There just comes a point when there are so many "exceptional" women that you need to start questioning what the hell "average" and "normal" is - and why the hell you're making the assumption that "smart" women are exceptional.

Jerks.

for sure, Adrienne Rich has a brilliant essay on this very topic. Is this what you're referring to?

Mrs. Summers sounds awesome, but...

I am quite fascinated by the "innate differences" debate. I hate sounding like the devil's advocate all the time, but since I like to read, dissect, & debate opposing views on everything, I decided to read more about this stuff. (Let's just say that my motto is, "Question Everything.") Taking a prima facie look at Summer's comments, one could easily say, "Well, God! He's a sexist, a bastard." But, looking at what Summer said, it seems as though he went along the line of the "there are more male geniuses and idiots" sort of theory that can be found in controversial books like The Bell Curve. It's basically summed up in this Jonah Goldberg column (he can be quite an asshole, especially with regard to feminists, but I like his columns):

" 'When he started talking about innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn't breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill,' Dr. Hopkins told The New York Times. 'Let's not forget that people used to say that women couldn't drive an automobile.'

"That's true. 'People' also used to say that women aren't as tall as men, that men are more aggressive than women, that women are the ones who make babies, that men are physically stronger than women, and all sorts of other things that happen to be true. The mere fact that 'people' used to say some things that weren't true doesn't mean that everything people used to say is untrue - even if some of those comments offend Hopkins' delicate sensibilities.
In fact, the scientific consensus is that there are innate cognitive differences between men and women - as groups. Individual men and women can be geniuses or morons (though the data suggest that men tend to produce more of both than women).

"Men tend to perform better at spatial tasks - rotating three-dimensional objects in their mind, for example - as well as some mathematical and navigational tests. Women, on the other hand, are better at word games of various kinds, and they beat men at identifying matching items rapidly and putting the right-shaped pegs in the right holes. This is all fairly uncontroversial stuff - you can find a nice summary on the Web in a Scientific American article called 'Sex Differences in the Brain' from May 13, 2002."

Here's more from Linda Chavez (another conservative, though she's not as big of a bitch as Michelle Malkin/ Ann Coulter/ those idiots at IWF's blog):

"But as uncomfortable as it might make feminists, the empirical evidence points to small but important differences in scientific and mathematical abilities between men and women. On average, women perform better on verbal tests, while men demonstrate greater visual-spatial capabilities, and these differences are more striking at both the lower and upper extremes of intellectual ability. Boys outnumber girls in remedial reading classes -- by large ratios, in most studies -- but they are even more likely to outnumber girls among the most gifted in math and science. In one study of gifted pre-adolescent students conducted by Johns Hopkins University, boys outperformed girls among the top scoring students on math by 13-to-1.

"For years, feminists have tried to explain away these achievement differences by suggesting that girls are not encouraged properly to pursue math and science. Lately, some have even started blaming the way in which these subjects are taught: too much emphasis on competition and being 'right,' too little on collaborative learning and nurturing self-esteem. But socialization alone can't explain the wide differences in ability, especially at the highest levels of mathematical and scientific achievement. Summers was really just articulating what most researchers in this area believe -- that biology plays a bigger role in explaining these differences than socialization does."

So basically, the argument presented is not that women cannot achieve in the fields of math and science (quite the contrary), but that more men than women are driven to these fields, simply because they are more likely to be "hard wired" to have the cognitive abilities required to excel in such fields. I'd like to see what everyone thinks of this.

I don't know if I agree with making vast generalizations about men and women, but from my own experience, I absolutely stink at math. As a matter of fact, it gives me panic attacks (which isn't fair because I was in, like, the 98th percentile on my Verbal SATs, damn it!). But then again, my sister is fucking brilliant at math and science and is considering persuing a career in biology. But on the other hand I am strongly sympathetic with the view that "Genius cannot be checked by social obstacles" (this is more of a philosophical speculation than based on fact, but you get my drift) and that "Male conspiracy cannot explain all female failures" (I wouldn't use the words "conspiracy" and "failures," either, but, whatever). Of course, women will always make strides (as they continue to do, in most fields), but I just don't know if sexism can explain certain phenomena that continue to exist in these subjects.

Have I been reading way too much Camille Paglia? (Sexual Peronae is flawed and often quite wrong, but awesome, anyway.) Maybe. But it's just an interesting starting point for discussion. I mean, if we have knee-jerk reactions to everything, we'll start to resemble the worst right-wingers, in my view.

So what do y'all think? Am I naïve, or what?

"In fact, the scientific consensus is that there are innate cognitive differences between men and women - as groups."

