I caught it... on the plus side, it was one of the funniest Simpsons episodes this season (which is to say, I laughed more than once, but still...). The socio-political commentary, if you will, was problematic. What were we supposed to take away from that episode? That women really can only succeed in a man's world if they adopt male behaviors?

But then, yeah, it's just a cartoon, and I'm betting the writers did that on purpose: they were telling us to look to them merely for social commentar, not a firm stance one way or the other, and certainly not for solutions.

Also, twenty-seven. :)

I think the socio-political commentary was problematic but in a sense it was supposed to be. The Simpsons is a satire and it wasn't giving us answers, it was showing us how we only tend to hear the people who say the wrong things about the problem. Like, first Skinner says girls are "worse" because they don't score as high on the "important" things like math and science. The quasi-feminist tells the girls math isn't important as long as you feel good about yourself. After it is revealed that Lisa (who dressed as a boy goes to their class) scored the highest in math, Bart raises his hand and says, "Lisa only got better because I taught her to think like a boy". We're left with Lisa saying, "I didn't think like a boy, I just thought differently than before" and then, "I think the reason we don't see more women in math is because--" and then there is an interruption.

However, they ruled out the "innate" thing, they ruled out completely ignoring math, they ruled out thinking on what is perceived as "men's terms", but through the episode it is showed that rigid perceived masculine and feminine behavior does neither boys nor girls any good (witness Nelson almost not wanting to fight when Lisa explains he has issues at home; only when what Jimbo says sparks homophobic feelings in Nelson does he want to fight again. And this is after Bart says something like, "learn to be like a man and beat up somebody weaker than you".) but that anybody is capable of doing anything. They leave us, I think, asking the right questions: is this as big a deal as it is made out to be? Who decides whether math or anything is more important than the other?

I think they dropped the ball with regards to some plot-points. I think, along with Skinner's "important" comment, they should have brought up how boys do worse in reading, language, and writing then have Skinner say, "those things don't matter, girls are good at them" (I think that was the point they made before, but it might not have gotten off the ground. When Homer and Marge were discussing male and female inventions and then they had a flashback of Marge not finishing her homework because Homer pulled up and was whining that they hang out, they could have done a better job illustrating what they were trying to say (how women are taught we need to appease men and people in general on their terms at the expense of advancing ourselves even). But I get what they were saying, I think.

I still say one of the best episodes was the Malibu Stacie one, Lisa VS Malibu Stacie.

I haven't seen the episode myself, but I'm sure I would be bothered by it since this is a sensitive issue for me. I came accross a U of Michigan study explaning the huge gap between women and men in MBA programs...I was disappointed to learn that "lack of confidence in math abilities" was one of the top reasons that qualified women did not apply for entrance into business programs. Other reasons included "lack of encouragement from boss (male bosses?)" and "difficulty balancing work & life (having & raising children?). I found one person (a super-poweful advertising consultant who is also known as "difficult to work with") who was also saddened by this news.

If you want the Simpsons to be effective, go back in time about 10 years.

I haven't seen it. Durga, thanks for the break down and for the fine analysis.
This is why I despise the vague theoretical gender-science/indoctrination on either side of the coin.

Though what is the basis of his statements? It would appear their needs to be more research, so for him to have came out and stated it as fact would have been entirely irresponsible, he claims that was not the case?? It seems so much like sexism, I can't say???

Where I live there is a huge trade shortage, they are targeting women in a major way to inspire interest, all the ads for trades on the radio or billboards are of women minorities, women or women and men, they still are not enrolling. There is an apparent lack of interest.

I know women in the trades and they love it, they are both not the type to follow conventional codes of conduct, by that I mean, they are awesome and they do very well, they also say the opposite of what you would think when it comes to the guys they work with, they have made many friends and one husband.

I do believe it is more our environment that dictates these things, not so much discrimination or Theories? on innate differences.

We should push for a more accepting and gender-neutral atmosphere in all fields, I can't debunk his claims, I couldn’t immediately find out what he is basing them on, but if it wasn’t hard science and it was stated as fact, (Though was it?) yeah what an ass. It doesn’t help to create a gender neutral atmosphere, but neither does screaming discrimination. Creating interest and getting women into the field is all that can be done.

Theres an episode with probably a far better message in like the 5th season or so. Lisa takes a career aptitude test that tells her the only thing shes suited to do is be a homemaker, when she really wants to be a jazz musician.

