Harvard Pres Says Females Naturally Bad at Math 1746
Man_Holmes writes "Harvard president says that women lack natural ability in math and science and this explains why fewer women succeed in math and science.
Lawrence H. Summers later said that he was discussing hypotheses based on scholarly work and that it did not necessarily represent his private views."
Lack of rational thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
More of a "You can't say that." than "That isn't correct.
Re:Lack of rational thinking (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How to do pullups (Score:4, Interesting)
Not only that, but women endurance in general is far superior. Look at adventure racers. Women kick ass in most teams - though they are harder to find as it is not popular. But they usually can not navigate. :)
But it is all beside the point. The point is that significant differences exist, and it is absolutely normal to acknoledge that. And like many people pointed out - this is just the third, worst type of lying - statistics. Use it appropriately.
Re:How to do pullups (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because some shmucks are using weak techniques to try to "improve self-esteem" - which probably don't involve changing the school environment at all, doesn't mean that it's impossible to improve educational performance by encouraging students.
Re:Lack of rational thinking (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree that people think first "You can't say something like that?!" before ever considering "That can't be correct can it?"
Re:Today's Progressive Views (Score:5, Insightful)
I read a study a while back that suggested that women are better suited for field command roles because of their innate demeanor and communications skills. No one cryed "feminisim attacks!!". Why should you? Why can't you accept that different sets of people have different innate strengths?
It doesn't mean that you can't do something in math if you're a women. Far from it, and I know several brilliant women in the fields of science and math. It's just that it explains the likelyhood of a math or science major being male. It's there, why do you ignore it?
He threw in the, "it's not necessarily my personal view", because he didn't want to be labeled by people such as yourself.
I am a woman and innately different. (Score:5, Insightful)
As a woman who is on the cusp of receiving her PhD and looking for a teaching position, I am faced with the reality that my potential employers are very concerned about my marital status, whether I have children now, and whether I plan to have them in the next few years, or ever. (Legal or not, that's how it is; I have been at staff meetings where someone brings it up in relation to a prospective faculty member, and the department chair had to say "it is illegal for us to consider that factor." Do you think it's not on people's minds, even after that?) I am also faced with the reality of an ad I saw recently: "Egg donors needed. Waited too long for tenure." From my perspective, poignant. Will I have to choose between a family and a career? My intellectual capacity and the body of research reflected in my CV rival that of any man I will be competing with for junior faculty positions. But I know that I want to have children. I will be getting my PhD at the age of 30, and starting a career when most of my friends have small children. Should I put off kids? Should I have them and then look for a job? Should I land a job with maternity leave and hope that I still get tenure if I use maternity leave within the first few years I am working there?
"Innate differences." Are the concerns I have due to innate, physical differences? Or our society's inability to cope with a workforce that is actively involved in reproduction? A combination, perhaps, as Mr. Summers suggests: due to innate differences, women are not advancing, and he is concerned about the role discrimination plays in keeping women from advancing at elite universities. Universities which are among the most demanding of their junior faculty. Recent PhDs, who are at an age when most women in our society have children.
Re:I am a woman and innately different. (Score:4, Interesting)
Before anyone claims I'm flamebaiting...I lived in the South for many years and knew many employers who flat out tell you this stuff. Hell, I like the South. Southern women rule.
And the north is different? (Score:4, Insightful)
First, If a woman is seen on a date by one of her students, she is fired. Also, that this happened to one of his teachers.
Second, if a woman teacher becomes pregnant she is sent on a "leave of absence" for the duration of the time that her pregnancy shows. Basically, once she starts to show, she has to leave until she has the kid. Contrast this with teachers in VA where they don't leave until sometime in the third trimester.
Don't speak against the south until you've heard some of the crazy shit the New Englanders do.
Re:And the north is different? (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? Women teachers aren't allowed to date? Or do you mean "with one of her students"?
If not, I'm sure that'd be an easy lawsuit to win.
Re:I am a woman and innately different. (Score:4, Insightful)
Women who are educated simply shouldn't have children at all. All children can be raised by poor people instead. This way, the children will grow up in ghettos, not get an education, get involved in crime and drugs, and wind up in jail or dead. In 50 years or so, society will collapse due to the enormous cost of the penal system and the lack of young people who aren't a drain on the system, so your whole dilemma will be moot as society will no longer exist.
Re:I am a woman and innately different. (Score:5, Insightful)
I am very happy with my decision to not have children, I'm very happy to be pursing a career and an advanced degree in engineering, and I'm sick and tired of being disparged by everyone about it. I am happy that women in previous generations fought for my right to be given the chance to attend university if I am deemed a worthy candidate on my own merit. I truly hope that your post is meant tongue-in-cheek and sarcastically, but unfortunately I've heard those exactly words spoken to me in complete seriousness far too many times to be able to tell anymore.
the grass is greener (Score:5, Insightful)
It does you just don't see that side.
What about a husband who wants to stay at home, and take care of the kids. Society labels him as a deadbeat. It works both ways. Society labels negatively anyone that steps out of what their percieved role should be.
Re:Different but equal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like more of a "dad" problem than a "mom" problem.
Re-read your post and imagine that there were fathers who could step up and do *their* jobs.
Re:Today's Progressive Views (Score:5, Insightful)
In this situation, Harvard has low female enrollment in math disciplines. Rather than investigate whether Harvard is actively or inadvertently discouraging females from enrolling, or whether there is some social root cause for females being discouraged from math disciplines, the Harvard Pres pulls some "scholarly work" out of his ass that says women are bad at math. This is what I have a problem with. Even if, on avarage, women are worse at math, I doubt that the difference in man-woman statistics is enough to account for the lack of women in Harvard's math-centric programs.
