. He looked at it to make sure I had actually answered the questions, then promptly went to one question on the quiz and graded it while everyone waited. The class wanted to kill me when he announced I had gotten it 100% right, because apparently nobody else in the class was able to solve that problem and they wanted to have him drop it from the scoring, but since I got it right, it meant it was do-able (and it was worse that it took me no time at all to solve it). I never felt so bad about doing well on a quiz as I did that day. But, in that case, it had nothing to do with being a girl; the class was willing to ostracize or kill anyone who got that question right.

 

[Townsend]

Hi everyone,

I am coming into this thread from the backend. I really don't want to read through all six pages so if my comments have already been talked about please forgive me.

Anyways, read a little bit about what this Harvard guy said and then I read some of the post from the females and males here at PF. I get the impression that there is no real middle ground on this subject so I won’t bother trying to find one. But I do have an idea that could make this a moot point. What if names, race, gender and any and all personally identifiable information is removed before any of the applicant’s are reviewed for acceptance?

They could establish a point system where applicants get a certain number of points for certain things. For example you take your total sat score, then you get additional points for community service and so on and you get the idea. All the admissions board gets to see is the relevant information about what this person has done and what scholastic qualifications merit this person’s acceptance.

This would method is completely fair to all parties and some may disagree but here me out first. I have heard the argument that women or certain minority groups are underrepresented in this area or that. To fix the problem the idea seems to be that if they increase the number of these minority groups in these certain areas that they will encourage more people from these groups to go into these areas. So they give these underrepresented groups an unfair advantage to accelerate this process of integration. They basically think it is ok to commit an injustice to fix another injustice. And overall they’re opinions are the ones that matter more than the individuals opinion so this is what we get.

Well, I do believe that this idea of accelerated integration does, in the short term, work to make a sustainable number of persons from underrepresented groups. Sure in the mean time the numbers might look like they are showing progress but once the source of artificial influx is removed these numbers will dwindle. So to maintain these numbers there must be continued artificial influxes which are injustices done to the majority groups.

How is doing this a good thing? How does this work to create a diverse and well integrated society when deep down inside every white male that has had to get passed up not because of his ability or scores or achievements but instead because he did not belong to an underrepresented group, is feeling a certain amount of loathing towards these minority groups? I contend that it is an inescapable part of human nature that if you see someone else pass you by while you worked hard and performed better you will always have a certain amount of animosity towards them from that day forward.

To fix our problems we need to be patient. Eventually things will reach and equilibrium that is sustainable and realistic. Nobody knows what percent of females would be in math and science if given the exact same environment factors to influence them as a typical male has. Nobody can make these predictions but if we allow equal opportunity for everyone eventually we will know because we will see it. Sure there are stigmatisms that will exist for the time being but these will fade and underrepresented groups will have members that become Einstein’s. In fact as soon as a woman makes a major scientific break through I bet the number of women in math and science will increase more than it ever has before.

Anyways those are my opinions and thoughts about this. I don't know if they are really very constructive but I like to think they help to give everyone an opportunity to see things in a slightly different way.

Regards

 

[etc]

w/o having read but the first page here, i shall digress to my broad analysis. those who are offended by generalizations (and scientific ones at that) are immature.

 

[Moonbear]

But I do have an idea that could make this a moot point. What if names, race, gender and any and all personally identifiable information is removed before any of the applicant’s are reviewed for acceptance?

I don't really want to turn this into a discussion on affirmative action. There's an ongoing discussion in the politics subforum on that where your thoughts on the topic would be better placed.

The reason is that I'm not talking about trying to remedy the situation after the inequality in education has occurred, but in trying to prevent it from happening in the first place by not discouraging women from pursuing something they would do well. For example, if you have a girl who is leagues ahead of the boys in her math class who ends up choosing journalism instead of math, not because she necessarily would rather do journalism, but because she has been ridiculed for her ability in math, affirmative action will do no good to get her into a college math major because the inequity isn't happening at the level of the application review, but in where she is encouraged to apply in the first place.