Didn’t Bart get into ballet?
He was really good at it but everyone laughed, so he hid his face, but was discovered, then nelson and gang laid the beat downs?
The Simpsons have always been very fair and tolerant and it’s somehow it's all subversive!
But yeah, haven’t watched in years.

I'm sorry, the Simpsons is just not as good as it used to be. I just got worn out on the lame catchphrases and same recycled sight gags.

The local affiliate has been re-running stuff from the golden age (1990-1996), and I discovered what's missing: comic timing and organic (rather than forced) character interaction. The jokes can now be telegraphed from several miles away.

What Summers said was that there was research supporting the idea that Women (ON AVERAGE) aren't as talented in math. The same research btw, says women are more talented (ON AVERAGE) in language skills.

What is upsetting to me is that people on one or the other side automatically kneejerk. how many people who vilified Summers have actually READ any of this research?

This is similar to the gay rights debate, where one side ignores the science supporting genetic components of homosexuality, and the other supports it, etc. People tend to ignore science they don't agree with ,or even worse (like in the case of Summers) attack the messenger

There is a lot of science supporting that women are, on average - less capable in math, and more capable in language.

This says NOTHING about the INDIVIDUAL. It is similar to saying that women are, on average, taller than men. It doesn't mean your next door neighbor (who is a male) is necessarily taller than Cheryl (sp?) Swoops.

The history of science is filled with people who ignored science, and even who censored, vilified, and punished (e.g. by pulling grants, etc.) science that went against their preconceived notions. Absolutely nothing has changed since Galileo. Because people haven't changed. I am also reminded of all those who ignore the science supporting global warming because it goes against their ideology.

The science that Summers mentioned is quite robust. The people who attacked him, are idiots of the highest order, preferring sensitivity to truth. That is never good

Again, this says NOTHING about individuals. It says something about groups. Can we no longer say (on average):

1) women are shorter than men?
2) women have more joint flexibility
3) women have less strength
4) Women run slower
5) Women have smaller standard deviation in IQ scores (women have the same average IQ, but there is less variance in the population)
6) Men commit far more violent crime
7) men commit far more suicide
8) women attempt suicide far more often
9) women live longer
10) women have more bodyfat
11) women make better long distance cold water swimmers
12) men have higher risk tolerance - are less risk averse

etc.

etc.

I am sorry that it may "discourage" young women from math and science careers if we dare look at the evidence.

Science trumps ideology. ALWAYS. And in a free society we don't attack people for speaking truth to power. Even if that truth may go against our preconceived notions.

It makes no difference whatsoever to any individual woman, what women's math aptitude is ON AVERAGE.

It's totally irrelevant.

But it is disgusting to me that a good man was maligned and attacked for merely pointing to scientific research.

I also notice that very few of the criticisms of Summers ever had any real criticism of the research. the criticism centered on the "ill effects" of what he said.

that is pretty disturbing right there. If we shy away from science because we don't like what it says, then we might as well give up on progress completely. we should prefer uncomfortable truths to lies and evasion

hey pamps, try to keep the comments to a small novel, aight?

Well, War and Peace it aint, but ok...

I loved it, and I'm the chair of the Department of Mathematics and Computer Science at a women's college. I was quoting it to my colleagues at lunch today.

While the show is exaggerated, the issues it described are real. There are educators (not in my department, thankfully) who think that difficult material should be dumbed down to avoid hurting women's self-esteem.

Really? That's terrifying.

No one here is trying to censor science that I'm aware of. I can't speak for all feminists, but it's not the science I disagree with. One group will always be *on average* better at something than another group. That's life.

I simply get tired of having to prove over, and over, and over again that I am competent at "boy stuff". Everyone has heard about gender differences. What we hear so little about are the exceptions and how many they are.

I read on Cathy Young's blog (for those who don't know, Young writes for Reason, which is hardly a leftist publication) that about 1/3 of women have "men's brains". That is indeed a minority, but it is at least a critical mass. Why don't we hear about that more often? Why don't we hear about just how big (or small) these gender differences are?

Also, Summers did not use just scientific research to make his point. He used anecdotal evidence about how his little girl likes dolls or something. That is substandard for a person in his position. Can't someone else just come along and say they know a girl who doesn't like dolls? Stick to the science, Larry.