I'm confused. Did you miss the bit about Nancy Hopkins being a geneticist? She is, in fact, a full professor of biology at MIT. If that's the scientific consensus, how is it that this scientist doesn't agree? Why isn't her opinion part of the "consensus"? And why do you assume that Summers's remarks offended her "delicate sensibilities," rather than her understanding of a subject on which she is an expert and he is not? Why do Linda Chavez and a popular science magazine trump the opinions of a geneticist who has reached the highest levels of academia?

"But, looking at what Summer said, it seems as though he went along the line of the "there are more male geniuses and idiots" sort of theory that can be found in controversial books like The Bell Curve."

Exactly. This is very much like the racism dressed up as biology that was put forth in the Bell Curve. What's your point?

First, I didn't write the first quote (the part about Hopkins' "delicate sensibilities"). That was Goldberg. And second, I didn't say that these opinions should be dismissed simply because it resembled The Bell Curve, a book that was kind of pointless in its intent (a little like Murray's latest book, Human Accomplishment), but nowhere near as bad as it was hyped up to be. My point was to bring this up for discussion. (Coincindentally, that's what Summers said his intention was, too.) You don't have to tar and feather me, or anything. Sheesh!

Sorry: it's hard to tell what's quoted and what's original here, since you can't format the comments.

It doesn't strike you as even a little bit odd that conservative commentators all use language that belittles Nancy Hopkins (ie "offended her delicate sensibilities") and all neglect to mention that she is, in fact, an expert on the topic that Summers raised? Why do you think that it didn't occur to Goldberg that Hopkins is included in the scholarly community, and that if she disagrees with the "consensus" than it's not really a consensus?

I don't mean to tar and feather you. But you do seem to be missing some of the bias evident in the comments of people like Chavez and Goldberg.

I do want to engage with these ideas more fully, but I've tackled crud about "women being weaker than men" in other places, and I'm so tired of hearing this stuff that I'd have to take another day to cool off and respond rationally.

So I'll just contribute this tidbit, which is good to keep in mind as you sift through loads of studies, "evidence" and "research." I know it helps me to tag it:

"As long as there are entrenched social and political distinctions between sexes, races or classes, there will be forms of science whose main fucntion is to reationalise and legitimize these distinctions."

-Elizabeth Fee

That's how power works.

Bah. Typos. Once again, cleanly, to repeat, for posterity:

"As long as there are entrenched social and political distinctions between sexes, races or classes, there will be forms of science whose main function is to rationalize and legitimize these distinctions."

- Elizabeth Fee

But if women's 'natural'lack of aptitude in maths/sciences can explain the low percentage of female professors of these subjects, how is one to explain the frequently low percentage of women in higher positions in English Literature faculties etc?While a higher number of students are female it seems like most of the lecturers in positions of power are male.Or is that just due to our natural lack of competitive drive and desire for marital bliss,children, bunnies, fluffy things etc?

"You don't have to tar and feather me, or anything."

She's criticizing and debating with you. That's hardly 'tarring and feathering'. This is not a forum where we all hold hands and gently say "Oh, but I think that Olivia might be wrong on one teensy point there" so as not to hurt anyone's fee-fees. Nobody called you names. This game of putting out your views and then freaking about about how MEEEEAAAN anyone who disputes them is, is passive-aggressive crap.

Youch, take it easy with the labeling before someone gets hurt, eh mythy? Olivia raises interesting questions as does Sally. I doubt they require your none too generous sideliner's pigeonholing of their exchange. LarryBob, misguided SOB that he is, also raised interesting questions. He, on the other hand, is deserving of contempt. I don't for a moment buy the noise that females are BIOLOGICALLY inferior in Math and Science. Let us not forget the thievery of Watson and Crick and so many like them! I blame Aristotle for his fundamentally faulty syllogism of enduring disrespect that the Roman Catholic Church was all too happy to carry on, giving us that wonderful time of enlightenment and discovery, THE DARK AGES. ::cough::
No way will I accept that it's Biology. Nope. Give us 2000+ years in the driver's seat and then let's see who measures up. The problem is that males, blinded by lust/power/greed, are inherently unable to measure *anything* HONESTLY. ;-)

::snort::

S. de B., fan of Theano

Sally: Nancy Hopkins' biological research has nothing at all to do with sex differences in math and science. See her web page: http://web.mit.edu/biology/www/facultyareas/facresearch/hopkins.shtml

I can only assume the reason the conference organizers invited Larry Summers is that he knows something about the economics of disparate sex ratios in the workplace, including at elite academic institutions.