It's just that it explains the likelyhood of a math or science major being male.
And it can also be used to explain to young women entering high school why they shouldn't be taking advanced math courses.
He threw in the, "it's not necessarily my personal view", because he didn't want to be labeled by people such as yourself.
And what sort of people are they? The kind that label middle-aged men that say "Women lack natural ability in math" as potentially having a bias against women? Sounds like common sense to me.
Re:Today's Progressive Views (Score:5, Informative)
A few years ago I had occasion to be talking with the leaders of some of the US Electronics Assembly industry locally. I began to ask about the differentials in employment for women in that industry as they totally dominate the assembly lines. The response I got was one which I have looked into in depth since that time and found that these men were correct.
They reported to me substantial differentials in women and men regards work situations. They included that only about 10% of men had the color discrimination capacity of women. Women on average could descriminate well over 10 times the number of colors that men could and this was not related to color blindness. Women had on average 10 times the discrimination for fine detail and these two factors were the reason men were discriminated agianst in electronics assembly. This was also the dominant reason for export of the processes to China etc because it was illegal in the USA to discriminate so.
I am a Registered Nurse. I have learned professionally that a great deal of very concrete scientific data exists on differences between men and women. These include sensory and environmental and developmental differences. The data supporting the math claims is quite beyond any question. Women have as a average a mathematical capacity differential that is in the order of 10:1 on performance testing different. This is biological and has long been known to be so. Tell the MODS I am talking science and not policy and am not being troll this is just facts.
Being aware of Adm. Grace Hopper USN and Ada and other exceptional females (including a daughter of mine) I could hardly apply an average to anyone. But being ignorant of what is going on or politically correct in this matter is just stupid. We have allowed our political motives to get out of line with our science here.
Hillary Clinton (Ex Prez Wife and US Senator) was willing to accept and actually testified and got policy changed in medical research over this very issue. Prior to her efforts medicines as a whole were never tested on women to determine if they had differential effects to men. They are now and the results are most intersting. I am no supporter ot many of the Clinton policies but this was a very correct action. In medicine it is saving lives.
In our world many problems develop because we are politically motivated and not science moderated. How on earth can it be that we can see that women and men have differences in strength, temperment and even have as a whole different ratios of muscle to fat in their bodies and cannot see that they behave differently? How can we be so arrogant as to breed animals for temper and abilities and be unwilling to see that various humans have differences? This accusing those who discuss overwhelming scientific evidence as if they were bigots has got to stop.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Informative)
Before a continue, a disclaimer: My partner is both female and a math major, and several of my friends in college were female math majors (or math/cs), so I may be a bit biased on this one.
I don't find this notion to be true at all. I went to a school that was 70-80% male, and yet the math department had an even mix of male and female. If there was any bias, it was on the side of pure science vs. applied science (the women tended to migrate more toward the "pure science" - chemistry as opposed to chemical engineering, things like that). Other schools have found similar things - for example, http://www.math.earlham.edu/WomensBrains.html
Anyways, enough with the anecdotal evidence. Lets get to studies:
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/George_Stre
"n a recent Brown study, women performed as much as 12 percent better on math problems when tested in a setting without men.
Women tested in single-sex groups scored a 70-percent accuracy rate on math exams, while women tested in groups in which they were outnumbered by men achieved only a 58-percent accuracy rate, said Michael Inzlicht, graduate student of psychology, who led the research.
http://www.awm-math.org/articles/notices/199107
(An interesting article about women in mathematics - several interesting tidbits, such as while only 25% of math PhDs are female, only 30% of all PhDs period are female)
http://www.gendercenter.org/education.htm
(This tidbit: "In 1992, women received 52 percent of biological science bachelor's and master's degrees, 67 percent of law bachelor's degrees, 47 percent of business bachelor's degrees, 47 percent of mathematics bachelor's degrees, and 33 percent of physical science bachelor's degrees. (6)" - references "Where Women Stand: An International Report on the Status of Women in 140 Countries 1997-1998" by Naomi Neft and Ann D. Levine.)
In summary: it looks like there are ample women in mathematics at the graduate level; however, at the postgrad level, the numbers drop significantly. However, women don't seek postgraduate degrees nearly as often as men anyways; the ratio of male to female postgraduate degrees in mathematics is only 5% different from the overall average. Such a small difference can easily be attributed to the environment - an environment which Harvard's president made abundantly clear.
Re:Lack of rational thinking (Score:5, Funny)
I have been in 3 accidents since starting to drive at age 16. I am currently 33. None of these accidents were my fault (twice rear-ended on the freeway and one broadsided by someone who ran a stop sign.) I have had four traffic tickets in the past 15 years. In my opinion, these were in places where the town purposely changed the speed limit erratically to generate revenue.
All my tickets were for speeding whereas very few of my wife's tickets were for speeding - mostly they were for reckless driving.
Guess who has the lower insurance rate (and always has had a lower rate)? My wife. Not two weeks ago, she crashed the side of her car into a poll while parking. Since the cost to repair the car is in excess of $3,000, we're turning this into the insurance company. I still have to pay the deductable. (My wife has never been able to hold a job.) So, the insurance company told us that this would not affect our rates. Then, they even gave her a *good driver* discount.
Do I get a good driver discount? Of course not, I'm a male.
Then, she got another letter from an insurance company that was dripping with praise about what a great driver she is and that they would like to have her as a customer. This was a few days ago. Arrrgggg!!!
substantiation (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, who's substantiating his comments and who isn't?
Re:substantiation (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, who's substantiating his comments and who isn't?