In fact as soon as a woman makes a major scientific break through I bet the number of women in math and science will increase more than it ever has before.

Women have made major scientific breakthroughs. That you, as well as many others, don't realize this is part of the problem.
Here is one site that lists many of these women: http://www.greatwomen.org/women.php

And some of the names to look for on that site:
Dorothy H Anderson
Virginia Apgar
Gerty Theresa Radnitz Cori*
Sylvia Earle
Gertrude Belle Elion*
Alice Evans
Beatrice A. Hicks
Grace Murray Hopper
Stephanie L. Kwolek
Maria Goeppert Mayer*
Barbara McClintock*
Mary Engle Pennington
Florence Seibert
Nettie Stevens
Chien-Shiung Wu
Rosalyn Yalow*

*Indicates Nobel Prize winner.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Thanks for that link, Moonbear. Have you seen this one?

A UCLA project honoring contributions of women in physics:
http://cwp.library.ucla.edu

There's a quote there by Chien-Shiung Wu that I am particularly fond of:

"There is only one thing worse than coming home from the lab to a sink full of dirty dishes, and that is not going to the lab at all!"

 

[Moonbear]

I hadn't seen that one. Thanks. And I really like that quote! I think I'll have to add it to my signature!

 

[polyb]

Where's Marie Curie, the goddess of physics? :grumpy:

You should be ashamed, moonie! :tongue:

 

[Kerrie]

w/o having read but the first page here, i shall digress to my broad analysis. those who are offended by generalizations (and scientific ones at that) are immature.

and the fact that you didn't read the first page here shows your ignorance of the discussion. it's not about generalizations, but discouragement of women in the math and science fields.

 

[Townsend]

Women have made major scientific breakthroughs. That you, as well as many others, don't realize this is part of the problem.
Here is one site that lists many of these women: http://www.greatwomen.org/women.php

And some of the names to look for on that site:
Dorothy H Anderson
Virginia Apgar
Gerty Theresa Radnitz Cori*
Sylvia Earle
Gertrude Belle Elion*
Alice Evans
Beatrice A. Hicks
Grace Murray Hopper
Stephanie L. Kwolek
Maria Goeppert Mayer*
Barbara McClintock*
Mary Engle Pennington
Florence Seibert
Nettie Stevens
Chien-Shiung Wu
Rosalyn Yalow*

*Indicates Nobel Prize winner.

What I am talking about is names that will stand out against all the great Mathematicians and scientist like Newton, Gauss etc. I know that women can do well in mathematics and one of my favorite math teachers of all time is a woman. She has her PHD in algebraic structures or something like that. But there is not a single female version of Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein. There will be one eventually, of that I am sure, but so far there is none.

I didn't mean to turn this into an affirmative action debate or anything but the two are closely related.

Anyhow thanks for your replies.

Townsend

 

[Andromeda321]

But there is not a single female version of Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein.

See, this is something that annoys me greatly because females have done great things but their roles tend to be underplayed or the fact that they're women is forgotten altogether (I'm thinking about Marie Curie here: no one seems to remember that she was in an odd way). A classic example of this in my mind is the work of Rosalind Franklin without whom the structure of DNA wouldn't have been discovered. But her data was pretty much stolen by Crick and Wilkins and in order to justify it they said she was basically a b:tch. There's also a telling quote in Watson's book on DNA, "The thought could not be avoided that the best home for a feminist was in another person's lab."
I've heard people justify that Rosalind's work wasn't that important because she never won the Nobel Prize like Crick and Wilkins. The reason she never did is because she died of ovarian cancer a few years before the pair got the Nobel and you have to be alive to receive it.

 

[Moonbear]

Where's Marie Curie, the goddess of physics? :grumpy:

You should be ashamed, moonie! :tongue:

She wasn't listed on that site I linked to. I was only listing ones to look for on that site. Obviously, it's not a comprehensive list!

