I Know I'm Going to Regret Admitting This . . .

I take issue with the flap at Harvard regarding Lawrence Summers' statements that we need to consider nature as well as nurture when discussing the dearth of women in the math and science fields.



Summers had stated that there were several potential reasons for the lack of statistical female representation. He mentioned the "mommy track" and the idea that women who had families were simply not willing to work the 80-plus hours per week required by the higher level positions. He indicated that testing shows men outstrip women in high school math and science, and questioned whether biological propensities, and not just societal shaping, gave men an advantage in those areas.



When challenged about the statements, he gave a thoughtful response, according to the article:

"'My remarks have been misconstrued as suggesting that women lack the ability to succeed at the highest levels of math and science. I did not say that, nor do I believe it. I am deeply committed to the advancement of women in science, and all of us have a crucial stake in accelerating progress toward that end.' He added that the 'harder we work to research and understand the situation, the better the prospects for long-term success.'"

Unfortunately, the folks on my side of the gender line were not quite so glib:

"Nancy Hopkins, of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was one of the academics who walked out of the conference.



She said that, had she not done so, she 'would have either blacked out or thrown up.'"

Personally, I think he's right.



Before you light the torches, I'm NOT saying the theory of biological predetermination has been proved, nor that "girls go to Jupiter to get more stupider."



The refusal to address the biological component of the debate, as inappropriate per se, denies us the ability to fully explore the logic surrounding the premise. We can't learn from facts we won't acknowledge, nor can we disprove logical fallacies that we're not willing to debate. We know from scientific research that men and women listen with very different parts of the brain, respond differently to visceral stimulation, and have different brain structures, for a start. So what do we do with that? Bury it? The militant suppression of opposing viewpoints is nothing more than the manifestation of an extreme fear of what lies behind the veil. Why not disprove gender advantage myths where we can? For example, this post on Alas, a Blog makes a good argument that many of the "men are stronger" presumptions might actually be false.



Worst case scenario: after all is said and done, we do the research and discover that scientific evidence utterly validates the old genetic stereotypes. Boys really do have a genetic advangage with math, and girls with verbal skills, and we can point to regions of the brain that determine these abilities.



So what? That doesn't mean either gender is better, simply different. Why not use it to refine our educational system to take advantage of the natural ability, and to make up the deficits, on an individual basis?



Of course, we could always just walk out and ignore the whole thing.



Or would that prove we're the weaker sex?





NOTE -

Originally saw the story on Matthew Yglesias' blog. I like his take on the lack of women in science:

"Now in my experience with any dorky, male-dominated activity, the problem is this: Every time a woman begins to participate in the dorky, male-dominated activity, she is immediately pounced upon by dozens of dorky, unappealing men. Some people have sufficient commitment to electrical engineering (or blogging or philosophy or whatever) to press forward nevertheless. The faint of heart, however, are driven away by the nerds never to be seen again."

'Nuf said.



UPDATE:

Okay, maybe not quite enough. Scrappleface made me giggle:

Harvard Chief Sends Roses to Fainting Female Prof

by Scott Ott



(2005-01-18) -- Harvard University President Lawrence Summers today sent a dozen roses to MIT biology professor Nancy Hopkins after she nearly fainted last week during Mr. Summers' remarks about potential biological differences between the sexes which might explain why fewer women succeed in science and math careers.



Ms. Hopkins told The New York Times, "When he started talking about innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn't breathe."



If she hadn't walked out of the conference, she said she "would have either blacked out or thrown up." . . .

Go read the rest - it's too good.