To be fair, just because she thinks the hypothesis was refuted doesn't make it wrong. Especially knowing how sensitive the topic about differences between genders is, a lot of people go out of their way to find the results they're looknig for, and are completely unwilling to consider anything else.
While withholding my opinion about the accuracy of his statements, I do think it's an issue that still needs to be examined. For her to categorically reject the notion while there is still much ambiguity on the subjct, I believe she was acting emotionally rather than logically.
Re:substantiation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lack of rational thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
"Well, women have this wonderful nurturing instinct, but of course they're not so good at things outside the home, like voting or schoolwork, and certainly the hard sciences of engineering and math would never appeal to them."
compare with
"Let's face it - black people are just better than us at basketball. Of course, they're not very smart, but that's not their fault!"
As recently as 45 years ago it was the social norm in America that middle-class women did not express an opinion to their husbands. (Of course they had husbands. And good ones, too! They didn't go to college for nothing.)
It's easy to lose this perspective in more recent times, but one must remember what these people have gone through to get where they are, and one must wonder whether the overt tones of bigotry have been eliminated or have just become more subtle. The indignation people express often seems like overreaction; but not everyone who has an opinion has an irrational foundation.
("Mommy truck" and "Daddy truck" hereby qualifies as the funniest excuse for scientific proof ever, by the way.)
Re:Lack of rational thinking (Score:5, Funny)
Well, a long time ago, driving an automobile required a certain physical strength a lot of women didn't have. Starting the engine required using a crank, for one. That's the big one I'm not even sure I have the strength for. Manual steering was another hurdle.
Of course, things like electric starters and power steering have made driving a much less physical exercise. Biometric driver authentication is peeking is head out now, which means no more wrist-wrenching to start the car. And drive-by-wire is only a few years away. Pretty soon, the toughest part of driving will be opening the door.
Re:Lack of rational thinking (Score:4, Insightful)
Hand Cranks stopped being used in the 1930's [about.com]. Even then, they were no more difficult than a waterwell's crank that women have been using for centuries.
Even though maunal steering only went away in the last 20 years, it only becomes an issue if you are trying to move a car that isn't in motion. Some very weak people might had a hard time parallel parking, but not everyday driving and stopping.
Re:Lack of rational thinking (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Lack of rational thinking (Score:4, Insightful)
And I bet none of them were conservatives; so much for diversity.
Maybe one day we'll end up with a system that treats everyone with some respect, and this sort of crapola won't happen. Until people like this are gone, and we don't have systems in place that promote people just because of whatever class they happen to fall into, it's not going to happen. It's just going to continue.
Re:Lack of rational thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
Now on to my main point.
I will have you look at most of the universities in your area. In those look who is in the top level computer science classes. What do you see? Almost all men. By almost I mean it will be around 90-95% men and a larg portion being white men. So looking at that statistic shouldn't most I.T. jobs be filled with 90-95% men? Now go in to most fortune 100 companies and look at their I.T. department. What percentage of that department is men? I think you will be shocked to see that a very large percentage are women (greater than 35%, and in a lot of cases greater than 50%). Now look at all the new hires that have taken place in the last 3 years in those companies. How many of those are white males?
It is my belief that most fortune 500 companies want to appear like they care about "diversity" but when it comes down to it they will put those hires in departments they don't think much about (I.T.). So then I.T. gets stuck with a bunch of underqualified people and then people start to say that their I.T. department suck and they need to outsouce it. Yet it is their fault for sticking underqaulfied people in there to begin with. I have yet to see any sales department be forced to take "underqualified" people. I have yet to see a marketing department take underqualified people. I have yet to see any scientific department be forced to take on lesser quality people.... yet I.T. gets it all the time.
Lastly I want to say again that all this can go away if companies start to hire the best person for the job. The only good news is that if they don't their competitors might
Re:Lack of rational thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
I still know women, until this day, who say that women are equal with men in every possible way, both mentally and physically. Last I noticed - the average woman is not as strong as the average man, the strongest woman is not as strong as the strongest man. The same thing goes for a lot of physical attributes. People always get upset when we talk about it but its true.
So why isn't possible that women are not as proficient in the math's and sciences as men? Maybe this is a state of social order - though more so about 45 years ago. But there is always the potential that our minds work differently enough (They do in so many other aspects) that woman are less capable then men in math and science, while men are less capable in say art and literature?
I by no means am claiming to be an expert on who has more proficiency in a topic - but from my major in college I do know there are substantial differences between the way men and women think, and act.
Re:Lack of rational thinking (Score:5, Funny)
"One thing I have noticed over the years, is that when anyone says something "controversial" people get in an uproar.
Ahh, so you have discovered the definition of "controversial."
Re:Lack of rational thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that in general you can not make a blanket statement about the genders. I will bet that there are Women that are extremely good at math and science. Judging from the freaking grammar Nazis that pop up on here, some males are good at grammar and spelling. It is very possible that there are difference between the genders. We know that there are physical differences. Women tend to have higher endurance and higher pain tolerance. Men tend to have greater upper body strength. Is it so hard to say that maybe males generally are better at making quick decisions and spacial relationships i.e. skills that increase your chances at hunting. While women are better at planning and long term goals i.e. things that increase your chances when gathering and taking care of children? I mean isn't it logical that women would tend to be better at taking care of children since they are the only ones that can feed a baby? I think part of this negative feeling is from the old "separate but equal days". We seem to have a problem with the concept of equal but different.
Just because most of your gender tends to have talents one field does not mean that you can not excel at a different one.
We need to deal with groups of individuals and not individual groups.
Re:Lack of rational thinking (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's say this construction compay hires people based solely on an upper body strength test. And that whiles 80% of men who apply are hired, only 30% of women are. Is this sexist discrimination, do the different numbers simply reflect the fact that men tend to have bigger muscles?