 

[Moonbear]

See, this is something that annoys me greatly because females have done great things but their roles tend to be underplayed or the fact that they're women is forgotten altogether (I'm thinking about Marie Curie here: no one seems to remember that she was in an odd way). A classic example of this in my mind is the work of Rosalind Franklin without whom the structure of DNA wouldn't have been discovered.

I agree. In fact, among the women in that list I provided, many HAVE made contributions of enormous scale to the various sciences. When you consider what they were working against at the time, it puts their discoveries into even better context. They were working at a time when women just weren't given their own labs or funding, so they've made quite a lot of progress with very little funds to work with. One can only imagine what they might have been capable of if given a fully funded lab like their male counterparts of the time had. And, women's contributions were so readily dismissed or stolen without recognition in the past that we would never know if there was someone on the scale of Einstein if nobody listened to her or gave her a chance.

 

[Andromeda321]

Exactly.
By the way, somehow your comment reminds me of two little stories that happened to me in high school:
In one of the standard 8th grade Earth Science discussions we always had at my all-girls school about the women astronomers at Harvard at the turn of the last century (Henrietta Levitt (sp?) and company). After discussing them the science teacher made us read an article about women in sciences being discouraged and then asked us to discuss our opinions on why women weren't involved in science much. The opinion of the group was then voiced to the entire class for further discussion.
My science teacher caught me one year saying that apparently one of the groups in the class had stood up saying "women aren't in astronomy because they just don't want to." Apparently the teacher then asked them how I fit into that theory (everyone in that school knew I was an astro-nut even then) and the response was just something on the lines of "oh, she's just trying to get attention." My teacher apparently had to think for a few seconds on how to respond.
Second little story: last year (senior year of high school) we somehow convinced one of our teachers to show us Contact. Whenever Ellie Arroway confronted someone to defend her work there would always be a few girls who would comment "ohmigod, she is such a guy!" I decided that was not a good time to say that Ellie was one of my favorite charecters of all time and I spent much of high school wishing to be just like her.

 

[polyb]

Hey, didn't all of these 'Great Men of Science' also have mothers? What a bunch of egomaniacal numbnuts! They had the support of woman that made theor work possible, it grieves me greatly that woman don't get half of the props or recognition that men get. Most men would breakdown if they ever had to really raise children, yet they b***ch and moan about how women have it so easy. :grumpy:

It also makes me laugh like hell when they complain about women because I can't sympathize! I have been a hermit for a while and never had the 'luxury' of a woman to help me through this insane world. Those idiots really don't appreciate what they have, guess you girls will have to take it away from them!

A note on Einstein: the guy did not do that well in college and by all the the so called desigantions he was bound for failure. He got his degree in teaching physics and apparently only had a 'c' average(correct me if I'm wrong). So in that respect you have to really admire the guy for breaking the odds!

 

[Moonbear]

Exactly.
By the way, somehow your comment reminds me of two little stories that happened to me in high school:
In one of the standard 8th grade Earth Science discussions we always had at my all-girls school about the women astronomers at Harvard at the turn of the last century (Henrietta Levitt (sp?) and company). After discussing them the science teacher made us read an article about women in sciences being discouraged and then asked us to discuss our opinions on why women weren't involved in science much. The opinion of the group was then voiced to the entire class for further discussion.
My science teacher caught me one year saying that apparently one of the groups in the class had stood up saying "women aren't in astronomy because they just don't want to." Apparently the teacher then asked them how I fit into that theory (everyone in that school knew I was an astro-nut even then) and the response was just something on the lines of "oh, she's just trying to get attention." My teacher apparently had to think for a few seconds on how to respond.
Second little story: last year (senior year of high school) we somehow convinced one of our teachers to show us Contact. Whenever Ellie Arroway confronted someone to defend her work there would always be a few girls who would comment "ohmigod, she is such a guy!" I decided that was not a good time to say that Ellie was one of my favorite charecters of all time and I spent much of high school wishing to be just like her.

