http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/02.09.05/feminism-0506.html

verlch, how brave of you to link to a bullshit anti-feminist story, rather than actually express your ideas in your own words.

What so you won't listen? Did you know that a feminist lies every 7 seconds? Your not interested in hearing the truth Jessica. Chances are you don't even know the capital of your own state, let alone one topic in world events right now!

Goodness, you are ruthlessly belligerent. I respect that you have opinions, but no one is going to listen to them when you have a "nanny nanny boo boo" mentality.

It's amazing to watch the hypocrisy of the current so called "college intelligentsia" as they hatefully condemn Summers, but call liar and con-man Ward Churchill a champion of free speech. Not to worry, the rest of America can see through their double standard as well.

It's only a matter of time before "college professor" ranks up there with "used car salesman" and "network journalist".

Hey, he is entitled to his right of freedom of speech. We are entitled to point out what bullshit his freedoms of speech is.

And since when was Churchill even discussed on this blog? Or did I miss something.

I'm all for academic freedom, given that I am in the midst of the last stage of my PhD, however, the Summers issue is not actually about that.

It's about a guy making a statement on a subject that he patently knows diddly about (the woman genetic researcher whose work he was commenting on said Summers took everything out of context, if I remember correctly). The only reason his words had credence were because of his position, not because of any intrinsic validity in the comments.

A classic example of this is that while a gender difference may be biological (and I am certainly not saying this is) this does not automatically mean genetic or inborn. Our culture has a biological-social dichotomy, not seeing how the social overwhelming alters biology.

Further, to see these comments as 'just comments' is to ignore the entire context surrounding them, where women are emphatically and continually told that we cannot compete in certain fields. In such a space of supposed rationality as a top tier university/college, one would hope, or rather expect, for it to be one of the few spaces of rational resistence to this overwhelming tripe that's present everywhere else in society.

And while I am all for academic freedom, I also advocate responsible research, namely one where you are aware of the consequences of how your work/comments will be taken. Summers has a history of making these kinds of idiotic gaffs, and this is just another example of such.

Oh, and as to the idiot posting first, let him post, and then, simply, ignore him. The inability to argue with any real rationality (or, for that matter, any obvious grasp on reality) entitles him to our complete indifference as to his existence.

Yes, he doesn't have a right to post here (freedom of speech is only freedom from _government_ intervention of speech) but dumb-arses like that do bring a smile to my face on a day were the wind chill is below zero F. :)

It would be a gross violation of academic freedom if Larry Summers were a professor in the economics department and were fired for saying what he said. And If he has tenure in the econ department, he should, of course, keep it. But university presidents don't have tenure, because their job isn't primarily about scholarship. Their job is about running the university. And if they screw that up, by failing to raise enough money, by failing to maintain or improve the university's academic reputation, by saying things that embarass the university and harm its reputation, by doing a one of a million things, they can be fired. The university president's job isn't to come up with new and sometimes unpopular ideas: it's to run the university.

If Ward Churchill had been a university president, he would have been fired before you can say "plummeting alumni donations." And if Larry Summers had been an ordinary professor, his comments wouldn't have caused a scandal. (I've heard worse from tenured professors.) You're missing a fundamental distinction between being a scholar and an administrator, tfreridge.

So is there a middle ground here, or do you have to either love Mr. Summers or hate him?

"President Summers is being vilified for telling the truth about women...Women have children and choose to raise those children...and neurobiology shows us women are better in certain fields than men and tend to gravitate towards those fields they do better in."

That's your truth there Sarah. Society is not designed to change things like Neurobiology, yet all you ladies continue to act as if men are truly equivalent. THEY AREN'T. Men and women are different; they make different choices and they good at different things. This whole Summers fiasco is a bunch of WOMEN who feel it is politically incorrect to point out that their BIOLOGY makes them worse at something. God forbid anyone point that out. We should take all the studies that point to this and burn them and while we're at it why don't we just burn Mr. Summers as well. Let's burn him at the stake for stating a statistically backed fact.

*fact*-few women choose science and math fields and therefore few *can* excel.

Oooo, one man says that women don't excel at math and science and then ALL you women say that he meant, "All women bad at math and science." Does anyone see the false logic there. Yes? You in the back; Ms. IHaveAPhD (in nothing applicable to the situation I assume). Do you see that you are putting words in his mouth?

"where women are emphatically and continually told that we cannot compete in certain fields"

Women are not told they can't do things. They are provided facts gathered from studies that their sex does not choose certain fields of study. Few women choose these fields and therefore few excel in these fields. It starts with WOMEN'S CHOICE of field. This goes back to the Neurobiology. Why choose a time consuming field that absorbs your entire life when you plan consciously (or not) to stop that career to have children? I'd say that makes some sense.

The only way to solve this is test tube babies and full-time nannies so both mother and father can continue to work in their fields of study. Then they will not be bothered with biology or any of that non-sense that goes against whichever direction feminist ideals are blowing that day.

wow ... the same old crap really get wheeled out on this one, doesn't it?

Ryan, I never said that there aren't neurobiological differences between men and woman, because its extremely apparent that there are. What any first year biology student will tell you, however, is that neurobiology is affected by social and cultural factors.

If you teach two groups of people to act, think and behave in particular ways, and then test their brain wave patterns and note that they align to those groups, its not that surprising. Moreover, neurobiologists will tell you we know hardly anything about how the brain actually operates, so the mere fact of correspondences doesn't mean we actually know what they mean.

Both biology, and our own concepts of biology (ie what we conceive biology to mean) are quite affected by the social world (completely, in terms of the latter).

Oh, and as to babies ... women more often than not don't 'choose' to leave in order to have children. They have to, it's the way society is structured, and honestly, WHY should they have to be the one's to leave if they and their partner have a child. Go read some basic social analysis texts, and then maybe you can really play with the adults.

(and yes, I know everyone, I'm breaking my own rule *smile* but it amazing when these kinds of things are trotted out time after time, even though they have been refuted so many times *shakes head in bemusement*).

*grin* opps ... sorry about the double post, I double clicked by accident ... could one of our friendly neighbourhood bloggers delete one please? :)

I shall abase myself accordingly ;)

no problem! i erased one of them...

I am getting *really* sick of this whole Summers flap, and, while the transcript was an interesting read, I'm beginning to think that Summers' biggest gaffe was simply that he spoke in poor taste. I mean, it's a little like having a meeting at the NAACP and then tacitly suggesting that the only reason why blacks are incarcerated at a higher rate than whites is because blacks have lower IQs. What kind of reaction does he expect? It's just highly, highly inappropriate for the environment in which he was in, whether what he suggested was true or false.

Once a poster starts calling us all "you ladies" I always know it's a troll, and am saved the trouble of reading further. Why not just say "little ladies"? You know you want to.