And finally, Summers said that biology was *more* of a factor than discrimination. Yet he gave no evidence to support why he believes this to be true. I am not saying he's wrong; I'm just saying he didn't support that statement with evidence.

And Ellen, that is absurd. To borrow a phrase, it's the "soft bigotry of low expectations" all over again.

again, these studies speak to the aggregate, they don't speak to individuals. it doesn't follow that any individual woman in math, physics, etc. is less capable than any individual man.

several things

1) first of all, what was astounding (and disgusting) about the summers incident wasn't that people disagreed with him. it was the ridiculous reaction. over and over. people said he should not have said what he said, that it was hurtful, sexist, blah blah blah. disagreeing with him wasn't the issue. calling for his censure, and even his resignatioN!!! because he dared mention some scientific research that goes against the "all differences are socially constructed" orthodoxy.

if you don't think people are trying to censor science, you must not spend much time in science labs and/or applying for grants, etc. people have always tried to censor science, when it goes against their ideology. they don't want scientists studying issues that are :"sensitive"

read jon entine's book : Taboo for some great insight into this phenomenon.

i'll address these points one by one

you have got to be kidding me about "we don't hear enough about the exceptions"

generally speaking, we hear more about the exceptions, than the rule, so to speak. this is in the same vein as "dog bites man:" is not a story we hear. "man bites dog" is. the exceptions tend to get OVERemphasized, not underemphasized. because it makes a good story, when people (of any gender, race, etc.) BREAK the norm.

as for "boy stuff" , at least when it comes to (most sports) it is relatively easy to prove oneself. because the criteria are objective. if u can run a sub 10 second 100 meter sprint, nobody will censor the stopwatch or the time recorder. yet, we recognize that not a single woman has ever done that, nor any man who didn't also happen to be of west african descent.

that's politically incorrect, but it's easy to verify. women aren't failing at that, because men tell them "you can't run as fast as men". biology doesn't care about ideology. it does its own thing

obviously, in a subjective field (like academia), it is not as clear cut, but we shouldn't run away from science with our ears plugged, because we don't lkike the answers it gives us, and that is a nutshell what the reaction to summers speech was.

as for the anecdotal data about dolls, there are plenty of studies and a million points of data (mostly from parents) about the dolls thing. for example, for a while toys r us tried to market dolls to boys, partly of social pressure, and partly out of looking for a new market. it didn't work. boys have always preferred 'action figures', and women haven't. OF COURSE there are exceptions, but the point is that there ARE hardwired gender differences.

a quick look into some of the radical behavior changes seen by female bodybuilders who take exogenous AAS and how self-reporting (and external reports) show "more male-like behavior" goes to show that the prevailing theory in sociology has been wrong for several decades, gender differences are NOT solely socially constructed, and are heavily influenced by biology, specifically endocrinoloy

as for the 1/3 have "male brains" thing. again, we have seen over and over that scientists looking into hemispherization have been ostracized, ridiculed, etc. in the past for DARING to research (let along suggest) hardwired differences between male and female brains.

i am not saying that Summers DID support his beliefs with enough evidence (As in your last point) such that we should all be convinced. that is not the point. i am not arguing that he made some sort of brilliant, decisive and convincing analysis of all the studies in gender differentiation. he basically offered a summary of some of the current research as well as his own thoughts.

and for that, he was vilified.

that's absurd. if you read the opponents to his speech, the overwhelming type of comment was that he should not be ALLOWED to make such statements, that they are hurtful, etc. THAT is absurd.

people didn't like the alleged "results" of what his speech might mean. iow, if the facts disagree with social policy goals - ignore the facts, and punish the messenger.

don't debate the facts, and SEEK out the scientific research. punish the thoughtful person who DARED to bring up the very idea that MAYBE (and he did not say this stuff was fact. he proposed that it was interesting theory) some of this stuff was true.

The problem with citing "averages" is that they are extremely misleading and tend to obscure enviornmental factors. For instance, women used to live longer than men in the US but men are rapidly closing the gap. The average American male is more violent than the average American female, but American women are on average more violent than Japanese men. Women in the US are much more likely than men in the US to suffer from depression, but in Scandinavian countries there is a smaller gap in percentages between genders (maybe it's all the herring?)While average standardized test scores tend to be higher for males than females, upper-class females tend to do better than lower-class males. Blanket statements about differences between genders need so many footnotes they're essentially worthless. No one would believe in this mars and venus crap if statistics was taught in US high schools. And on the whole Summers thing, I heard that the guy was a problem, people wanted to give him the boot for a long time, and the sexist comment was just the last straw. Essentially, he was fired for being an asswad, not because he told some horrible un-pc "truth".

