Re: Harvard Pres: Women Lack Ability In Math, Sciences

From: Jayne Kulikauskas (momkulio_at_yahoo.ca)
Date: 01/20/05 

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:24:08 -0500

[newsgroups changed from soc.culture.jewish to soc.men, soc.women and
sci.geo.geology]

Apparently George wants to post his response to me in a group that I have
informed him that I do not read. Since this topic has nothing to do with
s.c.j I have dropped it. I included s.g.g because I wanted to insure that
Jo would see it. I'm sorry if it is inappropriate for that group.

"George" <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote in message
news:4FxHd.15126$EG1.2077@attbi_s53...
>
> "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:357ibpF4jdqciU1@individual.net...
> >
> > "George" <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote in message
> > news:dunHd.11491$P04.6995@attbi_s03...
> >>
> >> "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> >> news:355v2vF4jre7mU1@individual.net...
> >> >
> >> > "George" <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote in message
> >
> > []
> >> >> Wow, I don't know where that came from. Perpetual victim?
> >> >> Let me remind you that I'm a man who is
> >> >> on the side of women's rights, and don't consider
> >> >> you personally to be a "perpetual victim".
> >> >
> >> > Your posts are all about how women are victims. You can't even stay
on
> >> > topic because you are dragging in one irrelevant story of
victimization
> >> > after another. I don't want rights based on pity.
> >>
> >> Oh please. Spare me the sob story.
> >
> > That's what I am trying to tell you. Spare me the sob story. Nancy
Hopkins
> > walked out of perfectly appropriate and scientifically sound talk, made
> > various denigrating remarks to the media about the speaker and you call
her
> > a victim. Your reason for this boils down to saying that women are
always
> > the victims. Spare me this absurd and untrue sob story.
>
> Sorry. I beg to differ. Your reasoning boils down to accepting that
women have
> to be treated as if they are somehow inferior.

My reasoning is that science is about the pursuit of the truth. When there
is an observation that can be explained by innate sex differences then one
explores that possibility. One does not throw it out without considering it
simply because one doesn't like the idea.

> Obviously you accept this
> tenent, otherwise ou wouldn't be in such opposition with what I've posted
in
> this thread.

Obviously you have a preference for straw man arguments. Not only do you
misrepresent my views, you post this where I am unlikely to see it and
correct it.

> Do you also wear chains and whips, or are you the "M" part of your
> S&M tag team?

Do S&M people really wear whips? I thought that they just used them. I
concede to your expertise.

> >>Noone is talking about giving anyone rights
> >> based on feeling sorry for anyone. I'm merely
> >>recognizing what you obvuously
> >> fail to do. Men who abuse women don't look at
> >>them as victims. And being a
> >> victim is not the same as having a
> >> handicap. I don't feel sorry for women,
> >> though I do empathize with them. Human rights
> >> are universal, and should apply
> >> to all people. It is based on respect, not pity.
> >>
> >> > I want only the rights
> >> > that naturally attend the responsibilities I fulfill. I want only
those
> >> > rights that do not come at the expense of others.
> >>
> >> Who's rights are being abused by women having
> >> the right to be treated equally
> >> when it comes to opportunity?
> >
> > Whenever quota systems are imposed, it removes people's right to be
judged
> > by their ability.
>
> Who said anything about quotas? Oh right, you and Ian (I thiknk it was
him)
> did. I never brought it up.

In practice, the movement to give women equal opportunity has often involved
quotas.

> >> >> Having said that, if you've ever had a
> >> >> man tell you that you couldn't do something
> >> >>that you damn well knew that
> >> >> you could, then you ARE are victim,
> >> >> whether you want to admit it or not.
> >> >> IN addition, many women are
> >> >> victimized similarly as well, and even
> >> >> brutally victimized every day.
> >> >
> >> > Guess what. Many men are brutally victimized every day too. Bad
things
> >> > happen to men *and* women and your one-sided approach does not help
> >> >anybody.
> >>
> >> If you are trying to tell me that men are just as abused
> >> by women as women are abused by men, then
> >> you've been smoking that Canadian grass too long.
> >
> > No, I've been reading the research on the subject. For example, many
> > studies indicate that women and men are about equally likely to be the
> > victim of domestic violence. For a site that collects such research
try:
> >
> > http://www.menweb.org/batresrh.htm
>
> Oh gee, that certainly is an objective web site, now isn't it? I am
starting to
> doubt whether you are truly a woman, and not some old geezer posting from
> soc.men.

So you do realize that I am posting from soc.men. Why have you been posting
your responses to me to other groups?