And the Times is a Moonie rag, and Moon is one of the kookier misogynists out there. It's like a really expensive cult newsletter.

And Summers is an ass. If these comments had been made about racial differences, he'd be unemployed, and rightfully so. I hope that Harvard will take his sexism just as seriously. He has the right to think it, but I have the right to believe he is too narrow minded and blind to be doing his job. Toss 'im.

Sally says,"You're missing a fundamental distinction between being a scholar and an administrator, tfreridge."

The fundamental distinction being that one is held accountable for their words and the other isn't?

By the way, little ladies(lol), I just wanted to say that I really enjoy this blog. The editors are doing a great job! Lots of great articles and there is always a point of view that I hadn't considered. I'm interested in the concept that gender isn't genetic. I've always believed that genetics was the foundation for pretty much everything. I'm in engineering by profession so I don't have much biology in my background. Could you refer some articles about this?

Mmmm, and we all know that prejudiced thoughts never, ever, *ever* carry over into hiring practices, promotions, or on-the-job or in-class treatment. If you speak the truth, then I'm happy Thomas Jefferson admits large numbers of female students. I also have been fortunate enough never to have received unequal treatment in my math and science courses. Based on the posts in this forum alone fromo other women in math, science, and tech careers, though, not all females have been so lucky.

(The problem with the Summers discussion is that the content is spread out over several Comments posts and the opposing side defines "an absolute lack of evidence" as "an absolute lack of evidence that doesn't require me to exert any effort whatsoever to find".)

"We ought to do something about it." Um. We're trying, Pedro, but a mind is a terribly tough thing to change, and the U.S. media's recent blind condemnation of any progressive objection as P.C. claptrap isn't helping.

Oh Look, it's Sarah from "Bitch Magazine."

Gaz, and Verlch, both bang on bro's.
Nice to read some friendly words....in a place of such anger!

"Oh Look, it's Sarah from 'Bitch Magazine.'"

Congratulations on your mastery of retrieval cues. Should we need any further demonstrations of spreading activation, we will not hesitate to call upon you.

"Gaz, and Verlch, both bang on bro's.
Nice to read some friendly words....in a place of such anger!"

Oh, please, PLEASE - not the "anger" label! *ANYTHING* but *THAT*! ::gasp, choke, HACK::

Buddy, you whine about the very existence of feminist posts on a feminist website. I somehow doubt that were the members of your gender deemed insufficiently intelligent to be trusted with certain professions, not to mention control over their own bodies or sexuality, you'd be completely hunky-dory.

Jackie:"I mean, it's a little like having a meeting at the NAACP and then tacitly suggesting that the only reason why blacks are incarcerated at a higher rate than whites is because blacks have lower IQs."

You are too right. The environment won't allow such things as your NAACP example. They obviously won't allow debasement of women. What about men. Men are pigs right, how often would you say you hear a women spouting the superiority of women in... anything. It happens a lot more than you realize. The environment allows this for god knows why. So, I too am tired of this bullshit.

"I hope that Harvard will take his sexism just as seriously."

Only if you are woman. Women say the same bullshit Summers said all the time only no one gives a shit. Maybe men don't care about the opinions of women that much.

"WHY should they have to be the one's to leave if they and their partner have a child"

I could make this simple and ask WHY NOT? But I won't; women have the choice to stay at home or not. They can higher nannies. Just because the woman doesn't stay at home doesn't mean the man should. There are solutions to your problems if you didn't think so narrow.

"women more often than not don't 'choose' to leave in order to have children"

Women do choose to take care of children over having a career. Is that so hard to believe? I know it doesn't fit with your every woman is a Wonder Woman(tm) mindset but please stay realistic here. No one is forcing any women to have children. Your body your choice. You choose to have children, you choose to stay at home or higher a nanny, WOMEN CHOOSE. Don't blame society for women being a herd animals afraid to make their own choices because those choices are available.

The eternal problem with the ivory tower of academia is that it's too easy to hide in it playing with theories, and never test those theories against reality. 'Neurobiological factors'? Half the math majors at my school-- a large public university-- are women. Half the geology majors (my field) are women. More than half of the biology majors are women, and dominance of women in biology at the undergraduate level (albeit not the teaching level) seems to be the norm at quite a few other schools these days, as well. What exactly are the 'neurobiological factors that discourage women from being interested in science and math,' and why do they not apply at my school-- or, for that matter, many other schools in the state university system? Are we in some kind of weird parallel-reality bubble where these alleged rules of neurobiology don't apply, or-- more likely-- have the people cheerleading for Summers simply not been inside the science departments of a major modern university, and simply find it easier to assume that it's mostly men because that's how it was when they were in school? It's pretty hard to take statements such as his seriously when they're in flat contradiction to the reality I see around me every day.

Oh, and one other thing-- of the women majoring in science- and math-related fields, a disproportionate number of them (in proportion to total enrollment) are of East Asian or Indian descent. Does that mean there are more 'math genes' floating around in women on certain continents? Come on, folks-- if it's all biology, the only way to explain that one is to invoke innate racial differences, isn't it? You pro-Summers folks already have no less a racial-essentialist luminary than Charles Murray (author of "The Bell Curve") backing you up. So, is it race differences or not? Why are there proportionally fewer white, black and Hispanic women studying math, science and engineering? (Murray's support is no surprise to me-- scratch the surface of someone who believes biology puts a permanent cap on women's ability to succeed in some business or academic field, and you often seem to find someone who believes biology is keeping 'the poor' from advancing. 'Biology' these days abhors a career-minded woman as much as 'biology' used to abhor a mixed-race marriage.)

"No one is forcing any women to have children. Your body your choice. You choose to have children, you choose to stay at home or higher a nanny, WOMEN CHOOSE. "

Men have children too. Do you think men have the same set of choices, or are men's choices more or less restricted than women's in the same situation? Do you think there might be social factors and pressures affecting why men and women tend to make different choices in response to becoming parents? Might these pressures be detrimental to men as well, for example those who would rather stay home with their children?

"The eternal problem with the ivory tower of academia is that it's too easy to hide in it playing with theories, and never test those theories against reality."

I wholeheartedly agree. It IS easy to hide in academia playing with theories and never testing them against reality. It's a good thing women's studies majors don't fall into this trap. I constantly see them questioning the valitidy of what they say.

"'Neurobiological factors'? Half the math majors at my school-- a large public university-- are women. Half the geology majors (my field) are women. More than half of the biology majors are women, and dominance of women in biology at the undergraduate level (albeit not the teaching level) seems to be the norm at quite a few other schools these days, as well. What exactly are the 'neurobiological factors that discourage women from being interested in science and math,' and why do they not apply at my school-- or, for that matter, many other schools in the state university system?"