Now, it is far from proven that men are on average better than women at mathematical thinking. But it is equally unproven that the sexes are equal in their mathematical aptitude.
If it is the case that men have some statistical edge in mathematical aptitude, then perhaps we should be striving not for a 50/50 ratio in academic departments but rather for 65/35 or some other number.
It has been social science dogma since the 1960's that all gender differences are socially constructed. This notion was based not on observation but rather on philosophical ideals. The evidence refuting this postulate is substantial: my favorite can be found at this link:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-12/ta
Unfortunately any study would be irrelevant. (Score:5, Insightful)
We are too concerned with feelings compared to facts. We are willing to ingore an obvious issue simply because it might offend someone.
Fortunately this issue is relatively harmless but other issues which offend people based on the conclusions of studies are being hushed all in the name of sensitivity and political correctness.
Re:Unfortunately any study would be irrelevant. (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean it's just as easy to point out all the violence in the world, note that it's mostly male and say "they're not worthy of education because of what they'll do with it".
But a view like that would immediately become suspect because not all males are violent homicidal "freedom givers".
I've met quite a few ditsy stupid females in my life time. I've also met quite a few power-tripping idiot males [oh, wait they have an MBA!!!]. I've met some stupid black people and I've met some ignorant chinese people.
So what?
I've also met some very intelligent females who did well in courses like Calculus and Algebra. I've met generous and kind males. I've met some very welcoming black folk and I've met a few chinese that I get along with just fine.
All this "president" did was show that even the supposedly well enlightened can be biggots.
I mean I'm sure there are physical conditions that pre-disposes someone to be good at math/science. I just don't think they're gender specific. I think more than anything social pressure is the culprit for any "lacking in numbers" the females might have. I also think they bring it on themselves.
From what I saw while at college, if you come to class with makeup on I can't help but not take you seriously. Sorry, thems the breaks. And no guy and their biggoted ways made them dress in tight shirts, wear makeup and drop the math courses. They did that because it was the popular thing todo.
But to suggest that it's gender specific is really lame and very 1950s'ish.
Tom
Re:Unfortunately any study would be irrelevant. (Score:5, Insightful)
Gender is a phyisical condition.
I just don't think they're gender specific. I think more than anything social pressure is the culprit for any "lacking in numbers" the females might have.
Prove it. What you've said is an unsubstantiated hypothesis and will not hold up in scientific circles. What happens if your studies *do* show an innate difference? Does that automatically make you sexist?
But to suggest that it's gender specific is really lame and very 1950s'ish.
Why? There are *many* differences between men and women. And so what? It doesn't mean that women can't do math, it just says that they are not genetically apt to be good at it because of their gender.
This negative disposition is probably small and can be offset by other genetic factors. It's not suggesting women can't be good at math, but another attempt to help explain why the math/science field isn't 50/50. If the facts are there but you ignore them because it's not popular, who wins? Surely not science, and not women.
Re:Unfortunately any study would be irrelevant. (Score:4, Insightful)
- Muscular strength (advantage males)
- Dexterity (advantage females)
- Constitution (advantage females)
- Spatial analysis (advantage males)
- Multitasking (advantage females)
- Lifespan (advantage females)
These are all measurable.
Somehow, though, when you venture into mental measures, no one wants to touch that with a 10-foot pole because it might offend someone. I'd have no problem if someone told me that I, as a male, has the propensity to be stupid in economics. So what, it doesn't take anything away from me (I know I'm already stupid in economics). Even if someone told me that, as a male, I had the propensity to be stupid in something that I'm actually good at. That's the bit about statistics... You can't use a single example and assume that it is the norm, no matter which side of the statistic it falls on (the sample size is too small).
Just like on
I wouldn't be surprised (or offended) if some group actually did prove that women have the propensity to be 'smarter' at some things than men and men 'smarter' than women at other things. Men and women aren't the same no matter how hard you try to make them the same. We can have the same rights, the same ambitions, the same ideals, but there is nothing wrong with being different and/or having the propensity to be more enabled to do one thing or another than the opposite gender.
If, in fact, someone shows measureable differences between genders at some things, my advice would be do embrace the differences instead of denying them. Explore yourself to see if you follow the norm or are an exception.
Such research could be used as a good starting place for you to explore yourself to see where your own strong areas are and exploit your strengths in life.
Now, if you get into the area where laws and/or mandates based on these propensities are passed, then that is a different story (however, there are many biased laws based on gender already).
Re:Lack of rational thinking (Score:3, Insightful)
My irritation with all these vagely socio-biological arguments is that they are almost always used to justify the status quo. For example, people used to say "men are natural hunters, women are natural home-makers and organisers, therefore it's
Re:Lack of rational thinking (Score:4, Insightful)
My wife is a doctor, and I have read studies on the influence of women in medicine. The basic conclusion is that after the male dominated culture makes allowances for women's differences (by not forcing them to act as males) that having women as doctors not only improves care for the women's patients, but when working in teams seems to make the male doctors better doctors as well. The difficulty is the initial effort to overcome the medical culture that has been created by men.
Basically being different doesn't mean better or worse on its own, but when different approaches work together you can get better results.
Re:Lack of rational thinking (Score:5, Funny)
(cough)
Does anybody else see the irony here?
Re:Lack of rational thinking (Score:3, Insightful)
The light of scientific inquiry has incidentally been shining on thi
Re:Lack of rational thinking (Score:4, Insightful)
But not if you get in the way of the rights groups. Then you must keep your mouth shut. Making people feel good about themselves is much better than inquiry.
