Um, Summers said female hires were "marginal."
As to the 4 out of 55, they're all in physics, and they're all there because the chair of the physics department, a card-carrying baptist named Howard Georgi, no radical lefty he, did statistic studies, realized that even after adjusting for grades they were discriminating against their female physics undergrads and grads, and took corrective action.
Men will be part of the solution on this too.
And actually, it's just not true that he "merely tossed some legitimate ideas" and didn't present facts. He proposed a lexical ordering of the factors that prevent women from top achievement in those fields, and he put socialization third on the list. He made this VERY clear in the question and answer, saying repeatedly in response to questions that he'd like the questioner to abandon the idea that socialziation or discrimination are real factors.
They're not in biology or chemistry or other departments, that have long ago let women in. Limitations on women in those fields may have to do with child care or inante ability. But to say that in math and physics socialization and discrimiation aren't factors -- well, just have to have been in the Harvard math or physics department to know *that's* a lie. Why, even the chair of the Harvard physics department knows that's a lie.
And I've been there. Although, of course, graduating Phi Beta Kappa in math from Harvard doesn't make me as smart as US admirer. He's male. ;)
"And I've been there. Although, of course, graduating Phi Beta Kappa in math from Harvard doesn't make me as smart as US admirer. He's male. ;)"
I can see now that I had woefully, and quite unfairly, misjudged you.
Nobody who is so accurately aware of her place relative to US admirer could be all bad. ;)