This I find to be an amazingly self-contradictory argument. FIRST you argue that neurobiological factors do not come into play because on MOST college campuses MOST of the biology majors are women. Yet apparently you still maintain that women face barriers when pursuing these very same fields, in which they are the majority.

As for prejudices taking effect in hiring practices - of course they do! They always will! And men have to deal with them too - short, non-alpha male looking guys are at a HUGE disadvantage in any job inaterview, as are all introverts, and anybody who can't be loud and smiley on command, for that matter.

That and Larry Summers isn't hiring anybody. Yes, he works at Harvard, but based on your own arguments, apparently there are MORE women there than men, so I guess he isn't much of a threat, is he?

"The fundamental distinction being that one is held accountable for their words and the other isn't?"

Are you being intentionally dense?

As I see it, gazpacho, there are two differences between your situation and that of women in science. These have to do with socialization and with the barriers they face once they choose to study science.

First of all, there's socialization, which is to say the way people are raised. Starting at birth, and in very subtle ways, girls are not raised to think of themselves as potential scientists. They don't see very many role models of women scientists. They are less likely to be given toys that encourage them to think scientifically. Little boys are much more likely to be tolerated or encouraged when they take things apart, crawl around in the mud looking at earthworms, or try to do complex tasks for themselves. Little girls are likely to be told to put that down, not to mess up their pretty clothes, and that mommy will do that for you. I could go on.

There's a sense in which you were socialized not to choose a theater major. You were, presumably, taught to be sensitive to homophobic taunts, and you had to overcome that in order to choose a theater major. But in other ways, it was easier for you to see yourself as a potential actor. Our culture provides scads of role models of male actors. We encourage little boys to think of attention as their due. Your challenge was, once you knew you wanted to major in theater, deciding whether it was worth it. Women's first challenge is just imagining themselves as people who could do science for a living.

And then there's the issue of discrimination. Think of it this way. Once you decided to major in theater, you probably derived some benefits from being a man in a female-dominated department. Almost all roles are sex-specific, almost all plays have as many good roles for men as for women, and there were fewer men to compete for them.

That's just not true for women in science. They have to deal with professors and fellow-students who assume they can't do the work. They are likely not to be invited to study groups, since the guys will assume they have nothing to offer. The most ambitious male students will not want them as lab partners. Professors are much less likely to pull them aside and suggest they think about grad school, which is generally the way that any college student starts to think about going for a PhD.

I have a friend who recently got a PhD in physics. He claims that both professors and students in his department will state openly that they think women are biologically incapable of doing serious physics. That's got to have an effect when it comes to admission, funding and hiring decisions, not to mention (sometimes) more subtle things about the extent to which students are encouraged.

For instance, a high school acquaintance of mine was a very good math and science student. She got 5s on her physics and calculus APs, for instance. When she showed up for an advanced physics class in college, she was the only woman in the room. The professor asked her to stay after class and then told her that she should drop the course, because she was too pretty and would distract the boys. Can you imagine a male student, in theater, physics, or anything else, being told to drop a class because he was too good-looking? This woman is now a physicist, but when her professor looked at her, he saw a distraction, not a future scientist. And that assumption plays out in all sorts of more subtle ways.

"The fundamental distinction being that one is held accountable for their words and the other isn't?
...
Are you being intentionally dense?"

Um...I didn't say anything about a fundamental distinction or accountability. I suggest you reread what I wrote, because this makes me think you must not have understood correctly.

"Little boys are much more likely to be tolerated or encouraged when they take things apart, crawl around in the mud looking at earthworms, or try to do complex tasks for themselves. Little girls are likely to be told to put that down, not to mess up their pretty clothes, and that mommy will do that for you. I could go on."

I was a young boy in America. I had many friends who were also young boys. None of us were ever encouraged to "crawl around in the mud looking at earthworms." If we were to do such a thing, our mothers would usually tell us to stop because we'd get our clothes dirty. Your arguments seem to be based on selective belief in stereotypes.

But if we take this argument at face value:
You say that boys are encouraged to explore and experiment and do things for themselves, while girls are not. I'll grant you there is some validity to this, and I'll come back to that. It is at a very young age that our primary neural pathways are formed. If, as you argue, boys and girls are treated that way at this early age, then the result would be that boys are better at math and science and girls are not. It would be based on upbringing rather than genetics, but the difference would still be there - and twenty years later, these girls really would have failed to develop the necessary reasoning skills to be effective scientists.

Now, as for boys and girls being treated differently - this is because they ARE different. Part of what Larry Summers said (bear with me here) is that he gave toy trucks to his little girl and she named them "mommy truck and daddy truck." How do you explain that?

I have taught preschool. Those kids are very, very young. Generally during playtime, the girls CHOOSE to play with the kitchen set, and the boys CHOOSE to play with the building blocks. Sometimes a girl will want to play with the blocks, and sometimes a boy will want to play with the kitchen set, but that is not true of the majority. The girls ENJOY playing with the kitchen set. The boys ENJOY playing with the building blocks. These kids have not hit puberty and have no awareness of themselves as gendered beings other than the fact that they have to use separate bathrooms. They aren't even old enough to think that the other sex has cooties yet. And yet there's still a distinct difference in what they choose to do during playtime.

You say you've got a friend who got a PhD in physics, and that the people in his department think women are biologically incapable of doing physics. Since these are people with doctorates in science, isn't it possible that they have used scientific methods to arrive at that theory? (Which any halfway decent scientist would realize is a THEORY that can still be disproven if sufficient evidence is provided?)

Okay, you had a friend who was told to drop a class because she was pretty. The professor said, quote, "You are too pretty to be in this class because you will distract the other students." Did it ever occur to you (or her) that this was probably a JOKE? That he was KIDDING? Or possibly *gasp* FLIRTING?

Honestly, I don't know where people get the idea that feminists have no sense of humor.

"Um...I didn't say anything about a fundamental distinction or accountability. "

That was a response to someone else. Sorry. I should have made that more clear.

"If, as you argue, boys and girls are treated that way at this early age, then the result would be that boys are better at math and science and girls are not. It would be based on upbringing rather than genetics, but the difference would still be there - and twenty years later, these girls really would have failed to develop the necessary reasoning skills to be effective scientists."

Right. But if the problem is socialization, rather than innate capacity, than that's something that we can work on. If it's innate capacity, then that's just the way it is, and there's no reason to change how we socialize children.

"Part of what Larry Summers said (bear with me here) is that he gave toy trucks to his little girl and she named them "mommy truck and daddy truck." How do you explain that?"

It could be socialization: a child who has been given nothing but dolls will probably treat a truck like a doll, just as a child who has been given nothing but trucks will probably treat a doll like a truck. It could also be that Summers remembered the remark that confirmed his prejudice. If a boy said something similar, he wouldn't notice it or wouldn't think it was significant, because it didn't confirm what he already thought he knew.