And, I pretty much ignore most gender/race science discoveries. They are bad science for the most part, with researchers bubbleing with good intentions, working towards a certain conclusion that they want. While I think those who find opposite from the groupthink perfer to remain quiet.
Please not, I'm not racist/sexist. I just think that there is some truth in the fact that we are all diverse, and that certain groups might have propencities towards certain aptitudes. But thats to the flexible nature of humans, it might take more work, but we all can be equal, even if we aren't by default.
In my experience, I've informally noticed that women don't seem as good at logical arguments as men, resorting to emotive statements instead of logical proofs. "I just feel that way!". One of my best freinds was really guilty of this. But over the years she took many philosophy and math classes, and now can pretty much kick my ass in the logic department. The fact is, Americans don't want to work to be equal, we just want to be by default.
Re:Lack of rational thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
If you ask, "Are men better at maths than women?" you can show it to be true easily by showing the number of graduates of each sex - just as you can supposedly prove that white men can't jump by looking at basketball results. Are either of these results rigorous proof of the assertions? No. They just show that as of today, white men apparently less often jump and women less often take maths degrees.
As a matter of pure interest, note the UK A-level results; girls outperform boys in science and maths on a regular basis at age 18, according to those.
So one might say that really what this guy has done is asked, and answered, the wrong question, using a mixture of anecdotal evidence (that stupid story about his daughter's trucks; why is he so upset that she shows such a good grasp of metaphor?!) and what appears to be pure presumption.
Can women do maths? immediately splits ability by gender, which is daft, seeing that gender is a pretty blurry line. Even the differences in language processing in the brain so popular for authors of self-help books are only true in a small set of circumstances, for a small proportion of the population; probably you could split by toenail length and get an intriguing correlation, too.
You might find it interesting to read Beyond Binary Thinking [odu.edu], an interesting introduction to exactly this field.
Great! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great! (Score:5, Informative)
(warning: the following is not backed up with links because I can't find the info right now, so mod me down if you want)
In summary, men have fewer, more serious accidents and women have more less serious ones.
Re:Great! (Score:4, Interesting)
No. In summary, men tend to have more serious accidents. The other bit could easily be that women are more likely to file an insurance claim for a minor mishap. Maybe men figure they can fix or have someone else fix the problem. Maybe men feel more embarassment over having accidents and thus only file claims when there's no way they can pay for the repairs. Or of course maybe they really do have fewer minor accidents.
Re:Great! (Score:3, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Great! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Great! (Score:3, Funny)
I'd be interested (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember hearing in a developmental psych class that only 5-10% of the 'standard' gender differences have any biological basis; and the NY Times article on this topic quotes a woman who was angry because, if I remember right, the entire morning of the symposium had been spent dispelling those same myths.
The trouble with this kind of research seems to be that there's too much political intrigue - every scientist is going to be accused of (or possess) some kind of bias in American gender-polarized society, and that is difficult to filter out even if you're aware of it.
Maybe we should just move to Sweden.
Re:I'd be interested (Score:5, Informative)
I lack links to peer reviewed studies (since most journals rightly fear that the internet will eventually drive them out of business) to back these up, but I can provide a few examples that a quick Googling will verify...
1) Female brains weight roughly 200g less than male brains.
2) Females use both hemispheres of their brains (five separate locii, IIRC) for language tasks, while males use only one hemisphere and (again, IIRC) two locii.
3) Males perform significantly (in the rigid statistical sense) better at 3d spatial orientation tasks than females do.
And, of course, the one that caused this entire argument, 4) Males score DRASTICALLY higher on tests of abstract and symbolic logic (ie, math). I don't even know why that counts as controvertial anymore. That particular horse died so long ago, we can't even beat the carcass, just sort of stir up the dust.
Well, it's no surprise,,, (Score:4, Funny)
I can barely Imagine how pissed off I'd be (Score:5, Funny)
It would be an ugly, ugly scene.
Re:I can barely Imagine how pissed off I'd be (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I can barely Imagine how pissed off I'd be (Score:3, Insightful)
all are very important traits that women defeat men at every day of every year. its a shame that these abilities are considered less important than physical strength and the ability to add two numbers together...
Women bad at maths.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Take your pick. I know which I think is more likely.
Phil
Doesn't this guy say nearly the same thing? (Score:5, Informative)
The Essential Difference: The Truth about the Male and Female Brain [amazon.com].
From the beginning of the book: "The female brain is predominantly hard-wired for empathy. The male brain is predominantly hard-wired for understanding and building systems."
Has anyone read it?
P.S. This guy is a cousin of Ali G. Don't know what that ought to signify
Re:Doesn't this guy say nearly the same thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't this guy say nearly the same thing? (Score:4, Insightful)
I would say that our study of math is, in many ways, just a expression of this male-ness. We wish to explain everything in terms of equations and systems because they are usually predictable with great numerical accuracy (say with electric charges, we can easily predict the force between different charges, even if we don't quite understand totally how and why electric fields function) and are typically repeatable with similar results (definition of experiment anyone?).
The human brain may be a system, but understanding some parts of this system is simply not innate (it can be taught though). At the same time, weakness in math by girls may simply be that the entire system was derived and devised by men, with that type of thinking involved. I must say that, while I am fairly good at math (male), there are plenty girls in my engineering classes that are much better at math then I am. however, if you looked at any of my high school classes, only 1 (out of 20 or so) girls were better at math then I. It all depends on your sample really.
Medevo
Give him a break: he's an economist! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Give him a break: he's an economist! (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
Give it a rest (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's a novel idea though. If you want a man to respect you as a colleague, ladies, then do a man's work and do it LIKE a man. That means you meet or exceed the level of work that a man would in your position. No excuses ladies, just fucking take it like a man.
