Posted on 01/19/2005 8:42:39 AM PST by xsysmgr
Doing remarkably little to combat the stereotype that women are emotionally frail and constitutionally incapable of dealing with stress, Professor Nancy Hopkins of MIT told the Boston Globe that she had to leave a lecture delivered by Harvard president Larry Summers because if she didn't she would have "either blacked out or thrown up."
What caused this damsel Hopkins to hie to her fainting couch? Why, the mere suggestion that there might be inherent differences between men and women when it comes to aptitude to the hard sciences.
Summers, who happens to be one of the world's most-respected economists, was addressing an academic conference sponsored by National Bureau of Economic Research, and he raised the issue of innate aptitude while tackling the question of why the top ranks of the science profession are disproportionately male. But first he covered all of his bases, emphasizing how committed he is to expanding opportunities for women, combating discrimination, and so forth.
The numerical predominance of men in science, Summers said, is chiefly explained by the commonsense, and commonly agreed upon, observation that the demands of motherhood tend to interfere with careers that require vast quantities of time at a very young age. Just like top lawyers and bankers, Summers explained, jobs requiring 80-hour workweeks disproportionately hurt women who tend to be primary caregivers for children for long stretches of time.
But then, in a spirit of academic open-mindedness, Summers raised the possibility that "innate difference" might be a factor as well. According to reports, he didn't necessarily embrace this view so much as throw it out for discussion. Indeed, before he raised this point he apparently said several times, "I'm going to provoke you" — which Hopkins might have noticed had she been able to hear over her ideological agenda.
"When he started talking about innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn't breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill," Hopkins told the New York Times. "Let's not forget that people used to say that women couldn't drive an automobile."
That's true. "People" also used to say that women aren't as tall as men, that men are more aggressive than women, that women are the ones who make babies, that men are physically stronger than women, and all sorts of other things that happen to be true. The mere fact that "people" used to say some things that weren't true doesn't mean that everything people used to say is untrue — even if some of those comments offend Hopkins's delicate sensibilities.
In fact, the scientific consensus is that there are innate cognitive differences between men and women — as groups. Individual men and women can be geniuses or morons (though the data suggest that men tend to produce more of both than women).
Men tend to perform better at spatial tasks — rotating three-dimensional objects in their mind, for example — as well as some mathematical and navigational tests. Women, on the other hand, are better at word games of various kinds, and they beat men at identifying matching items rapidly and putting the right-shaped pegs in the right holes. This is all fairly uncontroversial stuff — you can find a nice summary on the web in a Scientific American article called "Sex Differences in the Brain" from May 13, 2002.
But don't show it to Nancy Hopkins. She may lose her lunch.
Now, I don't mean to be sexist when mocking Hopkins. I don't think her media-savvy hysteria has much to do with her sex. I think it has everything to do with a species of liberalism and/or feminism which is completely at odds with the best traditions of scholarship and liberalism, properly understood.
Hopkins made a name for herself a few years ago by whining incessantly about gender discrimination at MIT. Indeed, she complained so much that she was able to finagle the chairmanship (sorry, the chairpersonship) of a committee tasked with finding discrimination at MIT. Shockingly, Hopkins found discrimination! Her report made her a hero in the pages of the New York Times, which dubbed her a "reluctant feminist" in the headline of its gushing profile of her.
The report, which emphasized the feelings of anonymous female professors, found that discrimination manifested itself in a "stealth-like" way at MIT — which is generally PC code for "I'm not going to provide any evidence." The supposedly convincing evidence was kept secret, while the official report explained: "Discrimination consists of a pattern of powerful but unrecognized assumptions. . Once you 'get it,' it seems almost obvious."
Indeed.
This is perfectly consistent with Hopkins's current schtick — which got her a nice, sympathetic interview on the Today show and newspaper coverage around the world. In the past, women used to claim that vulgar language would cause them to grow ill or faint. Now feminists like Hopkins use the same tactic to silence ideologically unacceptable ideas and to intimidate the intellectually curious. That's the stereotype Hopkins is reinforcing: that feminists and the Left are pro-science and pro-scholarship as long as they already agree with the conclusions.
ping for later
"The report, which emphasized the feelings of anonymous female professors, found that discrimination manifested itself in a "stealth-like" way at MIT — which is generally PC code for "I'm not going to provide any evidence." "
ROTF....
Men and women are different?
Really?
I cannot believe that I have lived all these years and not known that men and women are different.
fainting placemarker
However, I hereby raise a very au courant issue: Anorexia and bulemia. I've wondered greatly since the 1970s as I watched an increase in these two social viruses where they may have had their origins. The feminists claim it's "evil men who demand women be thin". No, it's not. It's women demanding that women be thin. No one's got a gun to these women's heads. But "puking" at those things which offend one's so-called "sensitivities"? "Fat" is considered "offensive". So, some women puke to get rid of "fat".
And here's Hopkins, in kind, suggesting that mere words equals "actions" -- that she ingested something fatal as merely "uttered" by a speaker. Yes, of course, all this is tangental to Jonah's column -- but is it really? Perhaps the good professor Hopkins instead of puking might consider excercising her brain in ways that challenge her -- might just solve her "puke reaction". And as a role model? How many women really do get off on role modeling themselves in science and engineering fields if they gotta "puke" in thinking this translates as an intelligent response?
Dialing... Katherine MacKinnon....
Here's a thought experiment: It's two million years ago. Eveghrtf has babies stays in the cave and takes care of them. Nancggrtf goes out hunting with the guys. Whose genes are more likely to get passed on?
I heard Rush yesterday talking to a woman that used to teach science (can't remember if it was HS or college) saying she witnessed over and over how men are more oriented to excel in science.
Alas - I have the answers for my C's in HS!!!!
Lawrence Summers statement has drawn controversy all over the place on the morning talk shows. Women are outraged, too bad they can't face reality. Personally I think the man is right on! Men and women are different and the PC crowd needs to get their heads on straight.
That kind of highlights the innate difference between men and women doesn't it?
LOL! I love NR!
"Qick, get the Smelling Salts - this lady has The Vapors! I wonder what would have happened if somebody tried to loosen her girdle?
One only has to look at recent development biology and even development toxicology information on the fetal brain to see clear differences in brain region/cell population development among genders.
This can be stated as scientific fact without necessarily implying any judgement as to whether one pattern is more desirable or preferable over the other.
But for a biologist to take a position that the differential brain development has no potential post-natal biological implications would require a disbelief in virtually all prior neurological research.
I assume some kind of male 'prosthetic" would fall out.
It's feminazi women like her who make life more difficult for women like me.
Did she clarify which branches of science? If men are more oriented to spatial and mathematical tasks, that would make them better at physics, though not biology.
I remember just the other day, some mean female said that men can't really ever drive properly and I became so ill I had to curl up on the floor in a little ball and take a nap.
Then I went out and bought a new pair of shoes.
Wait...
She was speaking spatially.
Her example was water in a tube that was curved or U shaped - males in her classes could answer questions on a test about what would happen to the water levels about 80-20% (or close to) correctly compared to females. Of course in a u-shaped tube the water would be euqal on both sides regardless of the tilt of the U.
I thought is was very interesting.
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.