"These kids have not hit puberty and have no awareness of themselves as gendered beings other than the fact that they have to use separate bathrooms."

Surely you cannot really think that kids don't become aware of themselves as gendered beings until they hit puberty. Children have ideas about gender instilled in them from the moment they are born. They are dressed in clothes that reflect ideas about gender: there is a reason that department stores have separate sections for boys' and girls' clothes, even though boys and girls have nearly identically-shaped bodies until they hit puberty. They are given toys that reflect ideas about gender. They are enrolled in activities that reflect ideas about gender. How many four-year-old boys are enrolled in ballet class? (My brother was, and he loved it, until he realized that it wasn't something boys were supposed to do and quit.) Several studies have shown that there are clear differences in the way parents treat boys and girls, literally from the moment they are born, in terms of how they speak to them, how they hold them, whether they let them do things for themselves or step in to help... things that are obvervable and quantifiable by social scientists.

"Since these are people with doctorates in science, isn't it possible that they have used scientific methods to arrive at that theory?"

He doesn't think so. He isn't from the U.S., and he thinks it's a peculiarly American prejudice. He says that if he has a daughter, he'd like to raise her somewhere where there aren't the same attitudes about women in science.

"Okay, you had a friend who was told to drop a class because she was pretty. The professor said, quote, "You are too pretty to be in this class because you will distract the other students." Did it ever occur to you (or her) that this was probably a JOKE? That he was KIDDING? Or possibly *gasp* FLIRTING?"

It wasn't a joke. And you do realize that this comment makes you look like an asshole, right?

Okay, let me start from square one here:
*DNA for most organisms on earth is very similar.
*Yet many organisms on earth are very different.
*Thus, it is clear that a small change in DNA can cause a very different organism.

*Genetics causes differences among humans too, such as skin color, height, eye color, etc.
*Genetics also determines intelligence. Clearly, we are not all Einstens, or, for that matter, Marilyn vos Savants.
*Men and women are genetically different.
*Thus it is clearly possible, indeed LIKELY that men and women have different cognitive abilities. (Intelligence is not a scalar thing that you can simply have more or less of.)
*If men and women have different cognitive abilities, it is clearly possible that these abilities might extend into the regions of math, science, and reason.

*At the very least, cognitive equality between men and women is something that must be PROVEN. I have yet to see any proof, but I see many people who "believe" that it's true. That isn't enough.

*So why don't these women who are majoring in biology, who, by the way, are in the majority, get to work trying to prove that men and women are genetically different, yet cognitively identical? Should they find this to be true, their findings will be challenged, as any scientific study is in a healthy academic environment. If their argument is a sound one, criticism will only serve to make it stronger.

"It wasn't a joke. And you do realize that this comment makes you look like an asshole, right?"

I have been in many situations - many, many situations - where a person said something which they intended as a joke, and the other person didn't believe it. This is a VERY human reaction, especially for people with low self-esteem. On the other hand, I have seen comparatively few (okay, zero) examples of overt sexual harassment in the manner you describe. I have heard stories of such harassment, but oddly enough it's always about "a friend of a friend," and never firsthand. I'm sorry that you feel I'm an asshole. I am seeking the truth here, so if you find some logical flaw in my argument, please point it out to me.

Golly, gazpacho. It sounds like you'd already made up your mind when you asked the question and that you asked it in bad faith. It sounds like no argument or evidence could possibly make you change your mind. It sounds a bit like you're deliberately wasting my time.

Is your employer aware that you think it's appropriate for a male instructor to "flirt" with a female student in such a way that she leaves the room feeling that she's been kicked out of the class?

I believe that the genders should be segragated unless married. That is the only way to solve the problem. You ladies can sit and brush up against each others breasts and fill DV and harrassment charges against each other!!

Did you know there is more lesbian on lesbian violence than there is male on female??? Did you sisters know that? The numbers in each case are small but none the less really small!!!

I'm not trying to pick on you, Sally, but you seem to take what happened to you(or your friend, your colleague, a person you heard about) and try to apply the "micro" cause and effect to the "macro" scale. This is a somewhat emotional response.

But then maybe I'm just dense.

I wasn't trying to argue about whether Summers was correct in his assesment (he even said that if there may be studies that contradict him), I was trying to comment on the state of academia in America by comparing the acceptance of Ward Churchill and his ilk, to the unreasoning response generated by an honest assesment put forth for the purpose of attempting to rectify disparate numbers of science teachers.

"Golly, gazpacho. It sounds like you'd already made up your mind when you asked the question and that you asked it in bad faith. It sounds like no argument or evidence could possibly make you change your mind. It sounds a bit like you're deliberately wasting my time."

Actually, if you remember, my question was "What are some specific barriers that women face when they pursue science and math careers?" This is a request for information, not a decision. There is nothing to make up my mind ABOUT. I really want to know.

Thus far you have told me that women outnumber men in college AND in biology courses, which would seem to be strong evidence AGAINST your position. (Fewer men in college = evidence for discrimination against men, no? I'm sure you'd say the same if the genders were reversed.) You have yet to give me an example of a barrier specific to women. Some people are prejudiced? Okay, but some people are prejudiced against men, too. Most of them are women.

"Is your employer aware that you think it's appropriate for a male instructor to "flirt" with a female student in such a way that she leaves the room feeling that she's been kicked out of the class?"

No, I said the instructor might have been flirting with her. I expressed no opinion about it one way or the other, other than to imply it was an obvious possibility. But since you brought it up, I agree that it would be inappropriate. However, that was not my point. My point was that I suspect he was not being serious when he told her to drop the class. I suspect that she misinterpreted his joke, and it hurt her feelings. (Much in the way you misinterpreted what I said and assumed I was saying it's okay for professors to flirt with students - see how it works? I bet that really offended you, even though that isn't what I said.)

As for making her "[leave] the room feeling that she's been kicked out of the class." Are you saying professors should be forbidden from saying things that make the students feel bad? If he did indeed mean it as a joke, it was not his fault that she misinterpreted his joke, any more than it would be your fault if I misinterpreted something you said.

Besides, unless the professor goes into the computer system and removes her from the class, she hasn't been kicked out of it. If he does that, she has a legit complaint. If he lowers her grade unfairly, she has a legit complaint. If he says things that make her feel uncomfortable, she should politely ask him to stop. If he doesn't, THEN she has a legit complaint.

This I find to be an amazingly self-contradictory argument. FIRST you argue that neurobiological factors do not come into play because on MOST college campuses MOST of the biology majors are women. Yet apparently you still maintain that women face barriers when pursuing these very same fields, in which they are the majority.

You're putting words in my mouth. Where did I talk about women facing barriers? Quote it.

As for prejudices taking effect in hiring practices - of course they do! They always will!