The girls that I know who make it do that. They don't make excuses, they just compete. They don't whine about sexism, in fact the most successful of them as a "bring it on, fuckers" attitude toward sexism.
Re:Give it a rest (Score:3, Interesting)
She got a great job and her attitude is I'll treat you like a man if you treat me like a man. It has worked out perfectly. She works with a bunch of ex-sailors and she is as rough as they are.
Re:Give it a rest (Score:4, Insightful)
People, both male and female, should cut the crap and just act like engineers, chemists, biologists... like PROFESSIONALS.
Get out the Asbestos undergarments... (Score:5, Insightful)
I just wanted to chime in by saying that "have less aptitude for" does not automatically mean "all suck at".
This is getting lots of attention (Score:4, Informative)
The NYTimes has been running this story on their main page for the past day. Story is here [nytimes.com].
Apparently, he made these remarks in an effort to provoke discussion more than to express his beliefs. Or at least that's the spin on it.
Hmm... (Score:4, Funny)
Wife: "Honey, you know women are bad at math..."
female on slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
Stupid phrasing of the obvious (Score:5, Informative)
He just said the right thing the wrong way... he was apparently trying to "be provocative" according to the same AP article [cnn.com] on CNN.
He also gave an example of what he intended (emphasis mine):That example says "innate difference" to me, but I'd like to see more detail.
Re:Stupid phrasing of the obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
Based on TFA (I know, I know), I'd have to say the guy really is a pompous jerk who wants to believe his sexism has some actual merit, and will find ways to prop up his beliefs. It's something we all do to some extent (just recall the conversation you have with yourself when you're sleeping for 10 more minutes instead of getting up when the alarm goes off), but it has no place in public/professional comments in any academic setting.
Yes, it's true that it is AWFULLY hard to separate nature vs. nurture when it comes to behavior, preference, and aptitude across large groups. But to suggest there 'might be innate differences' (which is the best possible way you could put it) without referring to any existing studies to that effect is just wrongheaded. And again, it comes down to first having to show there IS a difference, and then having to show that it's tied to gender as opposed to childhood development. GFL.
Xentax
Re:Stupid phrasing of the obvious (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand my male cousin despite being pretty macho and a typical gamer dude, loves cooking, sewing, knitting and crocheting and has since he was very young (while I hated these things). He used to force my uncle and aunt to teach him these things and while he *hated* to read borrowed cooking and sewing books (of his own violation) from the library. Oh, and he's studying comp sci as well and no he's NOT gay.
Anyway, anedoctal evidence you say? Well, so is the Harvard guy's evidence as well.
How about we are all individuals? While there may be some difference between males and females, I suspect the overlap between male and female brains is much much larger.
Re:Stupid phrasing of the obvious (Score:3, Informative)
That example says "innate difference" to me, but I'd like to see more detail.
OK, here's some more detail. My three-year-old son does the exact same freaking thing. He also happens to be very bright on the math/techie side, although that is totally irrelevant.
Obviously, this brilliant economist
Variability (Score:3, Interesting)
Book recommendation (Score:5, Informative)
Her basic premise (backed up by various studies) is that pre-historically, the tasks of men and women drove the evolution of their brains and chemistry (hormones). For example, because men did the hunting, they had to understand spacial relationships better. Because a group of women in a tribe took care of the children together, women had to work better with others and multi-task.
I can't recall specifically, but I think she makes the point that the male mind is (on average, of course) better suited for engineering because of the spacial relationship thing. But, her basic premise is that the directions the world, and even corporate culture, are heading benefit women and we should expect them to lead much more in the future.
Re:Book recommendation (Score:3, Insightful)
So, it is okay for her to say that males are - on average - better at engineering due to evolution, as long as she qualifies that by saying that women are better
Total bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
This is Australia, so maybe things are different in the US. But what I understand talking with other scientists (including male ones) is that first of all the PhD itself is a slog. Secondly after you finish you go through a long period where you get 1-2 year postdocs here and there and you are likely to be constantly moving. It is much easier for a guy to tell his wife that they are moving and that she should quit her job and pack and for the guy to spend years working late at night and expecting his wife to hold the fort at home with the kids and housework than for a woman to do the same thing. Also then you want to have a baby and you have to take at least a year off, sometimes even more, and well you can see how things go. Oh, and also as my (male) supervisor once warned me, some of the older guys are just biased against women. They won't say it outright but it affects how they select people for jobs.
This is just an observation on my part-- (Score:3, Informative)
I have found that the ratio of females/males in the UNIX class is about 40/60. In programming, about 45/55. But in networking (we teach the CCNA cirriculum) the first semester starts at about 40/60 but ends up about 10/90 by the fourth term. The women just drop out.
I believe anyone can discipline their minds to do just about anything. But I also believe females are wired differently than males. This is not to say that females are worse (or better) than males; just different. Males seem to want to tackle problems, while females watch and observe and learn. Perhaps it is the curriculum that is oriented for the male student, Idunno.
You can only highlight differences when ... (Score:3)
But in our politically correct culture it seems that it is only ok to highlight the differences that paint men in a negative light and women in a positive light.
So there is no uproar to say that men are more prone to violence or women or more nurturing.
But saying men are better suited to understanding spacial relationships. That would be a no-no....
Political correctness and facts (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it has been long established that unless other factors play into it, women are driven by different drives than men. I don't pretend to understand whether it's a cultural matter or a genetic one, but there are a variety of biological reasons for women to be less capable of maintaining abilities in math and logic (which are devoid of emotion). Women have a lot of games that their bodies, for better or worse, play on them that men do not suffer or experience.