They are not essentially worthless. They are no more worthless than entire scientific fields that accept that there are individual differences

think of the height difference example, for instance

NOBODY is saying that socialization is not a factor in human development .

NOBODY.

If it is sexist to point out what larry summers did, as you claim, then I am sexist too. How interesting.

The differences between genders are becoming more and more obvious as we do more and more studying. We are recovering from several decade's hangover, where the overwhelming mantra taught in schools, and prevalent among social "scientists" (latter word used loosely)was that all differentiation was socially constructed.

that's absurd. and if flies in the face of research, not to mention a million points of data.

now, the way that you above seem to want to explain away the differences, and the utility of recognizing is by saying that since socialization can AFFECT men and women, that biological differences are meaningless.

again, that's absurd. to use a sports science, analogy, weightlifting will make BOTH men and women stronger. Many women will become stronger than many men. Some women will be stronger than the vast majority of men.

It doesn't follow that gender differences are therefore "meaningless". I workout with a woman who squats over 400 lbs. That's partly because she is a genetic outlier (to put it mildly), and also because she works her ass off. It doesn't therefore follow that we can explain away the obvious genetic differences between men and women

brain hemispherization is no different.

and study after stufy with INFANTS (that are generally free from icky socialization pressures) supports that these gender differences are robust. these gender differences in behavior occur in infants.

The nifty thing about human behavior is it doesn't exist in a vacuum. We all know that environmental influences are incredibly important.

BUt to get back to summers. Summers dared upset the orthodox thought. That was that any suggestion that there might be gender differences that are hardwired vs. only the result of external locus of control factors - e.g. sexism is prohibited thought. For daring to mention the (rather extensive) research in this area, he was attacked. THe research was attacked, and it all came down to "it could make girls and women feel bad, or be less likely to try, etc.". That's rubbish. It's immensely insulting, frankly, to believe that women (or men) need scientific studies hidden from them lest they be unable to get out of bed in the morning and face the day.

As to your last comment, it was NOT a sexist comment. Unless by sexist comment, you mean - recognizing that there is research that suggests gender differentiation in regards to learning and IQ.

I prefer uncomfortable truths, not pat ideologies.

And from the people I know at Harvard, Summers was a pretty good guy and did a lot to better Harvard and its communities. But he stepped over the line into the Forbidden Speech Zone and there was no turning back. I lost all respect for him when he wimpily backpedaled and apologized when imo he had nothing to apologize for.

You are either for science or you are against. Fwiw, I think that global warming needs to be addressed. But I also recognize that the scientific certainty behind male/female brain differentiation is far stronger, better researched, and more certain than many other aspects of science we take for granted.

Larry Summers did a great service for Harvard. and we was fired for the horrible un-pc truth. That is disgusting to me

pamps:
gotta admit, you had me going for a line or two before i realized your position was a joke. love the shouting, but the whole thing was a bit long. remember, brevity is the soul of wit. good to see more colbert-style comedians on the web.

nice contentless post.

btw, on the subject of satirical cartoons with a message (tm), South Park is light years beyond the Simpsons. I agree. It's well past it's way past its prime

Pamps -
You should read some studies on Stereotype Threat to see why the comments of ppl like Summers are so problematic. It's a well respected theory in Psychology as well as being one of the most thoroughly tested theories in the entire field.

Take 3 classrooms full of Asian-American women. Give them a math test. Leave one group as a control, prime one group by telling them that "Asians do well on this test" and the last group by saying "Women do worse than men on this test".

The results? The group primed with the Asian info does better than average (cuz those Asians are good at math). The group primed with the women info does worse than average (cuz women just can't do math! Barbi even said so!). And the control group does.. well, average.
This study is repeatable with any group, and with any subject in which that group has a stereotype.

And where do stereotypes come from? People who emphasize the "average" male/female/asian/black/white/etc.

I am well aware of these studies. i did suffer through Psychology grad school.

Regardless, the evidence is robust. People just don't want to hear it because they have taught (and bought into) the theory that gender is WHOLLY or almost exclusively socially constructed. That was a nice (and the predominant) theory when there was little science to say otherwise, but more and more we are learning the biology behind psychology, and especially endocrinology.

