Is Harvard President's View on Gender and Science Justified?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moonbear
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bias Harvard
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around controversial comments made by Harvard President Lawrence Summers, who suggested that biological differences contribute to men's superior performance in math and sciences compared to women. This assertion has sparked significant backlash, with many arguing that societal biases and discouragement play a crucial role in the underrepresentation of women in these fields. Participants express concern that such statements from influential figures could perpetuate stereotypes and discourage young girls from pursuing careers in math and science.Some contributors highlight the importance of recognizing that differences in performance may stem from cultural attitudes and educational practices rather than inherent abilities. They argue that while there may be average differences in performance, this does not imply that women cannot excel in these areas. The conversation also touches on the impact of teachers' biases on students' confidence and performance, emphasizing the need for equal encouragement and opportunities for both genders.Overall, the thread reflects a deep concern about the implications of Summers' comments for gender equality in academia and the potential long-term effects on women's participation in STEM fields.
  • #51
Moonbear said:
I have a friend who dropped out of grad school because her husband was a few years ahead and when he started applying for postdocs, she neither wanted to live separately nor was she willing to start over at the new university her husband moved to (too few of her exams transferred and she'd have had to start taking classes over again...the second program seemed to have very different requirements from the first one). Knowing he'd be moving yet again in just a few years, she knew she couldn't finish the degree there either, especially with needing to retake so many courses and exams. In my own case, I took the opposite approach of ending a relationship when it became apparent the guy I was dating wasn't willing/able to move as many times as I'd need to move (to his credit, it was a mutual decision because he also wasn't going to ask me to compromise my career by staying with him and not moving...I considered a career change, but we both knew I wouldn't be happy with the alternative).

That's the reason I've stopped looking for people 'till after University :D >=\

Okay, not being off topic: Since less women will probably apply because of this, I wonder if the marks will actually go up. If they do, then of course, the president could shove it in the people's faces. However, if it doesn't, I'm sure he'll be subject to quite a bit of insults.

If the marks do go up, I wonder if it'll be partly because of less "distractions". Hmm...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
A couple of interesting studies have indicated the influence of gender on choice. The choices weren't about math, but demonstrate physiological influences nonetheless.

One is Alexander's research. An excerpt from an article found here says, "It’s commonly believed that boys and girls learn what types of toys they should like based solely on society’s expectations, but psychologist Gerianne Alexander’s work with vervet monkeys is challenging that notion.

Alexander, whose research focuses on sex differences in behavior and the biological factors that influence them, examined the monkeys as they interacted with toys. She and her collaborator, Melissa Hines of the University of London, found that the monkeys’ toy preferences were consistent along gender lines with those of human children. The study was published earlier this year in "Evolution and Human Behavior."

Though the monkeys had no concept of a "boy" toy and a "girl" toy, they still showed the same gender preferences in playing with the toys, Alexander says. That is, compared to female monkeys, male monkeys spent more time with "boy" toys, and the female monkeys, compared to their male counterparts, spent more time with "girl" toys, she notes."


Another study connects hormones to toy choices. An excerpt from an article found http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_1_41/ai_n6032943 says, "The strongest evidence of hormonal influences on human behavioral development has come from studies of childhood play. Girls with the genetic disorder congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) are exposed to high levels of androgen prenatally (Pang et al., 1980; Wudy, Dorr, Solleder, Djalali, & Homoki, 1999). . . . Despite postnatal treatment, girls with CAH show altered play behavior (see Hines, 2002, 2004, for reviews). They are more likely than other girls to prefer toys that are normally preferred by boys (e.g., cars) and less likely to prefer toys that are normally preferred by girls (e.g., dolls). They also show increased preferences for boys as playmates and for boy-typical activities. These differences in play behavior are seen on questionnaires, in interviews, and in direct observation of toy choices. They also are seen when girls with CAH are compared to unaffected female relatives, as well as to controls matched for background factors like age and parental socioeconomic status. Similar outcomes have been seen for girls exposed to high levels of androgenic hormones prenatally because their mothers were prescribed hormones during pregnancy (Ehrhardt & Money, 1967). In addition, normal variability in maternal testosterone levels during pregnancy has been found to relate positively to male-typical play behavior in female offspring at the age of 3 1/2 years (Hines et al., 2002a)."
 
Last edited:
  • #53
Let's not kid ourselves. There are differences between men and women beyond the physical traits. That doesn't mean one is better than the other, just different. The discrepency in science and math aptitude isn't because women just don't understand that sort of thing but has to do with education methods. The way science/math is taught with a professor lecturing and students listening and taking notes favors males. Females on the other hand learn better in a social environment where they are in a small group and can discuss the topic. All this is based on a news report that I remember but can't cite.