> > Note the article about the Statistics Canada data which shows "44% of DV
> > victims are men. In current relationships men as more likely to be
victims
> > of domestic violence."
>
> Who ever said Canadians were anything other than whimps? I certainly
didn't. I
> guess those Canadian women must be real bullies, eh? Must come from all
that
> igloo living, and chewing on walrus fat. lol

This is an excellent example of an ad hominem. Note how George does not
address the point that men are equally victims of domestic violence but
attempts to divert the discussion by mocking my country.

> > Also note the British Home Office research study
> > which concludes that men are "as likely to be victims of domestic
violence
> > as women."
> >
> > Your completely mistaken ideas on this subject are common and largely
due to
> > the bias in media reporting on such things. To better understand why
you
> > are so wrong, look at this article on how the media misrepresents gender
> > issues.
>
> No I'm not. You are a complete fraud on this issue.

It is considered good form to indicate when one removes a section from a
quote. You removed a link to a site and passage from it. This is not a
good way to refute it.

> But don't take my word for it. Here are the word of someone who knows
what the
> hell she is talking about, because she both is a scientist and a teacher,
and a
> very well respected member of the scientific community. She has been
monitoring
> these posts in another newsgroup, and decided to put in her two cents
worth:
>
> "As a woman apparently lacking the genetic abilities under discussion, I
> would advise the men in this discussion to take the time to find out
> what Mr. Harvard President Sir actually said, (at least as reported in
> the news media):
>
> Please read:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/19/education/19harvard.html
> No transcript of his exact words are available.

I thought this account seemed like an even-handed one:
http://www.marinij.com/Stories/0,1413,234~24410~2659688,00.html

<begin quote>He discussed several factors that could help explain the
underrepresentation of women. The first factor, he said, according to
several participants, was that top positions on university math and
engineering faculties require extraordinary commitments of time and energy,
with many professors working 80-hour weeks in the same punishing schedules
pursued by top lawyers, bankers and executives. Few married women with
children are willing to accept such sacrifices, he said.

Hopkins said yesterday, "I didn't disagree, but didn't like the way he
presented that point, because I like to work 80 hours a week, and I know a
lot of women who work that hard."

In citing a second factor, Summers cited research showing that more high
school boys than girls tend to score at very high and very low levels on
standardized math tests, and that it was important to consider the
possibility that such differences may stem from biological differences
between the sexes.<eq>

> He is quoted for three ways which women may be unfit for these
professions:

He described 3 possible factors that could account for women's
underrepresentation in these professions. He never said anything about
women being unfit.

> 1) Reluctance of married women with children to work long (some articles
> say 80-hour) workweeks in pursuit of their vocation;
>
> 2) That innate sex-related/genetic differences make women less capable
> of math or science; or
>
> 3)That they are still discriminated against because of their gender.
>
>
> To refute these remarks:
>
> 1) Is undoubtably true of both women and men with families, who value
> their spouses, children and own productive lives both at and away from
> their vocation. Both math and science can be harsh masters and
> mistresses. While hard work is necessary for success in any endeavor,
> this stereotype of the brilliant mathematician/scientist with no time
> for anything but work is false--One need go no further than Einstein and
> his violin, or Richard Feynmann and his theater and drums to note that
> a) home life suffers greviously in the case of many so called
> 'brilliant' people; b) recreation is necessary to all humans to keep
> from going crazy. No one can be a genius 24/7 for 70 years on end and c)
> if there are children, someone must mind them, whether parent or nanny,
> or the kids turn out badly.
>
> 2) This is an easy remark to make, but a hard one to substantiate. Also,
> math and science, though both use numbers, are not equal. My best
> friend in grade school excelled in math, but had no use for science. I
> excelled in science, but math has always been a harder row to hoe. It's
> not 'socialization pressure', nor genetics which cause women to back off
> from math or science--it's the textbooks, the pedagogy, and the teachers
> along the way.

Could you give some references to support this claim please? (Preferably
web-based since I don't want to drive to the university library in all this
snow.)

> George's comment - (I later pointed out to her that the textbooks,
pedagogy, and
> the teachers are all part of the soclialization pressure, to which she
agreed).
>
> Children of either gender will be drawn to study what interests them.
> You can make a million gender-neutral textbooks about girls building
> rocketships and calculating trajectories, or figuring baseball
> statistics, and you're just not gonna 'win the audience' except of a
> very few. Face it, most math texts don't explain "why" something is, or
> how it go to be that way--they just throw a lot of squiggles at you and
> say, if you do thus and so to the squiggles, you win. Math and science
> texts (especially physics) are full of discrete examples whose contexts
> boys are already familiar with--throwing balls, building things from
> wood, making electrical circuits and so forth.

And why aren't girls familiar with these contexts? Because they are usually
not interested in these things. Doesn't this suggest some innate
differences to you.