I would have hoped that this sort of experience would not be occurring at an all-girls' school.

Has anyone ever encountered men who assume only gay women become scientists? I ran into one of those in college. He told me he never considered dating the women in the science classes because they were all "butch." I figured it was just his small mind, but your comments leave me wondering if this is a more prevalent stereotype?

 

[etc]

and the fact that you didn't read the first page here shows your ignorance of the discussion. it's not about generalizations, but discouragement of women in the math and science fields.

"w/o having read but the first page"
i read the first page, Kerrie. if I'm ignorant of the discussion, and you're ignorant of English, are we both happy?
listen, I'm being a jerk so i may as well offer something. that girls are discouraged (because they're offended, right?), isn't that a paradigm of immaturity? should every true by true generalization be left unsaid because some people get "discouraged"? "asians are smart." "black people run fast." hmm? i can't imagine myself shying away from either being smart or running fast just because I'm a little white boy (dashing, tho).

 

[Moonbear]

"w/o having read but the first page"
i read the first page, Kerrie. if I'm ignorant of the discussion, and you're ignorant of English, are we both happy?
listen, I'm being a jerk so i may as well offer something. that girls are discouraged (because they're offended, right?), isn't that a paradigm of immaturity? should every true by true generalization be left unsaid because some people get "discouraged"? "asians are smart." "black people run fast." hmm? i can't imagine myself shying away from either being smart or running fast just because I'm a little white boy (dashing, tho).

First of all, being offended by something that is offensive is not a sign of immaturity. Maturity is determined by how one handles the offensive remarks. Running away crying might be an immature response, standing up to the offender, defending oneself and pointing out what was offensive is a mature response.

However, consider that when girls (not women, girls) first start hearing all these negatives, yes, they are immature, because they are still children and all children of that age are immature, by definition. It's only those of us who managed to tough it out to adulthood who can then face the issue as mature, adult women.

On the original article - I don't think the women who walked out on the talk took the best approach, but it wasn't immature of them to be offended. There is no maturity or immaturity to having feelings, it is all about how you react to those feelings. I'd have rather they stayed until the end and grilled him with questions, challenges and refutations of his comments! But they didn't, and we've moved well beyond that part of the discussion at this point.

 

[etc]

First of all, being offended by something that is offensive is not a sign of immaturity. Maturity is determined by how one handles the offensive remarks. Running away crying might be an immature response, standing up to the offender, defending oneself and pointing out what was offensive is a mature response.

However, consider that when girls (not women, girls) first start hearing all these negatives, yes, they are immature, because they are still children and all children of that age are immature, by definition. It's only those of us who managed to tough it out to adulthood who can then face the issue as mature, adult women.

On the original article - I don't think the women who walked out on the talk took the best approach, but it wasn't immature of them to be offended. There is no maturity or immaturity to having feelings, it is all about how you react to those feelings. I'd have rather they stayed until the end and grilled him with questions, challenges and refutations of his comments! But they didn't, and we've moved well beyond that part of the discussion at this point.

these are your "postulates":
(1) an immature response is defined by "running away" and "crying". one can assume that by those you meant a) not confronting the situation (see: running away) and b) being upset by the situation (see: crying).

(2) a mature response is defined by chiding, that is, constructively reproving your opponent.

(3) children are by definition immature.

--

first, i would argue that since most elementary school teachers are female, little girls aren't exactly discouraged from maths and sciences. further, most girls (believe me, i kno girls) don't "like" maths and sciences. some do, most don't. the some that do are v. good, the most that don't aren't so good. ****, this almost makes sense.

second, according to postulate (1) the girls were immature. they walked out upset and hurt and failed to constructively reprove the Harvard dean. These girls ran away crying.

EDIT: it's naive to believe we're all equal, and that some types of people aren't better at some things than other types of people (as a rule). of course this rule is volatile and not set. it's clear that many do not understand this.