"Were you sorry to see Harvard's outgoing president, Lawrence Summers, attacked for saying that men and women may have different mental capacities?
He was taking seriously the notion that women, innately, have less capacity than men at the highest level of science. I think it's probably true. It's common sense if you just look at who the top scientists are." From NYTimes.com
Bullshit. Bull. Shit. I give you Rosalind Franklin. Marie Curie. Barbara McClintock. I give you Stephanie Kwolek. Shelley Payne. Karen Artzt. Women who fought for, and earned, the respect of their male colleagues as researchers. Science is one the many arenas where a woman must be better than a man in order to be considered their equal, so those women were, or are. The "top scientists" are men because we still live in a male-dominated society, in a society where women are paid $.765 to every $1 made by men. The "boys club" still has a lot of power in science, as demonstrated by the membership of the National Academy of Science, which is made up of less than 10% women.
Do men and women think differently, are they mentally wired in different ways? Yes. Does this mean that women are unsuited to the "highest level of science?" No. Absolutely not. Nothing scientific has even been postulated that there is some chemical or gene expression difference between men and women that makes males superior in physics or math or biochemistry or anything else involving logic and analytical thought, and making claims of this sort is nothing but mysoginistic and condescending. It is appalling that there are still faculty members in the College of Natural Sciences who believe women have no place in science.
On the other hand, it saddens me that feminism is so often synonymous with man-hating. I identify myself as a feminist, and simultaneously a number of my closest friends have always been male. I can honestly say that I am privileged to know some really incredible human beings, both female and male. The first feminists, in the form of suffragists and progressives, rallied for a voice and for better treatment without being anti-male. Why the change from first to second wave feminism? Women hating men is no different then men hating women, and both are, on some level, born out of fear. It is not necessary to emasculate men in the quest for equality.
3 comments:
I'm sorry, but I have to agree with him, within limits. While the word 'innately' might be a bit extreme. The truth of the matter is that women are less likely to be in the highest levels of science. Does that mean they are dumb, no. Does that mean there isn't some prejudice against women, no. There are certain boundaries, but they are far from set in stone. If a woman can do as well of better than a man, then so be it. Just look at all the famous chicks that can do complex science and break ground all over the place.
Just keep in mind that they (and you) are the exception to the rule. Most women never choose to go into science (with the exception of life sciences) because it doesn't interest them. Is that bad, no. It just doesn't interest them.
Also the wage gap can be completely explained by life choices. If a woman wants kids she will have to sacrifice her career. Take a real life example. A vet friend of mine used to WANT to hire women because they were great with customers. However, he stopped hiring them because every single woman that he hired quit to become a mother within 5 years and never again returned to the field. What's the point in looking for talent you won't keep?
Women are smart, they really are. Many are smarter than men, and many men are smarter than women. Life choices and interests though make up the primary difference and because of that the sexes never will be nor should they be 100% equal.
I think we're seeing the same thing from different perspectives, Matt.
Though I do believe the real reason more girls aren't interested in science and engineering is because they are not encouraged to be. But that's another topic for another day.
Alas, that blog is "friends only." I'd be interested to read their point of view.
Post a Comment