next »

[anonymous]

" just how stupid even Harvard people can be, nay, obnoxious and pretentious"

Hee. He/she/it said "nay, obnoxious and pretentious".

Pot/kettle/black, etc.

[Mike, VA]

What about people with disabilities? How many deaf people are there being tenured? The ADA forbid asking "are you disabled?" on application (admissions and employment) forms. Why can't PWDs be hired first because we're underrepresented than women, Asian-American, Africa-American, Hispanic-American, etc?
Mike

[Mike, VA]

Aren't science and academia built on research and discussion, not ridicule of unpopular or dissenting opinions? Feminist ideology cannot be used  in a way to create bias and censure scientific research and discussion. What is wrong with debating ideological belief rather than research and discussion? There is only one side on U.S. colleges/universities, the liberal Democrat views. Perhaps those "liberal men" at the Ivy league should resigned en mass to make way for women.

see http://www.townhall.com/issues/education/

[RLC]

2. His bringing up a tired old hypothesis which has been examined again and again and simply found to be faulty: that boys are innately better at math and science than girls.
Wendy C. Turgeon, Asst. Prof, wrote:


Actally this has not been found to be faulty.  There are real differences between the architecture of the brains of men and women and some researchers feel that the differences in the amount of testosterone and estrogen between men and women may be the cause.  I am really astounded at the lack of appreciation of this research by supposed Biology professors.  Hampson and Kimura (1988) found that a woman's spatial abilities, which affect one's ability to solve high level mathematics and physics problems, shift during the course of her monthly cycle.  Janowsky (1994) found that giving testosterone supplements to elderly men who due to their age have lower levels of testosterone boosted the scores on spatial tests for these men. A study by Van Goozen (1995) examined a group of women who were about to undergo sex change operations to become male and who all received massive doses of testosterone leading up to the operation.  They were tested pre-treatment on spatial and verbal abilities.  3 months after treatment signficant changes were found indicating these women had increased spatial abilities by testing and decreased verbal abilities.

So there are innate differences and Summers is not wrong in postulating that they may play a role in why the numbers are so skewed with regard to women's lower level of interest in math and science and their lower scores than men on standardized math tests.  But one must remember that these are averages and that one cannot say all men are better at math than all women or that the average man is smarter all around then the average woman.   What is clearly evident is that intelligence testing in over 30 countries has shown that men on average are better on certain intellecutal abilities than women and vice versa with men using having a slight edge in math and spatial abilities and women having an edge in verbal reasoning.

To say that this research does not play a role with regard to choice of academic major and profession would be disengenious.

[Ron Bonig, Exec. Staff, GWU]

Regardless of the subject, the furoronly proves that many academics do NOT seek open dialogue on the issues, but only agreement with their own hypotheses/arguments.  Academic freedom and the First Amendment only apply to those who are politically correct.  Heaven help those who question the cut and style of the emperor's new clothes!

[SEM]

Yes, there is research in the biological sciences and psychology, etc. that find gender differences on different kinds of abilities, spatial, language, perception, motor and so on. BUT, remember that those differences are very very small, in most if not all cases accounting for a negligible percentage of the variance (even though they are statistically significant). We have to look at the variation within the groups-- and the research shows that the overlap in the variance is far greater than the differences between means. So, if these innate differences did play a role in the number of men vs. women in given disciplines, the numbers would be very similar, but with some favor to one gender or the other (by about 1 to 5%). The disparities we have in the sciences for example, are actually greater than that 1 to 5% which leads me to believe that there are additional factors leading to these the differences.

[Socrates]

[This was initially posted in the wrong discussion]

Summer's comments, regardless of their merit, are not the big story. The big story is the uproar it caused and his actions.

He immediately apologized due to a storm of protest from the left.

Why? I thought campuses were places to debate issues, not places to demand apologies and then cave in like you had the back bone of a chocalate eclair.

I am a professor, but I really hate the campus environment. It is stifling and close minded. "Diversity" as we all know simply means having a bunch of left-leaning thinkers with different skin colors and gentialia.