Again, I will not bother to address this issue until you can quote anything in my post where I mentioned anything about prejudice in hiring practices. It's a relevant issue, but it is not one I brought up in my post.

Yes, he works at Harvard, but based on your own arguments, apparently there are MORE women there than men, so I guess he isn't much of a threat, is he?

Again, you don't seem to be able to read carefully. Here, I'll quote my original post for you, with boldface for relevance:

"More than half of the biology majors are women, and dominance of women in biology at the undergraduate level (albeit not the teaching level) seems to be the norm at quite a few other schools these days, as well."

If you can't read the "albeit not the teaching level" in parentheses, or tell the difference between "quite a few other schools" and "all other schools," I suggest brushing up on your reading comprehension skills.

You still haven't answered my questions, though.

Why don't the 'neurobiological factors keeping women from being interested in science and math' apply at my school? Why are so many women majoring in math and science at my school if they're wired to be disinterested in it?

You didn't answer my question about the race factor. Why is it logical to assume that neurobiological factors cause women to enter the sciences in lesser numbers, but not to assume that neurobiological factors cause East Asians and Indians to enter science fields in proportionally greater numbers than whites, blacks and Hispanics? Why is it okay to attribute the latter to social factors but not the former?

(Note: reposting this with appropriate quotation marks-- I didn't realise that comments on this blog don't take HTML tags.)

"This I find to be an amazingly self-contradictory argument. FIRST you argue that neurobiological factors do not come into play because on MOST college campuses MOST of the biology majors are women. Yet apparently you still maintain that women face barriers when pursuing these very same fields, in which they are the majority."

You're putting words in my mouth. Where did I talk about women facing barriers? Quote it.

"As for prejudices taking effect in hiring practices - of course they do! They always will!"

Again, I will not bother to address this issue until you can quote anything in my post where I mentioned anything about prejudice in hiring practices. It's a relevant issue, but it is not one I brought up in my post.

"Yes, he works at Harvard, but based on your own arguments, apparently there are MORE women there than men, so I guess he isn't much of a threat, is he?"

Again, you don't seem to be able to read carefully. Here, I'll quote my original post for you, with asterisks for relevance:

"More than half of the biology majors are women, and dominance of women in biology *at the undergraduate level (albeit not the teaching level)* seems to be the norm at *quite a few other schools* these days, as well."

If you can't read the "albeit not the teaching level" in parentheses, or tell the difference between "quite a few other schools" and "all other schools," I suggest brushing up on your reading comprehension skills.

You still haven't answered my questions, though.

Why don't the 'neurobiological factors keeping women from being interested in science and math' apply at my school? Why are so many women majoring in math and science at my school if they're wired to be disinterested in it?

You didn't answer my question about the race factor. Why is it logical to assume that neurobiological factors cause women to enter the sciences in lesser numbers, but not to assume that neurobiological factors cause East Asians and Indians to enter science fields in proportionally greater numbers than whites, blacks and Hispanics? Why is it okay to attribute the latter to social factors but not the former?

"You didn't answer my question about the race factor. Why is it logical to assume that neurobiological factors cause women to enter the sciences in lesser numbers, but not to assume that neurobiological factors cause East Asians and Indians to enter science fields in proportionally greater numbers than whites, blacks and Hispanics? Why is it okay to attribute the latter to social factors but not the former?"

Actually, people *do* attribute neurobiological factors to differences between races. Specifically people like Steve Sailer. So it's not exactly a taboo subject anymore. *Shrug.*

Evil Penguin:
"You're putting words in my mouth. Where did I talk about women facing barriers? Quote it. "

Are you saying you DON'T believe women face barriers? Then why are you a feminist? (I'm sorry, I don't remember you specifically saying that you ARE a feminist, so maybe you're not. I just assumed.)

"More than half of the biology majors are women, and dominance of women in biology *at the undergraduate level (albeit not the teaching level)* seems to be the norm at *quite a few other schools* these days, as well."

Perhaps I should rephrase the question then: You state that there are fewer women at the teaching level, and I presume you believe this is the result of discrimination against women. Well, there are fewer MEN at the UNDERGRADUATE level. Isn't this evidence of discrimination against men?

"hy don't the 'neurobiological factors keeping women from being interested in science and math' apply at my school? Why are so many women majoring in math and science at my school if they're wired to be disinterested in it?"

First of all, it's not a question of interest, it's a question of aptitude. And we're talking AVERAGE aptitude, not "every woman is worse at math than every man." Why are so many women majoring in math and science? That I can't say. But I can say that if "so many women" are majoring in it, then there must not be much discrimination going on.

"You didn't answer my question about the race factor. Why is it logical to assume that neurobiological factors cause women to enter the sciences in lesser numbers, but not to assume that neurobiological factors cause East Asians and Indians to enter science fields in proportionally greater numbers than whites, blacks and Hispanics? Why is it okay to attribute the latter to social factors but not the former?"

In fact, I think it IS likely that there are differences between races as well, for exactly the same reason. Asians and Jews, for example, seem to be, on AVERAGE, better at math.

There seems to be some confusion on this forum as to who is directing what comment to whom. This is the reason I have failed to address some of your questions.

So I have a quesion for YOU, Evil Penguin: Why do you keep refusing to answer my questions? That seems a very closed-minded attitude. You've also resorted to name-calling with upsetting frequency. That's very rude of you.

"Actually, if you remember, my question was "What are some specific barriers that women face when they pursue science and math careers?" This is a request for information, not a decision. There is nothing to make up my mind ABOUT. I really want to know."

That's interesting, because when I gave you examples, you found ways to dismiss them. I'm not sure what evidence would ring true to you. Can you give me an example of a piece of evidence that you *would* find convincing?

"Some people are prejudiced? Okay, but some people are prejudiced against men, too. Most of them are women."

In my university's physics departement, there are roughly 50 professors. 2 of them are women . Both of the women are assistant professors, which is to say the lowest level, without tenure or any departmental power. Even if it were true that women are as likely to be prejudiced against men as men are against women, female students would still be profoundly disadvantaged.

"My point was that I suspect he was not being serious when he told her to drop the class. I suspect that she misinterpreted his joke, and it hurt her feelings."

I suspect you believe this because you want to believe it, because you're profoundly invested in denying that there is real oppression of women. She was not stupid, and she was not a shrinking violet. She wasn't particularly a feminist, for what it's worth. She was also there. I trust her interpretation a lot more than yours.

"Besides, unless the professor goes into the computer system and removes her from the class, she hasn't been kicked out of it."

Advanced physics courses often require the permission of the instructor. So this is, actually, incorrect. At any rate, it's asking an awful lot of an 18-year-old to expect her to stay in a class when she knows the professor doesn't want her there. Some 18-year-old women might be strong and brave enough to do that. But the weak, cowardly 18-year-old guys still got to take the class.