If I had a school I would make classrooms all female and split them into groups and have male classrooms remain traditional. Or at least I would like to see large scale study of this type of format.
 
  • #55
First, I think the whole issue is Math, not science. As far as I know there are many women who are biologists, psychologists, etc (percentage, not number). However, when it comes to physics there is this sudden decline. What is the difference between physics and these other sciences? The obvious choice is the insane amount of math. Also, I know many of you will not clasify psychology as a science, but that is a matter of definition.

Moonbear said:
I think as soon as a teacher or parent says something is hard to learn, it gives the kid an excuse to not try to master it.


YES! And this, unforutnately, comes back to the ladies. Elementary teachers are the first teachers kids truly encounter, other than their parents of course, and most elementary teachers are women. As has already been discussed, most women do not like math, or major in it at least. Then these women who do not like math become elementary teachers, and are suddenly teaching their students, our kids, that math is useless and hard. This, however, is true of most elementary teachers, male and female. I have a history class this semester that is filled with elementary teachers, and I hear these people talking about their college elementary math class and how difficult it is. Makes me quite sad. This is why I hate elementary teachers. They all think, ohh these are little seven year old kids we are teaching, this is cake. Personally I think elementary teachers should be able to teach all the way through high school, but this, like everything I said, is just my opinion, and has gotten way off topic :smile:
 
  • #56
mattmns said:
YES! And this, unforutnately, comes back to the ladies. Elementary teachers are the first teachers kids truly encounter, other than their parents of course, and most elementary teachers are women. As has already been discussed, most women do not like math, or major in it at least. Then these women who do not like math become elementary teachers, and are suddenly teaching their students, our kids, that math is useless and hard. This, however, is true of most elementary teachers, male and female.

I think it's a reasonable theory, but it doesn't preclude there being biological factors affecting the issue as well. In the studies I cited above, for example, there could be hormonal factors which encourage children to play with certain toys, and it could also be true that social factors encourage children to play with certain toys and discourage them from playing with other types of toys.

Similarly, there could be physiological differences between the genders which make math easier for most men (and, let's not forget the other side of this, better verbal and communication skills for women), and it could also be true there are social factors which discourage or fail to adequately encourage girls to explore their math capabilities.
 
  • #57
it could also be true there are social factors which discourage or fail to adequately encourage girls to explore their math capabilities.
Or it could be parents/adults who perpetuate the gender distinction.

How many parents (and even other adult relatives or friends of the family) would buy a doll or a 'girl' toy for a boy, or buy a model car, ship or plane for a girl.

Ostensibly, some/many parents want their sons to grow up 'manly', and their daughters to be 'feminine', and that influences how boys and girls are dressed and what gifts they receive.

There is also extensive cultural influence (pressure), particularly TV in the modern industrial nations, but also in printed media as well, which tend to perpetuate the status quo - namely a gender distinction.
 
  • #58
From an unsubstantiated, anectdotal perspective, I wonder how much of the gender differences in play behavior are influenced by paternal rather than maternal interactions. This is something that has been running through my mind quite a bit lately. I have a number of friends/relatives who have small children now (in the infant/toddler/preschool range). When I see the kids with their mothers, I don't really notice any big differences in how they are treated or how their mothers encourage play, but as soon as their fathers walk into the room, it doesn't matter what toy they are playing with, it seems the fathers who play with them who are the ones that play differently if they have a girl or boy. I've heard of studies on maternal behavior during rearing of children, but have not seen any on paternal behavior (other than presence vs absence of the father, which isn't what I'm driving at here). Take as an example a toy both genders will play with, a stuffed animal. When the mothers are around, they all seem to show the kid to cuddle the animal (or tuck it into bed, or just fuss over how dirty it is and can it have a bath in the washing machine), but enter the father and with girls, they don't really do anything to discourage the cuddling and nurturing the mother taught, but then with boys, they'll grab the animal and play that it's attacking the boy or wrestling, or stomping on all the other toys. Even on the day the babies arrived from the hospital, the mothers are all holding and rocking and busy just trying to keep up with feeding and changing diapers. Hand a girl baby to her father, and he's so gentle, holding her all the time, rocking, etc. Hand a boy baby to his father, and he's bouncing and waking him up to play, etc. There's just a difference in how they are treated from day one. But, I don't know if that's just among the people I know or if it's generalizable.

So, getting back to the biology vs physics difference, there is another social reason why a lot of women get into biology, and that is they often enter pre-med, not intending to do research. Medicine is a nurturing career, while we picture the physicists as recluses (not saying they are, just saying that's how they are perceived by children).
 