Summers is real "Profile in Courage"; he is typical of most gutless administrators who lacked the fortitude to stand up the campus orthodoxies that say men, whites, heterosexuals, and Isrealis are all bad; women, racial minorities, homosexuals, and Palestinians are good; and anyone who disagrees is is not "culturally/racially/gender sensitive."

A friend once told me that the best way to hired in academe is to be a black lesbian in wheelchair. There is some truth to what he said.

[Alison Hayford/Professor]

I've come to this discussion late, and after reading through all the postings, I find myself deeply depressed.  While a lot of the postings are well thought out and respectful of both other  participants and of the issues at stake, far too many of them resort to name-calling.  It seems to me that as academics we ought to be able to enter into debates without having to fall back on belittling the intelligence of people who disagree with us, or creating straw men as objects of attack rather than dealing with the real points.  Yes, women are underrepresented in academic positions, in most fields, including fields where a large proportion of people receiving doctorates is female.  No, we don't know just why this is--there are all sorts of different forces at work, past and present.  Yes, some kinds of research show some kinds of measurable differences in the brains of the two sexes and in how these brains work.  No, we don't know where these differences come from, or--even more importantly--what they might mean for the actual performance of everyday life.  Yes, women and men lead very different kinds of lives.  No, there are not many of these differences that we can explain by biology alone; even such clearly biological realities as biological motherhood take different forms and meanings in different social and cultural contexts.  In the end, the lack of diversity along multiple dimensions among academic faculty, particularly in some fields and at certain ranks, raises questions that still need serious discussion within and without the academy.  Yes, Larry Summers was provocative.  And no, alas, he did not succeed in furthering the debate, as evidenced by the fact that so many people (most of them pseudonymous) still resort to name calling when they discuss what he had to say and the response to it.

[RLC]

Which studies are you examining?  Who is to say the differences are small, especially in the case with the women who scored significantly higher on spatial tests after being treated with massive doses of testosterone.  Your argument is tired and old and has been used to try to state that environmental factors always trump biological and genetic factors in explaining the distinct differences in human behavior between subgroups.  Of course there is always going to be tremendous overlap.  No one is saying that women cannot perform advanced spatial reasoning and advanced mathematics, but on average men's brains are better at doing these functions, just as women's brains are better are verbal abilities and this is due in large part to biology not environment as the above referenced study clearly indicates.  If environmental factors were the sole determinant then the women would not have scored higher simply due to massive amounts of testosterone which in effect had a serious consequence on their brain functioning.

Like I stated before it is a combination of environmental and biological factors, but I would not agree that biology is only a tiny fraction of the variance.  Given the fact that in present day America, most of the taboos about what women should study and should find fascinating have been removed, clearly the continued gaps will be demonstrated to have more of a biological base than a social learning cause.

[exasperated]

"The disparities we have in the sciences for example, are actually greater than that 1 to 5% which leads me to believe that there are additional factors leading to these the differences."

Of course the source of the disparity is likely multi-factorial, but the issue has been framed by feminists and their PC allies as boiling down to simply and exclusively "discrimination against women," a thesis with very little evidence to support it in our modern society, especially in liberal environments like academia.  Factors other than discrimination are more likely to be significant, and the bulk of the good, scientific (and thus reliable) evidence supports the thesis that the observed differences in career tracks for men and women are based not only in biology, but also in the choices they make re. career, training, hours on the job, etc.  However, when someone like Summers strays from the current PC orthodoxy on the topic, people like Hopkins swoon, have fits, and quash the debate.

The main problem with the issue at hand is that feminists have monopolized debates on topics related to gender, and their PC allies in academia have supported them in their embargo on allowing non-feminist stakeholders to introduce new ideas in order to expand and enliven the discussions.  Thus, what we invariably end up with is a shouting match between those whose positions are favored within academia and those whose are not.  This also explains why some here (i.e., the PC) can state their  names openly while others (i.e., the un-PC) must remain anonymous.  Despite claims to the contrary, contemporary academia is very intolerant to diverse viewpoints that oppose the PC orthodoxy and this is something that we desperately need to change.