Now I have seen other studies among toddlers showing that on the large, boys are more successful at getting around obstacles (read as stubborn if it helps you to think so) than the girls who were prone to simply giving up in frustration. The notion is that as a toddler, there is less chance of a child being tainted by learned roles and behavior although there will still be some of that.
But frankly, I am a little annoyed when studies are criticised for reasons that have little to nothing to do with evidence to the contrary and more about a conflict of opinion or ideals. We don't want to hear that men and women are not equals -- that would mean all sorts of problems in our future because after all, look how far we've come by legislating that women are equal to men:
We have an unprecedented number of single-parent families and all of the dysfunctional children that accompany those numbers. We have an unprecedented divorce rate that never stops climbing. (Studies have shown that 80% of all marriages start where men ask the women, but it is in the 90% range where women initiate divorce.) Women in the workplace are supposed to be equal but statistically, they spend less time at work than men do for the same job.
Before women start bashing me on this because it doesn't fit "you" or some smaller group of people -- this is about the country of the U.S. at large. And if you think there aren't cases to the opposite, it would be wrong for me not to acknowledge it.... so here's your bone. I read in a black woman's magazine about some refreshing statistics that the decline of black single mothers collecting welfare is increasing at an almost unexplainable rate. They are becoming far more educated than their white counterparts, and are earning more money than their black male counterparts. I can only attribute that to cultural adjustments within those circles but it does illustrate an important point I'd like to close with.
Natural ability or talent alone do not determine potential for success or limitations. There are thousands of other factors that can come into play when determining these things which can even include the direction of the wind at the moment of determination. So then what would be the purpose of such studies?
It's about understanding ourselves; who we are -- our strengths and our weaknesses. And the sooner we embrace whatever the "facts du jour" are, the sooner we can begin from a proper perspective rather than the basis of some political agenda.
Feminism destroyed America, and Europe too (Score:5, Interesting)
look how far we've come by legislating that women are equal to men: We have an unprecedented number of single-parent families and all of the dysfunctional children that accompany those numbers. We have an unprecedented divorce rate that never stops climbing. (Studies have shown that 80% of all marriages start where men ask the women, but it is in the 90% range where women initiate divorce.)
Yes, and there you haven't even touched the subject of what happens after that divorce; the woman gets away with the kids and your money. Hell, I know men where the woman, right after they decided to divorce, robbed the entire house clean of all their mutual belongings (with the help of friends), in addition to taking a way too large lump of his future income, and taking all his rights away to see his kids. Judges won't punish this sort of outright criminal behaviour and the woman's part, undoubtedly for a variety of reasons, but justice is not one of them. Feminism is, I suspect. There's a reason for the fact that organisations like Fathers for Justice exist. This happens in Europe, mind you!Feminism destroyed America, the whole western world for that matter. And still there are people (the variery that needs to sit down to pee, that is) claiming that feminism hasn't come far enough yet. Excuse me?! What do they want men to be? Men are more than a monthly income, and a means for women to be able to shit out these godawful screaming shitting smelling monsters they call babies!
On the other hand, there is a difference between what women say (or think) they want, and what they actually want; they claim that they want men and women to be equal, and that they want a man with feminine qualities. Bullshit! What they want, is a man; someone who has the traditional male qualities like confidence, and not being afraid to set limits, etc. Until women see the flaw in their own logic here, the divorce rate will not get better. On the other hand, once you understand this as a man, it's time to get a woman that doesn't think in such a feministic way. Really, they exist :)
problem is in the phrasing (Score:3, Insightful)
It's all in the phrasing of the slur.
If I were to say, "Some black men are criminals," it'd be one thing; were I to say, "black men are criminals" it's another thing entirely.
Same goes for this situation. If I say, "Women are bad at math," it implies that I think they're all inferior logically to all men. It's entirely different than saying, "A statistical sampling of women shows that they are, on average, bad at math compared to a similar sampling of men." Now, while I'm not bad at mathematics myself, my wife is likely better - or at least enjoys it more - and I'm not too shabby on the topic myself, "on the average".
Aside from the fact that the absolute word "bad" is used, it's just a poor choice of language for a supposedly-educated man. Either that, or he said what he'd initially intended, it was taken in context, and he's a sexist. It wouldn't surprise me.
Only some sex differences are "negative" to women (Score:3, Insightful)
Women:
1. live longer
2. are less likely to be victimized by violent crime
3. are less likely to be killed in war
4. are less likely to suffer birth defects
5. are less likely to go to jail
6. are less likely to be substance abusers (alcohol, smoking, illegal drugs)
7. are more likely to go to, and complete, college
8. are less likely to be high-school drop-outs
Raise the possibility that some things that women are not as good at, such as abstract reasoning, however, and you'll be slaughtered in public.
GF
This is not what he said (Score:5, Insightful)
What was actually said involved a lot of disclaimers and careful language. Summerizing the remarks as "females naturally bad at math" is just plain wrong.
One of the specific things he pointed out was the way that the work of high level math and science contributors in academia is organized requires a steep committment in time and effort that many women are unwilling to spend. In the corporate world positions have been modified to allow for multiple people to hold onto an important responsibility. There are other kinds of changes that can also be made. Part of the implication here is that the flaws are not with the women who are not reaching the top in these contexts, but with the way the offices and responsibilities themselves are structured and executed.
There is a popular article in the New York Times about this with the title "Harvard Chief Defends His Talk On Women" that goes into significant detail.Oh, its twue, its twue! (Score:4, Interesting)
According to the BBC [bbc.co.uk], The difference in male vs. female brain size (about 10%) in humans and higher order primates is directly attributable to in increase is the size of the areas of the brain responsible for geo-spatial mapping and visualization. Natural selection is the culprit in this instance. It seems that if you couldn't find your way home after the day's hunt, you got less of an opportunity to pass on your genes!