  • #59
Just found this link to an interesting map, percentage of tenured women mathematicians in Europe, by country. What is Portugal doing right?

http://www.awis.org/resource/statistics/euromath.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #60
selfAdjoint said:
Just found this link to an interesting map, percentage of tenured women mathematicians in Europe, by country. What is Portugal doing right?

http://www.awis.org/resource/statistics/euromath.jpg

There is this thing in Portugal where they believe that learning math will get rid of aids. :confused: That's why it is 50/50.

It's not that bad.

It just seems like mathematics is not the topic of choice for females.

I try to avoid this type of thing because it is too controversial.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #61
franznietzsche said:
Yeah why do people think fractions are hard?

I'll never forget my algebra 2/trig teacher: When you see a fraction don't panic. Its just a number. Thats all. Nothing special. When people see fractions they panic and freeze. Don't. Its nothing but a number, just like 1, or 2. Just a number.

In high school, my dream was to obtain a degree in mathematics. Fractions and Geometry come super easy for me, as I see the concepts as pictures rather then numbers. This helps me calculate quickly in my head without the use of pencil/paper or a calculator. But, the encouragement of women entering in the math field in the early 90's was severely lacking. This article that Moonbear has referenced shows just how important educators are to those willing to learn. And those educators are not just limited to the classroom...this website is a learning environment, so every bit of encouragement we all give one another could really make a difference in another's life path.

I agree to that extreme feminists (those who step on men to get to a higher ground in other words) don't help the cause for equality. If anything, they don't help our position and make us look foolish.

As for women being less able in the math and science area, my husband and I are both not typical of that at all. I do the checkbook, help my daughter learn about astronomy and the sciences (she loves it), and I work with a once NASA engineer in my company in building parts for machinery (requires lots of math). My husband is very politically savvy, understands literature and history better then anyone I know, and wishes to write a book someday.

I think this Harvard President is a little biased if he is reinforcing a fact that can be changed with some encouragement and incentive to more women to enter into the math and sciences fields. His statements surely won't help women, that's for sure.
 
  • #62
An apology from the Harvard President:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/21/national/21harvard.html

The Harvard University president, Lawrence H. Summers, apologized personally on Thursday to a group of distinguished women professors as he battled to convince the university's faculty of his commitment to diversity after remarks suggesting that women may be innately less able to succeed in math and science careers.
 
  • #63
Dang, I need a membership to access the NY Times! I wanted to read the rest of that article. About time he apologized. Now how about he step down and let someone else take the helm.
 
  • #64
Ah yes, how does that old saying go? "May the words you say today be sweet, for tomorrow they may be words you'll have to eat".

Sorry, but what he said is what he really thinks. The retraction is an apology forced upon him and has nothing to do with his personal beliefs. I have even less respect for him now. Before he was just a bigot, now he's a bigot and a liar.
 
  • #65
Evo said:
Ah yes, how does that old saying go? "May the words you say today be sweet, for tomorrow they may be words you'll have to eat".

Sorry, but what he said is what he really thinks. The retraction is an apology forced upon him and has nothing to do with his personal beliefs. I have even less respect for him now. Before he was just a bigot, now he's a bigot and a liar.

Had he IMMEDIATELY apologized, I may have been sympathetic that he could have mispoken or been misunderstood, but the several days delay is just about how long it takes to organize a formal press statement when the university community is breathing down your throat telling you you better apologize. I agree, it's hard to believe he's sincere. I wish I could access that article, I'd like to see exactly how his apology was worded...did he apologize for what he said, or did he apologize for saying it?
 
  • #66
Moonbear said:
Had he IMMEDIATELY apologized, I may have been sympathetic that he could have mispoken or been misunderstood, but the several days delay is just about how long it takes to organize a formal press statement when the university community is breathing down your throat telling you you better apologize. I agree, it's hard to believe he's sincere. I wish I could access that article, I'd like to see exactly how his apology was worded...did he apologize for what he said, or did he apologize for saying it?
Exactly my thoughts. Had he immediately apologized I might think he was sorry for letting his personal beliefs slip out, although that's what he believes, but after this long, it's obvious he was forced into retracting his statements. I haven't read the whole article, so maybe I'll have to eat this, but I highly doubt it.
 