It's thoroughly documented. Men with high E levels (whether through Aromitization or through exogenous sources) start to see their own personalities change, into so called more "feminine behavior". It's not magic. It's endocrinology.

Similarly, female bodybuilders (often, much to their chagrin) begin ACTING more malelike and feeling more "malelike" based on exogenous hormones.

There are a million other examples, but they go against the prevailing ideology.

Again, I am well aware of these studies, and I do NOT think there is any significant data to suggest that asians doing "better in math" has any BIOLOGICAL basis. I think it has a cultural basis, in that asian cultures (specifically japanese americans) have a culture that values education, self sacrifice, conformity, self discilpline, and academic achievement. That is why, for instance, DESPITE past racism, japanese americans earn 1.72 times the average income in the US, have MUCH lower crime rates, out of wedlock birth rates, AIDS contraction rates, etc. etc. etc.

Ther physiological differences between Men and Women are FAR FAR FAR greater than the physiological differences between ethnic and racial groups. And biology makes this clear.

Men and women have radically different biologies in regards to cascading interacting hormones.

That's one reason why you see different HEMISPHERIZATION in learning, etc. between men and women, that has NEVER been demonstrated to exist between different racial/ethnic groups.

That is the problem with the anti-science it's all socially constructed ideologues. Just like any group that is religiously attached to their POV, they will ignore evidence and/or always mention the possible ill effects of recognizing these differences - the stereotypes, the discrimination, etc that will supposedly ensue when people are educated as to differences

These differences say NOTHING about the individual for the 100th time. But they do say a lot about the aggregate, and they do go against a prevailing notion by many that if there are disparities in condition, that this NECESSARILY is the result of external factors.

In brief, I am well aware of these studies, but I am also aware that I never claimed that there are genetically based differences in average math ability between asians and non-asians

There is ample evidence in regards to gender differences, and the science is there for those who choose not to do the ostrich in the head maneuver, and vilify those who DARE TO MENTION (as did summers) that there is research out there in this area. THe only acceptable thing for him to have said within the hallowed halls of harvard (ooh. how poetic) was to SOLELY concentrate on external factors as the ONLY possible reason for the difference in outcome in the genders in the sciences.

None of these studies should discourage ANY individual from pursuing their own path, and using their own gifts in pursuit of their dreams. But ignoring this data, and punishing the messengers is Galileo all over again. Anti-scientific crusades disgust me no matter who does it.

Summers should have used data about dolls then, rather than an anecdote. How many times do I have to say I agree that there are gender differences on average? Why argue when we're saying the same shit? I can't be held responsible for the way other people reacted to Summers, so that banter really has nothing to do with me and I don't know why you included that in your response to me.

Easy to prove yourself? Try being a chick drummer in a different bar for a different crowd each weekend. I have been told more than once to leave "band only" areas because I'm so often mistaken for a groupie. Just sayin' it gets old. Not sayin' it should be illegal.

You say that the exceptions are all over the news or whatever. Well, maybe when it comes to someone like Danica Patrick. But for most of us who don't fit into stereotypes, it's just a constant battle.

Hey stereotypes can work for or against you, as they have for me, depending on which side your on of the particular stereotyped field. That's life.

We all stereotype. Not all men are rapists, murderers or thugs, but we play the averages. You are walking down a dark deserted street at 3:00 am. A male approaches you on the sidewalk. Nobody else around. Do you feel NO GREATER fear than if it was a woman approaching? if you're honest, you will say no. Because even though chances are very very high that this person means u no harm, you also know that ON AVERAGE, a woman is far more likely to violently assaulted/murdered/raped by a man , than by a woman

So, let's realize that we all calculate these types of aggregate behaviors into our decision matrixes, whether we admit it or not.

Regardless, read some of the articles, some of the quotes of these people who were calling for Summers RESIGNATION/CENSURE because he DARED mention RESEARCH.

That's stalinist and disturbing

Research doesn't always support our preconceived notions of how the world works.

To vilify and protest because Summers dared mention research that goes against the conventional wisdom in academia about gender is absurd, and frankly - kind of fascist.

I'm not saying you are. I am saying people that thought that he should be fired because he mentioned research are acting that way.

