Lawrence Summers has apologized for his statement on women and science:
I was wrong to have spoken in a way that has resulted in an unintended signal of discouragement to talented girls and women. As a university president, I consider nothing more important than helping to create an environment, at Harvard and beyond, in which every one of us can pursue our intellectual passions and realize our aspirations to the fullest possible extent. We will fulfill our promise as an academic community only if we draw as broadly and deeply as we can on the talents of outstanding women as well as men, among both our students and our faculty.
But is he really taking responsibility for what he said?
Despite reports to the contrary, I did not say, and I do not believe, that girls are intellectually less able than boys, or that women lack the ability to succeed at the highest levels of science.
Too little, too late?
The letter, which resulted from a meeting Summers had with Harvard's Standing Committee on Women, sparked this response from economics professor Caroline M. Hoxby (a member of the committee):
"Apology or no apology, a lot of damage has been done by reinforcing these stereotypes..."
I tend to agree. Thoughts?
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Damage has certainly been done. It's hard to come up with a best-case scenario here. Even if one gives Summers the benefit of every doubt (and why should we?), it's still a case of him backtracking after saying what he probably really thinks.
On the other hand, people sometimes have to have something like this happen to expose their own internal sexism, classism, racism, homophobia and the like. Maybe other people will live vicariously through his experience and do just that?
Of course, the fact that he got slammed down pretty readily maybe says something good about what people believe.
http://www.now.org/press/01-05/01-20-Harvard.html
The National Organization for Women calls for the resignation of Harvard University President Lawrence Summers... Apologies are not enough," said Gandy. "Summers must go, and Harvard must start with a clean slate."
Meanwhile, in England: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4079653.stm
Women are brighter than men, according to the Labour chairman of the Commons education committee... "My own personal view is that women are brighter than men," the MP said.
I guess one statement is sexist and the other isn't, eh?
I don't know if it's sexist to claim that women are smarter than men, but it sure is stupid. And it completely trivializes a complex discussion about who schools are failing to serve and how exactly that failure works.
He shouldn't have apologized. He was right. The rest of you need to relax and get over yourselves.
Newsflash: Men and women are different
In other news: Bears crap in the woods and the Pope is Catholic
Good day.
Whoa whoa there, Pedro- I'd *highly* advise against that kind of statement.
You see, the accepted principle here is that if men are ahead in some area, it's because they have too much power and privilege. But if women happen to be ahead in a given area, they won it fair and square because they're naturally better and we'll suddenly become hard-core social Darwinists who believe in survival of the fittest. See how that works?
So until you can learn the appropriate mental contortions, I would suggest that you take your unenlightened comments elsewhere.
Voxper,
Let me see if I can enlighten myself with an example: If women dominate such fields as education and psychology, as they do, it's because they have superior social abilities in the realms of nurturing and empathy. However, if men dominate fields such as engineering, it's because of a hegemonic desire to keep women in their place. Personal preferences and desires have nothing to do with it whatsoever.
I think I understand now. I apologize for my unenlightened comments and promise that I will break up with my significant other because she wants to be a mother rather than pursuing more lofty goals. It's for her own good. Somehow, I'm sure I must be oppressing her even though I'm ambivalent about having kids, and she's strongly for it. But before I break up with her, I'll make sure I urge her to go into the hard sciences rather than her current anthropology major. I can't imagine that there's anything oppressive about forcing someone to do something they don't want to do, if it's for their own good and helps to overthrow the white male hegemonic system.
I have to agree with Sally on this one.
Saying either sex is smarter than the other is just plain ignorant. Show me a man who's bad at math, I'll show you a woman who's good at it, and vice versa. Someone in that kind of position (male or female), speaking to that kind of crowd, should know better than to just spout generalities.
pedro, you probably want to break up with her on the grounds that she's not very bright, as she thinks that the distinction is "mother" vs. "anything else." Of course, you also seem to share this erroneous belief, so perhaps it's a good match after all!
I admit, I cannot fathom why any American would fail to be as up in arms about an obscure Labour MP as the president of Harvard University. But you know how women are, eh?
Pedro- now I can see that you've got it!
And this is further illustrated by the fact that those who find Summers's remarks to be so offensive also seem perfectly happy to trumpet the supposed positive attributes that women bring to the workplace and academia-- that they are more empathetic or more nurturing or can think with both halves of their brain or some such.
So if you intend to flatter women, the sky is the limit for you and your career. If you suggest that there might be some imperfections mixed in, then you're a sexist backlasher who ought to resign.
"I admit, I cannot fathom why any American would fail to be as up in arms about an obscure Labour MP as the president of Harvard University. But you know how women are, eh?"
If you insist, I could dig-up similar comments made by prominent Americans (prominent feminists among them). But there normally isn't quite so much outrage, angry huffing and booing when that happens because we only get indignant at the types of sexism which don't favor women.
mythago,
I was being sarcastic. Both her and I are perfectly aware that she can be a mother and be other things as well.
"We" being you and the imaginary feminazis in your head, Voxper. The paleocons are notorious for going on and on about how women are more civilized, nurturing, grown-up, etc. than those naughty male persons. Are men's-rights activists wagging fingers at Mona Charen for insisting that men aren't civilized without marriage? (Sadly, no!) I don't see anyone here "trumpeting" about how Summers is wrong because what women bring to academia is being cuddly and caring, but it's sooo much easier to just make up shit about what your opponents are saying, innit?
"The paleocons are notorious for going on and on about how women are more civilized, nurturing, grown-up... Are men's-rights activists wagging fingers at Mona Charen for insisting that men aren't civilized without marriage? (Sadly, no!)"
Actually, I can't stand most self-described conservatives and I spend a enormous amount of my time trashing them on other e-boards for their warped views. So happily, yes. I'm an equal-opportunity meanie.