When you think about it, (and be honest now) in your experience, exactly what is the ratio of male to female Unix admins?
Got 'cha!
PC == Keep your mouth shut?? (Score:5, Insightful)
So it is "Safer" and "easier" to "shut the hell up" about something that is politically incorect if the price is a large amount of suffering? I wonder what would have happened to the Civil Rights movement and Womens Sufferage (among other movements) if people thought that way in the 20's and 50's/60's.
Re:PC == Keep your mouth shut?? (Score:3, Interesting)
What reason could you have for running a huge study on the intellectual limits of one sex or another, or one race or another, but to use that information to exclude that race or sex on the basis of their supposed lack of ability?
Seriously. I'm not a PC guy, but when I see crap like this, I can only really see one reason for it. He's making a case that
Re:PC == Keep your mouth shut?? (Score:3, Insightful)
I imagine such a study would be looking at differences rather than 'limits'. Why prejudice the research with politicised terminology?
One reason to perform such research might be to examine whether politically enforced 'balance' in enrollment stats is based on a realistic underst
Re:PC == Keep your mouth shut?? (Score:3, Insightful)
What reason could you have for running a huge study on the intellectual limits of one sex or another, or one race or another, but to use that information to exclude that race or sex on the basis of their supposed lack of ability?
Oh I don't know, what about for the purposes of actually furthering human knowledge and science? What, you think we should just completely ignore the subject and push it under a rug, since someone might be offended by the results.
Re:PC == Keep your mouth shut?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, your explanation is totally implausible. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that women on average perform worse than men on standardized math exams. What kind of a bigot are you that you make the jump from that to "ok, now we should exclude all women from mathematically intense fields and courses of study"? Even if women on average do not perform as well as men in math, that does not mean that all women should be excluded from math, whatever it means to be excluded from math.
Certainly there are many, many women who are better at math than the average man. While someone like me is above average at math, my wife is certainly better than me at math. She is a business analyst, and there is no way I could step into her shoes at her position. Why do you think that studying the human brain means we should exclude my wife from her job that she does very well? It makes no sense.
We study to gain knowledge. Perhaps as a part of this study there is a breakthrough that leads to the discovery of a cure for Alzheimer's or Parkinson's or something. We don't know what studies will show. But to not study something for PC reasons is ignorant. I hope they soon figure out why some people are scared of knowledge. Better yet, I hope they figure out why men can't ask for directions. I can't tell you how many hours I've spent driving around and around, too proud to stop and ask for help.
Eh. (Score:3, Interesting)
We also know that a lot of men are bad at science, but that some men are good at science.
So, what it boils down to is that, some men and some women are good at science, and most men and most women are bad at science.
Why do we need a study for that? If you're doing science, hire people who are good at science. Spea
Re:PC == Keep your mouth shut?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Politically incorrect statements are the fringes of thought. Some, over the course of years, will become accepted as the "right and moral" form of thought. Discouraging people from speaking their mind discourages social progress and reform.
--
Evan
Lessons of Married Life (Score:5, Funny)
Married life teaches this very lesson.
-kgj
Re:Sooo stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like... no one commentating on athletics will admit the obvious fact that black sprinters are faster than white. Because if you admit that, then you have conceded that some races may be naturally better at some things than other things, perhaps whites think better than blacks... shock, horror!
To me it is obvious that women are generally better at somethings and worse at others than men. I hope I live to see the day when we laugh at the quaint squeemishness of our age to admit what every other age and people have plainly known.
Of course, this does not mean that an individual woman may not be the best mathematician, or perhaps a white man will again win the 100 metres. (We now have a white heavy-weight boxing world champion.) Individuals are in no way subject to a statistic which generalises a population.
Hmmm. (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently, around the turn of the century, Jews dominated Basketball. Seriously. Not making this up. And in the press, and in the common opinion of the time, it was held that Jews had certain attributes, which were (not lying) quickness and sneakyness. which made them unbeatable on the court.
Today that seems totally ridiculous to us. We don't hold those stereotypes anymore.
Now we believe that black people have this huge innate physical sports advantage. It's not that they're statistically poorer than white people, and have few ways of going to college besides sports scholarships. It's not that, culturally, they see the easiest routes to success coming from entertainment and athletics.
It's just that black people tend to be athletic, funny, and rappers. It's genetic. No really. It is. Really.
Don't you see how stupid that is?
Re:Hmmm. (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think you'd dispute that some African gene pools make people better able to withstand the sun than my pasty Scottish heritage. So why can the
While you make good points (Score:4, Informative)
As for the Jewish issue, funniness, and ability to rap, well those obviously fit the rest of your post quite well.
Re:I already knew that (Score:5, Funny)
Lois: I guarantee you a man made that commercial.
Peter: Of course a man made it. It's a commercial Lois, not a delicious thanksgiving dinner.
Re:yeah right (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't see anything wrong with acknowledging differences between the sexes, where things start to go wrong is when people are abusing the fact there are differences, e.g. men are generally bigger and stronger and can easily abuse that by beating up women fairly easil
Re:a joke (Score:4, Funny)
I heard about this happening at my alma mater, but didnt actually witness it so take it with a grain of salt
A male professor once exclaimed in class, after a female student answered a question incorrectly due to a math error that "Thats ok- women are naturally worse at math than men."
After an audible sucking of wind from the class (my school was about 70-30 female-male at the time), he followed with "Its ok, its not your fault. Know why?" A pause...and then he held his thumb and forefinger about an inch and a half apart. "Because all your lives men have been lying to you and telling you that this is 8 inches."