And why is it ok for YOU to use an anecdote (being a "chick drummer") to illustrate YOUR point, but it's not ok for summers to use an anecdote to illustrate HIS point?

double standard much?

are his experiences irrelevant, whereas yours are?

I used an anecdote because you said it was easy to prove yourself, and I was pointing out an *exception*. I was not using it to make a scientific point, like Summers.

Think much?

And could you please clarify what you mean by "nobody"? I mean NOBODY! IN ALL CAPS! SO WE GET YOUR POINT!

Please also provide scientific evidence to back up how exactly you know that EVERYBODY thinks. And I can direct you to the ultra-conservative family I grew up in, where they believe women, by nature, are unfit to even attend college.

Anecdotes cannot prove that something is true or false *on average*. That is what scientific data is for. But anecdotes can show that something is not *always* true or false. Get it?

Summers was not using an anecodute to "make" a scientific point. He was using an anecdote that was consistent with a scientific point. THe scientific point is made by the research. He is merely using an anecdote that is consistent with that research. I also mentioned the Toys R Us experience, which while hardly scientific (not that most social "science" research is ever "scientific" in the same way that so called "hard science" is, because there is never a way to control all variables in the great petri dish of sciety)

I didn't capitalize "NOBODY" in my last post, so I know not to which "nobody" you are referring.

I am well aware of what anecdotes can and can't show. I am also aware that mentioning an anecdote/personal experience that coincides with scientific research does not weaken an argument. It merely personalizes it.

For example. Many women, upon having children of their own, have found that at least in their n=1 experience, that the tabula rasa theory of gender socialization simply has not matched their personal experience with children. IOW, the theory that *all* gender differences are socially constructed has not just been invalidated by research but by the millions of points of data of personal experience of parents everywhere. Sure, there are exceptions, but in general - parents find that their male children, from a very early age tend to have certain personality differences from the female children. When parents compare notes so to speak, they find that others have similar experience. And then lo and behold, we have scientific research that backs that up. Male and female children have different reactions to certain stimuli, for example. ( I refer to the experiments regarding the impassable wall for instance).

And while I think that the research in this area is phenomenally compelling, my argument, again, is not for or against those who disagree with the rsearch, but in the actions and speech of those who argue that Summers should have been censured/fired because he dared mention research that may have had "ill effect". IOW, that it is important to quell research, and the acknowledgment of its meanings because the *effect* of public learning of the research (for example differentiation in math skills between girls and boys) might have ill effect.

It is again that soft bigotry of low expectations, that women and girls can't handle the truth, or the inquiry towards truth, and that it is better to protect their fragile little minds from such damaging blows to their oh so fragile self-esteem. It is that attitude that I find immensely sexist - that anybody (girls, boys, men, women) need to be protected from ideas that might damage their self esteem - that it is better to live with a comfortable lie than an uncomfortable truth.

Science has always faced these hurdles - galileo is the most obvious example.

The best counterpoint to socalled bad research is good research. The same goes for speech. What disgusts me is those that attempt to punish those who mention same research, or make speech that is disagreeable vs. countering that research/speech with counterpoints. That is how a free society works, vs. the stalinist tactics seen at Harvard, where all mentions of any research that could upset the fragile self-esteem (sarcasm mode) needs to be quelled lest all elementary school-age girls be forever scared to enter the sciences (sarcasm mode off)

Pamps: Thank you for your articulate and pleasantly refreshing post.

Yes, due to a not so select few, science has a lot to answer for, but hopefully society will catch-up in the short term rather than the long haul ... and it is getting better, small victories like neurogenesis have fortunately seen us question ourselves.

I am not familiar with the Summers "case" (being an outsider), but must confess, when first reading of it here, I seriously doubted the validity of what to me, was tantamount to a "burning at the stake" and the impetus driving the hunt.

Thank you once again.

Also, Summers did not use just scientific research to make his point. He used anecdotal evidence about how his little girl likes dolls or something. That is substandard for a person in his position. Can't someone else just come along and say they know a girl who doesn't like dolls? Stick to the science, Larry.
And finally, Summers said that biology was *more* of a factor than discrimination. Yet he gave no evidence to support why he believes this to be true. I am not saying he's wrong; I'm just saying he didn't support that statement with evidence.

Thank you.

The differences between genders are becoming more and more obvious as we do more and more studying. We are recovering from several decade's hangover, where the overwhelming mantra taught in schools, and prevalent among social "scientists" (latter word used loosely)was that all differentiation was socially constructed.