"That's interesting, because when I gave you examples, you found ways to dismiss them. I'm not sure what evidence would ring true to you. Can you give me an example of a piece of evidence that you *would* find convincing?"

Yes I can. Tell me something that stands in such women's way that they are powerless to overcome.

Let's recap:
You said that young girls are not encouraged to think of themselves as potential scientists. First off, this is a vague claim that you don't back up with ANY actual facts. You might be interested to know that in the school district where I work, it is currently "Introduce a Girl to Engineering Week." We have many such programs SPECIFICALLY targeted at teaching girls that they can be whatever they want.

Then you said:
"[Women] have to deal with professors and fellow-students who assume they can't do the work."

So? They'll all feel like idiots when you prove them wrong. This is hardly an insurmountable barrier.

"They are likely not to be invited to study groups, since the guys will assume they have nothing to offer."

Correction: They ARE likely to be invited to study groups because the guys will think they're cute and we can use "study group" as an excuse to hang out with them. Trust me, I'm a guy. We WANT to hang out with girls.

"The most ambitious male students will not want them as lab partners."

See previous point. Also, see following point. Both apply here. But, even in the event that this claim is true, so what? Why does she need the most ambitious male to be her lab partner? I thought she was just as good at science as he is.

"Professors are much less likely to pull them aside and suggest they think about grad school, which is generally the way that any college student starts to think about going for a PhD."

Again: Do you have any actual evidence to back this up? Because if you DO then it's something that should be looked into. But if you DON'T, then this is a completely erroneous claim.

Then you said that you have a friend who says the people in his department think women can't do physics. That's, what? Thirty, forty people? The fact that people in one physics department believe something is not evidence that people in all other physics departments believe the same thing. That's hardly a nationwide problem.

"Advanced physics courses often require the permission of the instructor. So this is, actually, incorrect."

Um...no it's not. You said this happened on the first day of class. Thus, she was already in the class, and must have already had such permission if it were required. And if she DID require permission, then clearly this professor was not serious about asking her to drop the class, since he had already signed her form.

"At any rate, it's asking an awful lot of an 18-year-old to expect her to stay in a class when she knows the professor doesn't want her there. Some 18-year-old women might be strong and brave enough to do that. But the weak, cowardly 18-year-old guys still got to take the class."

Okay: Did she stay in the class or not? Because if she DID, then this is clearly not a barrier, since she stayed in the class. If she DID leave, then it seems that according to you, she is not "strong and brave." In fact, since you say the "weak and cowardly guys" got to stay, it sounds like you're saying your friend is "weak and cowardly." If she is indeed a weak and cowardly person, it's hardly surprising that she might have misinterpreted what her professor said. And if she's not weak and cowardly, why didn't she just stay in the class?

Please note that I am not dismissing your arguments. I am providing counterarguments. If your arguments are valid, then healthy debate will only serve to reinforce them. If I were dismissing your arguments, I would, like Evil Penguin, repeatedly say that "Again, I will not bother to address this issue." I think you will find that I addressed most if not all of your issues.

Hey, we've reached a landmark. With Verlch, we have our very first visitor who has verifiably learned everything he knows about females strictly through porn. (And, *dude*, you need to get yourself some better porn.) Ryan, meanwhile, has shared with us his very own version of a logic bomb, modeled on old Star Trek episodes where Kirk used circular thinking and maddening illogic to short-circuit supercomputers. Sadly, he has forgotten that, in real life, such tactics will fail to net you hook-ups with alien babes or fembots.

Meanwhile, with gazpacho, we have a Greatest Hits of Tired-Ass, Whiny Conservative Debate Tactics:

1) Since other groups deal with the same or similar or really-not-similar-at-all,-I'm-just-spitballin'-here obstacles as women, the complaints of women are irrelevant. (The unspoken corollary, of course, is that women are second-class citizens and must wait till everyone else's grievances have been settled before attempting to improve their own lot. So shut up, second-class citizens!)

2) My cursory scientific knowledge, gleaned entirely from placemats at Denny's, trumps any actual scientific evidence offered by the other side, especially that offered by women, who are stoopid, or that which takes too damn long for me to read. In today's episode, the part of "cursory knowledge" is played by "twenty years later, these girls really would have failed to develop the necessary reasoning skills to be effective scientists", and the role of "actual scientific evidence" is elegantly and heart-tuggingly rendered by "Ebert, Kolb, Whishaw et al.'s research on neural plasticity, which states that while the human brain is more flexible and adaptable very early in life - say, at about 1 to 2 years old, DUMBASS - it maintains flexibility for most of its life and will adapt, reroute, and strengthen the neural pathways needed to better process the specific mental tasks with which it is consistently confronted - or, if you prefer the Cliffs Notes version, Girls Can Still Learn Stuff Past the Age of Five".

3) Women are too stupid to grasp the true meaning of - hell, *anything*, and their brains are governed solely by emotions and PMS, so their anecdotal evidence is untrustworthy and dismissable. Applied here, that is why Sally's friend, despite boasting a degree in physics, is too mentally impaired to understand the *true* intent of her professor's "joke", which he was compelled to hold her back after class to tell to an audience of one, while Larry Summers's "daddy truck" story is Gospel Carved in Stone from the Almighty on High Hallejulah Amen.

4) Female scientists must devote their every waking hour to fretting about what I personally think of them and not, say, to working on rocket engines or cures for diseases. Any assertion that women hold a place in the universe above that of bathroom mildew must be documented to my standard of proof. My standard of proof, by the way, is divine fiat from God's hand itself, *with* bibliography in APA format. (Note: divine fiats from non-Judeo-Christian deities do not count.) *My* comments, on the other hand, warrant no proof whatsoever.

5) Adopting a vague, lazy tone will make me appear to be open-minded and reasonable, even if every single rhetorical and stylistic clue points to the contrary. At least to chicks, because, well, see rule 3. ("Ladies" Corollary: addressing women as "ladies" throughout a post that blatantly regards them as swamp muck will peg me as a true gentleman. Admittedly, gazpacho has not yet resorted to use of the "Ladies" Corollary, though I do not hold out hope that this trend will continue.)

6) Feminists have no sense of humor. My jerkweed tone, jerkweed "reasoning" and jerkweed comments about women's God-given inferiority are actually hilarious. Albeit not in this dimension. Any assertion to the contrary is definitive proof that you are a weak-ass crybaby.

7) If, however, you insinuate in any way that I am wrong, uninformed, or NOT, after all, too sexy for my shirt, I will whine and cry and call you meanie meanie meanie. If possible, I will proclaim "AM NOT AM NOT AM NOT" in a banshee shriek and tear all the wheels off your little Mommy truck.

8) Women are stupid. This is an irrefutable failsafe retort to any argument whatsoever.

