Posted on 01/17/2005 5:02:08 PM PST by CDB
Cedar Dave has asked FR womenfolk to opine on this article.
If his comments didn't have the ring of truth, and if the truth didn't hurt, she wouldn't have walked out.
I have a son and a daughter, and they're as different as the day is long. They learn differently, they have completely different interests, and I have NO DOUBT that they will pursue different fields of study and careers.
Left brain, right brain??
I gave a try at chemical engineering in college and quickly found out I didn't have the aptitude for it, although I did well in math and chemistry. So I consider myself one of the 85%. But I have a hard time believing that only a very small minority of women have the capability to become successful engineers. It may well be that they have different priorities such as becoming a mom and raising children which means they take a career break until later in life. Nothing wrong with that, but I hate to see someone use a broad bush to say its innate and not willful decision making on behalf of individual women.
Would Hopkins have left if Jane Goodall or Dian Fossey were reporting similar gender-specific behavior in chimps or gorillas?
Apparantly, Summers' own observations are not to be believed because...I'm guessing here...he's a guy?
I have a son and daughter too, both grown - yeah, they are much different, in spite of the fact that we brought them up as similarly as possible.
"...but I hate to see someone use a broad bush to say its innate and not willful decision making on behalf of individual women."
Please see the link in post #17 for information supporting BOTH theories. (And perhaps the willful decisions occur because of innate abilities and preferences...)
Thanks for providing the link. It's a lot to chew on but it's worth the read.
Some of the differences are cultural influences...
Uh no, it's not almost certainly true.
I think it's a bit of both. (I am a female computer scientist, so I'm not just offering some random opinion).
Just me personally, math really isn't my cup of tea. Sure, I had to take it, but with the exception of probability, I was ready to just get them over with and out of the way. I strongly preferred classes where, if there was math, it's of the applied variety, like computer graphics which uses linear algebra. Just straight math, I never saw the point of.
The other half of it does have something to do with the other things you mentioned. Plus, there's the fact that, let's be honest, most guys in engineering are exceedingly nerdy. (Nerdy, not geeky. There's a difference.) Out of all the male computer scientists, computer engineers, and electrical engineers I know, maybe 5% of them I'd consider date-able. The rest are either unspeakably nerdy, or completely self-absorbed. (yeah, I know, I'm just as guilty of stereotyping :) )
Oh please, you and Aetius must be twins. Dumb twins. Are you blonde, too? hehehe
LOL.....uh oh, how does this explain my daugher with her BS in physics with a minor in math statistics?
Lawrence best stick to it, or else Nancy will chew his you know what up and spit them out and then poor Lawrence will be absolutely powerless. (smile)
It's not the difference between them, but the statement by Summers and Hinckley Buzzard that bothers me is that only a small minority of women have the capability to excel in engineering and science. If we accept HB's hypothesize that only 15% of the population have that capability, and only a small minority, say 20%, of those are women, then only 3% of the population are women who CAN excel in that field. If women are 50% of the population, then that number is 6% of all women. That seems awfully low to me. Unfortunately, I have no statistics to back up or refute the statement.
HB, do you have supporting data for your 15% figure and your assertion that women make up only a small portion of that number?
You try to tell it like is and watch the "offended types" come down on you like a ton of bricks. Telling the truth in public is an unforgivable offense.
Ugh!!! All of you posters are missing the point. Summers, the head of Harvard, is a die-hard, life long liberal showing his true colors. Like liberals in matters racial, he is a phony! They, and he, pay lip service to one way of thinking, and they privately hold entirely different views, only to have these views slip out every so often.
Anyway, women are capable of higher math. Just wait until Asian women continue to make their way here and trounce white males in math aptitude. It's only a matter of time, as Asians are trouncing us internationally in the maths and sciences. What will you chest pounders say then?
Conservatives should never fall prey to the liberal mindset of generalizations, broad sweeping pen strokes, and a totalitarians group think about all groups.
We revere the individual: black or white; man or woman, atheist or believer. We consider the individual.
Put that in yer pipes.
V's wife.
RE: your family story. I work with some of the brightest female scientists on the planet, one of whom is the youngest woman ever elected into the National Academy. Another has done absolutely ground-breaking work in breast cancer research and is known across the world.
Very bright women in the sciences were just slandered by this buffoon and women like you are quick to praise him. Mind-blowing. Absolutely mind-blowing.
It seems to me that Summers was trying to say that you cannot force enough women into an interest in science to have parity, but he said it so clumsily that I can't be sure.
My father was an engineer and a bridge designer. He loved numbers, facts, analysis. None of his daughters shares his love of numbers, but none of his sons do either - so, is it a gender thing, or just that genetically all 7 of his children were less right-brained than he was?
My daughter wants to study medicine, and I expect she'll do well. In my lifetime, women in medicine have gone from a small minority to a slight majority. If enough young women want to become scientists as want to become doctors, the parity will arrive. If they don't, it's a false goal.
She has the desire and the aptitude to excell in those subjects.
I still have no problem with the subject being discussed in the manner it was and for this woman to walk out in a huff makes her look idiotic and childish, IMO.
It doesn't sound to me at all like anyone is saying because one is female they can't do thus and such. And to say it can't even be discussed is ludicrous (not you--those who attended and were "offended"...how absurd).
So is stupidity. And you're waving yours like a freshman boy in a panty raid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.