Actually, as the same people over and over again come out with different hypothesis, we learn more and more that sex differences with regards to cognitive ability are less and less likely.

BUt to get back to summers. Summers dared upset the orthodox thought./And from the people I know at Harvard, Summers was a pretty good guy and did a lot to better Harvard and its communities. But he stepped over the line into the Forbidden Speech Zone and there was no turning back. I lost all respect for him when he wimpily backpedaled and apologized when imo he had nothing to apologize for.

Bull, bull, bull. He was a bully and he wanted everything done on his terms. He said things be it about women and science, 9-11, West, and Israel that got reactions. Yet through that, he remained there. What he did was push Dean Kirby out of his position of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences … and then they pushed back, resulting in Summers’s booting. Of course the right, ironically for a group that pretends to emphasize personal responsibility (more like, “live your life on my terms, or don’t whine�), blames “political correctness�. Umm, no. What got Summers booted were Summers’ own petulant actions.

Here is a better article on it- http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/27016

I prefer uncomfortable truths, not pat ideologies.

I do too. But just because somebody perceives something to be uncomfortable doesn’t mean its true.

You are either for science or you are against.

Now you’re just sounding like a blow-hard. Look, I’m a student in the Philosophy of Logic (you know, one of those wimpy, unimportant things) and what you’re creating here is a false dichotomy. There is trusting science … and then there is trusting all scientists. I do the former, but not the latter. In anthropology, for example, the many, many mistakes they have made simply because they wanted to believe something or they committed the fallacy of confirmation bias (as in they disregarded evidence that didn’t gel with what they wanted to prove). There is a saying, “we only see what we know� and that is apt. Do you ever wonder why they have been saying for over 100 years that one sex or “race� is superior to the other, yet it keeps changing and they have never been able to pin it down? Think about why we haven’t captured bigfoot, yet we keep seeing him everywhere.

You can beat on over and over again how people don’t want to hear the “un-PC truth!�, yet it is all talk and no walk. Put up or shut-up. If somebody is going to arrogantly accuse others of not wanting to know “the truth�, then they have to show an actual truth. We have found nothing that shows women and men are innately better than the other in reading, spelling, verbalizing, and details or math, science, and spatial abilities respectively. Nothing. Nobody is being stopped from doing it, either. People are just calling them out on their bullshit.

Look, I got my undergrad degree in philosophy too, so I am well aware of what you are saying. I am sure you are well aware of cognitive dissonance. I am also sure you are well aware of how once people "buy in" to a theory, they will tend to ignore evidence to the contrary. It causes them pain. Literally.

Nearly every advance in science of any import comes with GREAT resistance from the lords of knowledge, and nowhere is this more clear than the current climate at harvard. Whole schools of thought, and "social justice" are founded on a theory - that all gender differentiation is socially constructed . IF that was true, that means lots of funding $$$, and lots of power for those that endorse and profit off of externally changing the institutions, so that they can "fix" these inbalances. This is fundamentally flawed, though - since their underlying assumptions are bogus. It reminds me of how the anti-marijuana drug warriors ignore all evidence of any positive aspects of marijuana, since they are invested (and make profit off of) enforcement of marijuana laws.

People in power do not relinquish without a fight.

I am also reminded of how, even somebody as brilliant as Einstein, simply REFUSED to consider many aspects of quantum physics, that were later proven to be valid. And even he admitted as such - that preconceived prejudices prevented him from looking at the evidence objectively.

I have big respect for summers for DARING to even mention ideas that go against the orthodoxy and thoughtcontrol that is present at Harvard. It is easy to go along with the crowd.

"We have found nothing that shows women and men are innately better than the other in reading, spelling, verbalizing, and details or math, science, and spatial abilities respectively. Nothing. "

that is absolutely 100% false. We have LOTS of evidence that this is true. Whether that evidence PROVES these differences is debatable. but there are metric A**loads of evidence and studies that support it. You are either ignorant of these studies, or willfully arrogant, in claiming the evidence is not there.

How many studies do I need to cite off of medline?

And again, the point was that the mere MENTION of this evidence threw people into complete and utter apoplexy and classic galileo-esque "burn him at the stake" reactions that summers dared to upset the orthodox school of "thought" (latter term used loosely)