  • #67
Seeing as I'm in physics/astronomy for my interests for my major the lack of female company in physics class seems unsettling me. So I've been asking around about it lately, both girls who decided to go that route and those who didn't why they chose what they did (mainly gals on the premed track).
The most interesting thing about those who didn't go into "hard science" is how there is a trend that they weren't quite sure what to do but figured premed sounds good so why not (there are girls with this attitude in engineering but they're much rarer). There's the idea that they like science and you can get money out of it and it's comparatively easy, really.
It's funny tho, when I tell these girls I want to be an astronomer they get very excited about it. One even talked to me for a good few minutes nonstop (I was wondering when she took a breath) about how when she was a little girl she was obsessed with stars and no one could've convinced her not to be one in a million years. (It was even the topic of her college admissions essay.) "So what happened?" I asked her, knowing that she's now a biochem major. "I grew up," she said, in such a matter of fact tone like it was obvious because no one actually becomes an astronomer, obviously. I wondered where I fit into her picture of the universe and asked her but she had no answer for that.
Now it might sound like an unrelated little story but somehow that girl and her matter of factness worries me. What happened to her along the way that made her "grow up" as she put it? I don't know what it was but I have a feeling if we could figure it out we'd be further along then we are now on this problem.
Also, another thing: most people here seem to think that it all starts back in elementary school but speaking as someone who went to an all girls school I daresay this isn't the case. Well into middle school girls are eager and willing to study sciences without a doubt. But then in high school is where a lot of it happens, really: they realize the math is too hard/ science isn't worth it and move on to other subjects (with more interesting teachers, as a side note). I think it really has a LOT to do with the fact that girls just can't imagine themselves in the fields because there are no role models they know of to point to and say "that's an example of who I could be should I choose to do this." A little proof of this is the astronomy dept in my school is overwhelmingly female whereas the physics department has the average male/female ratio. The reason for this has a lot to do with one of the female professors who goes out of her way to set up mentors for potential astro majors within the department/ act as a mentor herself. We get quite a few girls transfering into the department actually their second year, surprisingly enough.
Ok, end of my rant now, hope that was all coherent.
 
  • #68
I was always told boys are smarter in math and science, and those are my strongest subjects. That's why I had the gender reassignment operation.
 
  • #69
Andromeda, that's an interesting perspective. Looking back, I didn't go into physics because I didn't like it until I got to college, and by then I wasn't going to start over with a new major. In high school physics, the students who were doing well in the class all cheated in the most horrible, back-stabbing sort of way (one I found out actually ripped the pages out of a reference book in the library we all needed for a lab report so nobody else could use it). I didn't cheat, I think I was the only one in the class who didn't, and as a consequence, when I wrote an honest lab report interpreting the actual data I got rather than the fudged data everyone else used, I got penalized for concluding I had disproved Newton's laws! Well, honestly, the data I got did disprove it based on what we had been taught to that point (of course the more likely explanation was faulty equipment, but I had no way to know that at the time). Anyway, I just had the impression that the only way to do well in physics was to be a competitive, arrogant, back-stabber, and I wanted nothing to do with it.

Then again, I'm not sure how I wound up in biology either since my Jr High biology teacher told me I just didn't have the aptitude for biology and should have just dropped the class. Fortunately, I just hated that teacher enough to want to prove him wrong, so didn't really believe him when he told me that. But, it just goes to show how little teachers know about what students are truly capable of doing.
 
  • #70
tribdog said:
I was always told boys are smarter in math and science, and those are my strongest subjects. That's why I had the gender reassignment operation.

Oh, and here we thought Greg was just being mean giving you a pink ribbon. Now we know he knew more than we thought. :smile:
 
  • #71
Moonbear said:
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
 
  • #72
Math Is Hard said:
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

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$$! 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).
 
  • #73
Moonbear said:
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.
Moonbear said:
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.
Moonbear said:
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.
 
  • #74
Math Is Hard said:
\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.
 
  • #75
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".
 
  • #76
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.
 
  • #77
gravenewworld said:
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.
 
  • #78
gravenewworld said:
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.
 
  • #79
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.
 
  • #80
Apparently, Harvard has tapes of the conference, but won't release them or transcripts. Think they might have reason to hide something? :rolleyes:
 
  • #81
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #82
Dust said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #83
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #84
Dust said:
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.
 
  • #85
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. :rolleyes: 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
 
Last edited:
  • #86
I think Summers qualifies as a 'Git'.
 
  • #87
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.
 
  • #88
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.

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.
 
  • #89
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
 
  • #90
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.
 
  • #91
Townsend said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #92
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!"
 
  • #93
I hadn't seen that one. Thanks. And I really like that quote! I think I'll have to add it to my signature!
 
  • #94
Where's Marie Curie, the goddess of physics?

You should be ashamed, moonie! :-p
 
  • #95
etc said:
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.
 
  • #96
Moonbear said:
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
 
  • #97
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.
 
  • #98
polyb said:
Where's Marie Curie, the goddess of physics?

You should be ashamed, moonie! :-p

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! :wink:
 
  • #99
Andromeda321 said:
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.
 
  • #100
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.
 

Similar threads

Replies
23
Views
4K
Back
Top