Harvard University's president, Lawrence H. Summers, is dealing with the wrath of women when he suggested that they may not have the same innate abilities in math and science as men. The statement was supposedly made at a private session last Friday at a conference in Cambridge. He was presenting provocative hypotheses based on the research of others, rather than offering his personal views. But the Harvard professors who are upset say that the president of a world-famous university does not have the luxury of speaking as an independent researcher.

Isn't there a large body of evidence that the genders are different? Women use both hemispheres of the brain when using language, while apparently men only use one. Physical "hard wiring" aside, there should be little, if any debate, that society shapes boys and girls differently, which may account for the disparity. That's not to say that a male dominated society artificially stymies the advancement of women, for it clearly does, but perhaps Dr. Summers shouldn't be burned at the stake quite yet.

if what he had to say was supported by irrefutable fact by reliable sources, then the results of the report should carry the weight, not the messenger.

It is not a sexist statement to say that- Men are better suited than women at some things. Women are better suited than men at some things. Different physiology between men and women is the reason why. Can't differences in the sexes be noted without condemnation? Think about it. That is why men and women make such a powerful team together, because between them both ALL the necessary bases are covered. The lists of innate abilities for women, is just as long as it is for men, just different.

The reason why men score better is because men made the rules. It's as simple as that.

My brand of feminism, although well intended, seems to draw a lot of criticism from females. It goes something like this:

Women should stick with things women do best. They should not try to play men's games. In doing so, they subjugate themselves by allowing men's rules to dictate their own course of action. It's no diffferent from sitting back and saying, this is the way it is and we should just resign ourselves to the fact that men rule over women.

I always present it this way, with some variation of the first sentence, just for shock value. Some people just can't seem to get beyond the first sentence.

__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows - Robert A. Zimmerman

It's pretty shortsighted to say 'women are good at this and men are good at that', or 'women are interested in this and men are interested in that'. People are individuals and have individual interests. It's ridiculous to assign attributes to entire halves of the population, because they're far from universal.

There are some societal and biological impetuses that make some people tend one way and some another, but particularly with regards to math and language test scores, you don't see bell curves with no overlap squeezed next to eachother. You actually get bell curves that overlap, with a little bit of difference that becomes most visible at the extreme tops and bottoms of the bell curves.

Come on. You guys know this.

We're doing the best we can with one hemisphere!

You haven't taken psychology have you! Men and women are different! Built different, think different. They have different strengths and weaknesses than we do. This is not a minus! Apples and oranges. This was covered and discussed in the first semester. C'mon you already know this...

It's just a generalization, right? We are still individuals. It's just that on average, women are better than men at some things, and men are better than women at some things.

I don't see how it is short-sighted if statistics are proven. It is foolish to denounce it in that case.

__________________
1987 300SDL (324000)

1986 Porsche 951 (944 Turbo) (166000)

1978 Porsche 924 (99000)

1996 Nissan Pathfinder R50 (201000)

You're taking what amounts to a medium gray vs dark gray, and treating them as though they are black and white. That's all I'm saying, and this is what's borne out by the studies when you get past the sensationalist headlines and the hamfisted laymen analyses.

DslBnz, also please reread what I pointed out regarding overlapping bell curves.

Aww, never mind me, I'm just a dumb girl anyway, and I have shopping and knitting to do!

i know you don't really believe this Web, but as one who respects your opinion and enjoys the humor laced posts you share with us, it seems a shame that you feel the need to defend yourself.

trust me there is no need.

Males and females have different hormonal distribution that can alter their thought process during real world events. Women cannot cope with stress as well as men due to their emotional instability. Women are not as grounded as men. Women are more intuitive.

That's all I'm saying. And this is true, no matter what anyone says. Why would there be a problem with that?

__________________
1987 300SDL (324000)

1986 Porsche 951 (944 Turbo) (166000)

1978 Porsche 924 (99000)

1996 Nissan Pathfinder R50 (201000)

Now there's proof that "chivalry" is not dead. In an age of equality, it should be, but it's not dead yet.

Mature men and women that are secure in who and what they are, feel confidant in extending politeness, courtesy, and manners befitting true ladies and gentleman, with no condesencion implied or given. There are men, and there are gentlemen. There are women, and there are ladies. True gentlemen, never consider a lady to be his equal, but on a pedestal, at a much higher level, to be admired, treasured ,and adored...

I don't know of any definitive statistics that show women and men are innately different in math and science skills. Our own science department is dominated by women and we have a number of female mathematicans. It seems like a really stupid comment. Can you imagine if he had made a similar comment about a racial group.
As one of my students said this week, she'd bet on a female Asian math student over an Anglo male math student anyday.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

I just find it a sad commentary on our times that simply merely asking the question causes such a furious backlash for the femminist left.

__________________
Paul S.

2001 E430, Bourdeaux Red, Oyster interior.
79,200 miles.

1973 280SE 4.5, 170,000 miles. 568 Signal Red, Black MB Tex. "The Red Baron".