9) Those who smack me down for the tiresome dope I am have low self-esteem. Because - *ladies* - who would *not* want to get with this? Hello!

Dude. Could you at *least* have tried a few remixes instead of the straight old tropes? If debate were fashion, you'd be wearing jellies and legwarmers while signing "Hangin' Tough". How can you go out of the house looking like that, gazpacho? *How*?

"Men have children too. Do you think men have the same set of choices, or are men's choices more or less restricted than women's in the same situation?"

Men and women have the same choices after birth. Only a blind person would say that they have none. Whatever the case, the choice is between the man and the woman, not male society and female society. That is unless you are inclined to think that women think in packs rather than for themselves.

"Do you think there might be social factors and pressures affecting why men and women tend to make different choices in response to becoming parents?"

Welcome to the 21st century. You can do and be whatever you feel like. You can get a PhD if that suits you. Now if you let someone else tell you what you should or shouldn't do then that is no one's fault but your own. Indeed though, women can not continue to blame outside influences directly on their lives. One of these days women are going to have to figure out that there is nothing in their way. All these "barriers" not there but now women have to put the EFFORT forth to succeed. It's not easy and it never will be. EFFORT will always be hard. As for parenting. Someone is going to have to make a tough choice. HIRE A NANNY if you wish to do as you please.

"Might these pressures be detrimental to men as well, for example those who would rather stay home with their children?"

With a doubt there are some men who would rather stay home. I have thought it over myself and figure that when I have children it would be worthwhile for me to raise them. To me family is more important than a career. It is shameful that feminism advertises the exact opposite.
----------------------------------------------
Synonymous- I agree only agree with #6.

I think we ought to be focusing on MIT "biologist" Nancy Hopkins, who is apparently prone to fainting spells. Larry Summers is well-recognized as one of our most brilliant minds, and for anyone who actually reads the transcript, it's clear he doesn't hold sexist views. Some people need to quit whining, and actually do the citation study Summers suggests.

See http://downwithbush.blogspot.com/2005/02/big-wtf-moment-at-ny-times-larry.html

Ryan, I find it amusing that you assume to know what feminism is about--feminism is about choices, not making value judgements about someone's life choices, esp. child care.

I also have to laugh at your blanket solution to women's child care woes: "hire a nanny." Do you not realize that most people can't afford a nanny? And that often staying at home or working isn't a matter of choice, but necessity? Check out http://familyinitiative.org/, an organization which seeks to help women with their child care choices--no matter what they are. And this may be hard to comprehend because it contradicts with your tired stereoyped views of women and feminism--but the org is acutally run by feminists.

Golly. I guess any biologist with two X chromosomes gets downgraded to being a "biologist". Apparently it doesn't matter if you're a full professor at one of the most pretigious research institutions in the world. If you're a woman, you're a fraud. Any guy, even if, like Larry Summers, he has no training in biology at all, knows more about your subject than you do. Good to know.

I could spend all day hunting down cites for you, gazpacho, but it would take a long time, and I don't think it would change your mind. So I'm going address a couple of your points quickly. It still won't change your mind, but such is life.

1. You seem to think it's necessary to prove that there are *insurmountable* barriers to women's advancement. And that's not the point. The point is that there are excess barriers, which some women manage to surmount and some do not. I guess you could blame individual women for failing to overcome those barriers, although it seems kind of counterproductive. And you could argue, with no evidence, that you could have overcome those challenges, which is a pretty easy claim to make if you've never had to try. (And, as I pointed out, in your own major, you were derived significant advantages from being a guy.) But if we want to create a just society, and if we want to further the study of science, we should be providing as much opportunity as possible, not arguing whether barriers are surmountable or not. And if the question is why are there fewer women in science than men, then any barrier is significant, even if it's not going to knock every single woman out of the running.

2. It's clear that in college you were more interested in meeting girls than in your studies. That's certainly true of a lot of guys. But it's not generally true of the kind of seriously ambitious guy who ends up excelling in science. So in a class in which there's only one woman, she would end up not with a smart, ambitious guy who would pull his weight, but with a slacker like you, who was just looking to get laid. Once again, maybe she'd be able to overcome that burden and get an A, but she'd have to work harder than a guy who was paired with a partner who was as smart and ambitious as he was.

3. You don't know much about how elite universities work, do you? At many elite universities, including the one my friend attended, you don't pre-register for classes. There's a week-long "shopping period," and you register at the end of that. You show up for all the classes in which you're interested, and often the professor decides after the first class who can take the class or not.

4. The opposite of "proven" is "unproven," not "completely erroneous."

This conversation is getting kind of weird and tangential. Everyone pretty much knows my views on this subject, and I agree Marc that everyone needs to shut up and just Read. The. Damn. Transcript. When I read it, I became convinced that Hopkins' overwraught, emotional reaction was unwarranted. Not to mention rather adolescent behavior from a supposedly rational, open-minded adult. William Saletan from slate has interesting essays on the topic:

http://www.slate.com/id/2112570/

http://www.slate.com/id/2113742/

With the recent influx in wimmen going to college you have seen a dramatic drop in salaries after college!!! The market place is flooded and salaries drop. Women I went to college with now have fine jobs at Pizza Hut!!!

Right, Olivia. William Saletan, the chief political correspondant for Slate, and Larry Summers, an economist specializing in international development, must understand the evidence for men's genetic superiority a lot better than Nancy Hopkins, a geneticist and full professor of biology at MIT:

http://web.mit.edu/biology/www/facultyareas/facresearch/hopkins.shtml

Surely nothing she's learned in the 25 years since she got her PhD or in the six or so years it took her to get it can come close to comparing with the understanding of genetics that Saletan derived from reading a couple of articles.

Mmmm, but referring you to rule 3, in this debate, no matter how shallow the man's qualifications are to speak about the subject and no matter how extensive the woman's, it is the man who is regarded as the authority and the woman who is regarded as an unqualified know-nothing. See Saletan and Hopkins.

Verlch - dude - you cannot speak what it is painfully evident you do not have. And telling stories about your "college years" is like a hissing cockroach reminiscing about the killer corporate takeovers he commandeered on Wall Street.

These subs you got just _suck_, Voxper. Even worse than you.

Oh, for God's sake, Sally--Hokins did not, and I repeat, *did not* offer any evidence whatsoever to refute what Summers was saying. She didn't even attempt to dissect his arguments. She had a visceral, emotional reaction. She has a PhD in Biology. I get it. Your assumption that anyone who defends Summers is a male chauvinist or an idiot who doesn't know jack about what he/she is talking about is, on its face, absolutely ridiculous. Obviously, you didn't even bother to read the Saletan articles, as it appears that you don't even remotely get the gist of what they were about. This isn't about biology. This is about whether Summers was correct in asserting that there *could* be more complex reasons for the underrepresentation of women in science and math. Your response is basically, "we should always believe it's discrimination because Nancy Hopkins, biology professor at MIT, says so." This is so childish it's not even worth addressing.