[%sig%]

[AM Hayford]

Just out of curiosity, which feminists dominate these debates?  Those who see gender as a social construct deriving from relations in production?  Those who believe that the brains of the two sexes work in fundamentally different ways, with females tending more to affiliation and males to domination? Those who believe that the subordination of women is tied to the domination of nature, and that the solution to problems arising from one can only be found in solutions to problems arising from the other?  Those who see sex/gender as one of multiple axes of social experience that interact?  Those who see all males as bound in practices of patriarchy?  Those who see sexism as one of many forms of hierarchy and domination that can victimize males as much as females?  I'm a little confused by the single category of "feminists" who seem to dominate university campuses so thoroughly, but perhaps out here on the Canadian prairies I am just out of touch.

Meanwhile, I think I can rest my case about name calling.  QED.

[exasperated]

AM Hayford wrote:

> Just out of curiosity, which feminists dominate these
> debates?  

That depends on the topic of the debate.  E.g., if it's women in science and engineering, it's the 'gender is a social construct' and 'the patriarchy is keeping us down' camp.  If it's domestic violence, it's the 'men are inherently wired differently than women and are biologically prone to violence' camp (some pejoratively call it "testosterone poisoning").  

Feminists will dominate the debate in whatever way suits them - the only thing that matters to them is that they get to control what's said and what isn't.  In case you hadn't noticed, consistency is not their strong point, and you just provided good evidence of that.

[%sig%]

[Curious]

I think that you may have misunderstood Professor Hayford's post.  

It is more appropriate to speak of feminisms (in the plural) than feminism (in the singular).  Not all feminists subscribe to a single school of thought, and women who describe themselves as "feminist" might disagree quite vehemently with one another on a variety of gender-specific issues.  This may be perceived, erroneously, as a lack of consistency.

I, too, am curious to know which feminists are dominating which debates.  Your post seems to indicate that this is a pervasive, widespread problem.  Would you mind providing substantive evidence (rather than generalizations) to support your claims?

[%sig%]

[exasperated]

Since the discussion is addressing Summers' faux pas, I don't feel that I should get sidetracked into a debate on the many nuances of feminism, which indeed is a whole separate topic.  The point I'm trying to make is that when topics related to gender are raised, almost invariably feminists of one ideological camp or another will weigh-in on the issue.  Now, they may disagree amongst themselves, that's true, but an overriding reality is that if an un-PC and/or non-feminist raises opposing viewpoints, that person is often shut down and the debate is suppressed, if not outright quashed (especially but not exclusively if the opposing person is male).  I don't know if some aberrant type of chivalry is at play, or what, but I do know that in almost all cases deference is given to the feminists and their feelings and sensibilities override all other interests.  This is the reality in academia.  

One specific example (of many) would be when Christina Hoff Sommers was invited to participate in a panel of academics at HHS that examined ways to help boys succeed in school.  Sommers raised the legitimate and important issue of whether to "Go Girls!" program (a program quite popular with feminists) actually worked because HHS was suggesting that the same thing might be used for boys.  Apparently questioning the effectiveness of the "Go Girls!" program was off-limits because Sommers was (among other things) told to "shut the f--- up b--ch" by one of the other participants and forced to leave the premises.  Now I don't know about you, but I call that suppressing debate on gender topics when it doesn't fall in line with the accepted orthodoxy.  However, Sommers does a much better job of describing what she endured, so I suggest you read some of her works for more detail.  This is but one of many examples that highlight the serious problems associated with modern feminism's tendency to dominate debate and silence opposing viewpoints.

I'm sorry if this reply is too brief and/or general for you, but as I said, to elaborate on the specific details of different kinds of feminism, their debate tactics, etc., is not the topic of this thread, Summers' comments are.

[%sig%]

[R. Hassad]

This is a symptom of a narrow view of research, which is quite widespread among sociologist. Undergraduate and graduate programs in this discipline need to include experimental methods as a core course (with emphasis on threats to internal validity). This will facilitate researchers to see beyond the variables and constructs which they explore, and the statistical relationships that emerge, and allow for identifying plausible underlying explanatory phenomena including issues of confounding and interaction. This knowledge and approach should considerably reduce the likelihood of reporting spurious, and at times implausible relationships as meaningful and causal in nature.