>Math books are written by
> men (for the most part) for boys, using examples out of their own
> boyhood. These fellows' idea of humanizing a text is throwing in clipart
> of old famous white dead mathematicians in wigs. I can recall several
> word problems in probability I couldn't do-- I could do the math all
> right, but didn't understand how one played some game (I think it was
> figuring canasta hands) and without known the distribution of the hands,
> I was clueless. But hey, I'm a woman. I *asked* somebody to help me! *|;-)

This has not been my personal experience of math texts. Do you have some
references that indicate your experience is the norm?

> I'd love to see a generation of boys raised on math books with examples
> of calculating how to make a creme rinse from its basic components, how,
> given X amount of prepared food, to redivide it evenly when unexpected
> dinner guests arrive,or how to even out 'playtime' with an even set of
> dolls, and an odd set of girls.

Apparently you think that they would do badly. Why would you love to see
boys doing badly? I would love to see education that allows both sexes to
do their best.

> How about the spatial calculus involved
> when figuring out how much material in 30 inch wide yards has to be
> purchased to most efficiently yield the irregular pieces needed to sew a
> Halloween costume. Hey, it's math, right? There are plenty of 'spatially
> literate' men who haven't a clue how to take a Dutch cut out of a ***
> of rectangular paper, much less to cut and sew a shirt while wasting
> only minimal cloth.

Neither do I have a clue about this. I do not think that I ever encountered
a math problem as much outside my experience as your sewing examples.

> Part of the answer to 'girls don't understand math and science' is yes
> they do, but the questions they find interesting are different, and
> often defined by men as uninteresting. Girls and women are not
> stupid--they're less likely than men to get fixated, and beat their
> heads to a bloody pulp on a lost cause. They just go around the problem,
> which often means abandoning both math and science.

Western education systems has been greatly influenced by women in general
and feminists in particular for the past couple decades. I find it
implausible that men are defining the questions in math and science.

> 3) The glass ceiling still exists, for one reason: Ambitious men are
> defined as go-getters and successes. Ambitious women who do not become
> pseudo-men are defined by society as bitches (or worse). If one wants to
> be a whirlwind of successful genius, people's feelings are deemed
> irrelevant--it's a pursuit of a dream or an idea to the kill. That is
> seen as acceptable in men, but not in women. One need go no further than
> a person whom even Mr. Summers would call a female genius--Marie
> Sklodowska Curie--who was nearly denied her second Nobel in 1911 because
> of a morals charge. (Marie Curie--A Life, by Susan Quinn) Imagine a
> widowed male genius being in the same predicament because of an affair.
> Preposterous!

Not in 1911. People took sexual morals, even men's, pretty seriously back
then.

> Yes, there are women who love math, and love science and excel at both
> (or if they don't excel, they can quite capably do what has to be done
> to get to the point they need to be.) Or maybe they just redefine the
> problem, and discover new things instead.
>
> In any event, Mr Harvard President Sir has apparently decided to eat his
> words, buttered and with honey on them, via his retraction:
>
> http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/womeninscience.html

This is clearly not a retraction. It is a statement that his comments were
misunderstood. He says in this statement exactly what he was saying all
along.

> Now--whose made the more logical argument here...the several handfuls of
> male (and one female) posters gesticulating at each other, or me, who is
of the
> gender incapable of math, science, or analysis?
>
> I rest my case.
> Jo"

Your argument is a refutation of Lawrence Summers' alleged claim that women
are unfit for math and science professions. However, he did not claim that.
You apparently created a misrepresentation of his view in order to refute
it. In other words, you have committed the straw man fallacy. Since your
entire argument is a logical fallacy, it is not logical at all.

I would also like to note that it seems inaccurate to characterize my posts
on this subject as "gesticulating at each other".

> >
> > I did a Masters degree part-time during the 90s so I am quite familiar
with
> > conditions in academia. I am involved at my church and in environmental
> > activism. My best friend is a woman who got her engineering degree from
MIT
> > and has worked in that field for the last 25 years. As well as what I
have
> > personally observed and heard about, I have read many books and articles
on
> > this subject, so I have some idea of how my experiences of gender issues
fit
> > into general social trends.
>
> What was it you accused me of a few threads back? Confirmation bias? So
it's
> ok for you to do it, but if I do the same (use my experience as example),
> somehow it becomes irrelevant, right? Yeah, I see how your logic works.

You have taken this comment out of context. This was my response to your
taunt along the lines of "Don't get out much, do you?" I was not offering
my experience as evidence (unlike your frequent use of anecdotal evidence)
but responding to your allegation that my opinions are of little value
because I have little real world experience.

Many people, including myself, consider taking comments out of context to
change their meaning to be a form of intellectual dishonesty. I also think
it was dishonourable to misrepresent my views in a venue where I was
unlikely to see it. Your behaviour has been such that I do not respect you
enough to further engage in discussion with you.

Jayne