And its insulting to suggest that I want to argue for "men's genetic superiority" because I advocate wider dialogue on this subject. Ugh.

Gee, Synonymous, I had no idea that Hopkins was an authority on the subject of Gender Discrimination. Your argument seems to rest on the rather erroneous assumption that Hopkins' biology PhD somehow makes her a de facto expert on the subject. I didn't know that one had to have "extensive qualifications" to attempt to answer this question: "In respect to women's low representation in math and science, how much can be attributed to gender discrimination, and how much cannot?"

And in case you were wondering, I'm a feminist, though according to you and Sally, I'm not a very good one because I'm a fan of things like free inquiry. I think it's perfectly ridiculous to dismiss certain views because it appears inimical to one ideology to another. So your assertion that "Well, you just linked to Saletan because he's a MAN" is well, slightly off the mark. (And, If we're going to resort to this kind of argumentation, why don't we all just get back to the fucking third grade? Sorry, but dumb arguments piss me off majorly.)

[And by "de facto expert on the subject," I meant on Gender Discrimination, not Biology. Duh.]

Did you read Saletan's articles, Olivia? Because the second one is actually pretty damning, although Saletan decides that it's "argumentativeness," not sexism that led to Summers's sloppy thinking. Saletan's evidence against the sexism explanation is that Summers gave his daughters trucks, which is not something a sexist would do. That seems pretty simpleminded to me, but apparently it's not "childish" to be simpleminded in defense of a man who has slandered women.

"She had a visceral, emotional reaction."

People do sometimes have visceral, emotional reactions, particularly when they're being lectured to about things they care about deeply and know a lot about, and particularly when the lecturer knows nothing about the subject but has a whole hell of a lot more power. I don't know how many academic conferences you've attended, but I have seen men have visceral, emotional reactions as well. I have seen men get angry and storm out of the room. They are not generally branded hysterical, irrational, or adolescent as a result.

And I'm going to persist in thinking that it matters a lot to this story that Nancy Hopkins is pretty much the only person involved in the whole drama who is an expert on genetics. Both she and Summers have a stake in this debate: she obviously feels that women face barriers to science careers, and he has a questionable hiring record to defend. But she knows more about genetics and the nature/nurture debate than Summers does, than Saletan does, than I do, and, unless you've got a PhD in genetics, presumably than you do. Call me old fashioned, or call me childish and hysterical, but I still do think you get some points for knowing what you're talking about. Do you feel differently?

"Gee, Synonymous, I had no idea that Hopkins was an authority on the subject of Gender Discrimination."

She wrote an influential study of gender discrimination in the sciences at MIT.

"And in case you were wondering, I'm a feminist, though according to you and Sally, I'm not a very good one because I'm a fan of things like free inquiry. "

Actually, I'd question whether you're a "very good" feminist because you seem to be blind to the ways that words like "irrational," "hysterical" and "childish" are deployed against women.

OK, I agree that people do have emotional reactions to things they care deeply about. Hell, I do. (And, whether or not you believe it, one of those things *is* feminism.) And yeah, I read both articles--the second one is "damning"? For whom? I never said Summers was correct in everthing he said. I never said he was logical. As Saletan says, he was correct to say that we "have to be willing to ask questions in ways that could face any possible answer that comes out." (I'm paraphrasing here.)

Hopkins is obviously a very accomplished biologist, but, like I said, this is about gender discrimination. Not biology, or genetics. I still think Summers had a right to ask whether or not there are more complex reasons that discrimination for the disparity between men and women in science. That's it. I'm not saying men are "genetically superior," whatever that means. (And even if cognitive differences are brought up, they should not be automatically dismissed.) I'm only saying that this should be thoroughly and evenhandedly investigated before we call it discrimination. And I am willing to admit that perhaps Hopkins' own experiences caused her reaction--having faced discrimination in the past, she was probably shocked to see it so glibly dismissed by a supposedly respectable figure like Summers.

And Summers' remarks *do* shed some light on his questionable hiring record, which should obviously be investigated.

I don't get it. Sally, you seem to be suggesting that "rationality" is misogynist simply because I find certain arguments and behaviors irrational. So I shouldn't use the word "irrational" at all because it is inherently sexist? Even if I apply it to a man? I have never been able to understand this.

Conservatives: our reading-comprehension difficulties are *your* problem. No, really, they are, because we make sure the consequences of our ill-considered words, deeds, and policies never, ever fall on our own shoulders.

And, Olivia: you continue to make the mistake of asserting that the economist, with his poorly-prepared, poorly-justified argument that he couldn't defend past the most puffball Q-and-As, is the authority on nature-vs.-nurture theory and that the female biologist is completely unqualified to comment, making it obvious that you have no grasp of what the hell biologists do or how biology, psychology, and sociology interlock. (Exhibit #1: the study Hopkins authored which Sally cited.) Lather, rinse, repeat works with shampoo, not arguments or your weak-ass substitute thereof.

Would it be sexist or anti-feminist to suggest that the dispute between Sally and Olivia would be better off resolved with a good ole fashioned mud wrestling match?

Sorry about that, I just couldn't resist.....poor impulse control(typical alpha male). Probably something in my genetic make up.

"Would it be sexist or anti-feminist to suggest that the dispute between Sally and Olivia would be better off resolved with a good ole fashioned mud wrestling match?"

Well, it might make you look like even more of a moron than your other posts do. And that's actually something of an accomplishment.

I don't think that the problem is that he *raised* the issue of innate capacity, Olivia. If he'd said something like "I don't know that there's sufficient evidence to prove this, and I realize that there are people in the room who know more about this than me, but we should consider that it could be that there are innate differences between men and women's mathematical and scientific aptitude," I don't think he'd have caused as big a stink. But he didn't just raise the issue: he raised it, he suggested its rank in a hierarchy of causes, he put it ahead of socialization or discrimination, and he acted as if he had evidence for it, even though his evidence was self-evidently silly. (And as other people have pointed out, he's kind of clueless about how socialization works.) *That* was the problem. *That* was why many people found the transcript more damning than the initial reports.

"I don't get it. Sally, you seem to be suggesting that "rationality" is misogynist simply because I find certain arguments and behaviors irrational."

I don't see anything irrational about Hopkins's response. She's a scholar of biology, she's also researched gender discrimination against women in the sciences, and she got pissed off when some clueless economist presumed to lecture her on both. If she'd been a man, she would have been described as "angry," which she was. Only women are seen to be hysterical, irrational, in need of smelling salts, and what have you when they get angry. Men who get angry can be right or they can be wrong, but they're not generally labeled hysterical. That's a concept that has been used for more than a century to discredit pissed-off women.