Don't try this at home...

Dusty, It took some guts to put that out there. There are always two sides to every story, even this one. The problem here is that he, the President of Harvard, came right out and said that women may not have what it takes genetically to cut the mustard as top scientists. That there are "there are issues of intrinsic aptitude" when it comes to women in techinical areas of study. And he said these things TO A ROOM FULL OF WOMEN. It was disrespectful, and a disgusting abuse of power of position. Even though he wasn't there as an official representative of Harvard.

No snark. I have known (and flown with) three female pilots who were better than some of their male peers, and that's not a slam at the guys--these ladies were superb, and each one of them started flying in the 1978-1981 timeframe. That said, I have also flown with three females who had absolutely no business being within fifty feet of an aircraft. One tried to blow us up on the pad by attempting to start with the throttle full open (twice in a row); another started us flying backwards (at night) while on an approach into a lighted airfield; the third almost rammed me (again, at night) when she decided to fly formation on me (after I said "NO!") and misjudged her rate of closure. All three were pushed through flight school in the early nineties. The first three are now retired and don't fly anymore; the second three are now married and don't fly anymore. Fire when ready, ladies...

I have a well thought out, well reasoned response to the moron from Hahvahd: pfthfpthfpfthpfthpfthfpth! and double that! I had a wellw ritten response but let me say a few names lest the ladies get their knickers in a twist: Noam Chomsky Susan Sontag There is true equality for you. Both of them loopy and equality stoopid. And of course, liberals in general. The professor may be reacting to a backlash of pc, but it still doesn't let him off the hook. However, and I know many will flame me for saying this: I will carry arms when my house has been threatened. Just don't get between me and my kids. My reasoning is primitive and knee jerk, not subtle and refined, like Kerry's.

Gooooooo CRICKET!!i>

To one and all: What the "moron" from Harvard said is supposedly actually backed up by some fairly convincing research, not just anecdotal crapola. Just because he said it in front of a room full of women doesn't make it disgusting or even wrong. Would it have been more ok if he'd said it in front of a room full of men? More correct? Less so? To me, his real mistake was expecting educated intelligent women to react with something approaching the way men would react to similar comments. As in: Ok, buddy. I hear you, now show me the money! Prove it! Let me see where you come off saying what sounds like stupid crap. Put up or shut up. Convince ME! See, I've been wrong on knee-jerk reactions often enough that I'm willing to forego calling people names and insisting they are wrong until AFTER I see proof or the lack of it. In Summers' case, it seems no one actually cares if he might be right. What he said is offensive to contemplate so it's ok to just kill the dumb ba$tard. Do I sound like I have firm opinions about this. I hope so, because I HATE PC in any form, and especially gender-based PC. What I know is this: At such time as I hear anyone says conclusively and with reliability that there is no proof to support what Summers said, I'll consider Summers a moron. Until then, I'll stick with my gut, which tells me that there is something to what he said, even if no one wants to believe it. And believe this: I have a 12 year old daughter. My wife and I are not raising her to be a poofy, gender-typical girl, and we never have. But she is absolutely a girl, and is certainly not a boy. While I acknowledge that some of that is nurturing and society, she is severely limited in her TV watching, was home schooled quite a bit, and her favorite dolls are GI Joes, not Barbies, which she has loads of (in the garage, in storage, because she hates the barbies). As for intellect, she is reading at high school level (and has a post high school level vocabulary), while her math skills are strong, but not stellar. She is only at grade level there. And _I_ didn’t make her that way, God did. Would she be different if she were a boy? Of course. For one, she'd be able to pee standing up, which has been one of her great pet peeves since she was little! Otherwise, who knows? I believe so, but I can't know. Frankly, I don't care why she's different, as long as she is able to do whatever she is most capable of doing. Merit means everything, gender means nothing. -SangerM

Thanks, SangerM... Now, in THIS situation, as has been noted above, the speaker appears to have been challenging the intellectual community the digest what he said, and view his words clinically (in the same manner as Chuck Yeager and the boys looked at the sound barrier) and invited challenges and intellectual theorims and proofs. Instead, he got an emotional response. So, how in the hell can Chuck and the Boys break (or not break) the sound barrier if every discussion on Mach numbers results in a shouting brawl?

See Dusty? I usually push you on the right subjects. And the Denizens and visitors to the Castle are a fairly level-headed, if somewhat disturbing, group!

And Sarge - you nailed my main pet peeve right to the wall. Anything that smacks of quotas or measuring performance by a different scale is just self-defeating and stupid. If there is a scale of measuring someone for skills and knowledge needed for a job, it should be applied directly. Otherwise you get a round peg that can't fit in the square hole - and the job doesn't get done (at best), or someone gets hurt (at worst). I get so tired of the word 'diversity' - especially around the workplace, that I could spit sometimes!

The number of places you can have this kind of conversation I can count on one hand. One of them is here. Gut reaction? The people who have had to put their lives on the line to defend the right to free inquiry and civil debate...and the families who support them..know how to exercise the privilege in the way the Founders intended. Much more so than those that haven't had to? Maybe not, but it sure seems that way these days.

I called him a moron because he said something without thinking about how it would affect his career. I also agree with SangerM about language ability being better in females than in males. My boys didn't really start reading fluently until age 11. By the time they were 12, they were 11th grade, 9th month. My oldest was doing college algebra at 14. My second is a language kind of guy but is even more of a whiz at math. He does sums in his head, can balance his checkbook but hand him some homework problems and he melts. He has to see the practical, or concrete application instead of an abstract. So I use different teaching strategies to get him to learn it. Montessori is the best, as well as a classical approach. And, well, helk. I like being a girl. I also like learning how to do some guy stuff not because I wanna be equal, but so I can be better prepared if I have to use it. And besides, it is too much fun to make up. hehehehe. Bottom line, ability doesn't know gender differences in some areas, and in others, it does. Ability is what you look for, not gender, skin hair or eye color. Otherwise, green eyed red-streaked-with-gray haired little old ladies would never get picked.

Yeah - Math is a funny thing. My hubby is a finance whiz, he can read balance sheets and other business reports and zoom to the goofy number in a report every time. But I'm the one who cut and fitted the corner ceiling molding in our new pool table room. He's never gotten lost, either, although we've never tried anything like orienteering.

On the other hand... Lessee ,now, I don't want her even madder at me... Well, here goes: My (almost-certainly EX- after the last phone call) sweety actually is better at the spatial and computer stuff than most guys. Made good bucks as a draftsman for a while, too. She's not the least bit "mannish", and can get quite emotional in a female kind of way. (ouch!) A good natural shot, too, though she just won't practice! Parenthetical: What is it about women and S&W J-frames? They always seem to get the nasty little single-purpose defense guns, never something that might also be just, well, fun to shoot! Ah, maybe another difference! I mean, to a boy, a gun is a fun machine to play with. Oh yeah, it's also good for defense and offense, and killing food. Am preaching to choir, here, obviously.

I'll add to this... why not *grin*. Okay - first off, they said they wanted an edgy topic - that's what they got and then when they got it - they cried foul and said they didn't like it. Poor widdle girls. Instead of trying to argue their case with facts and hard data - they're crying "male chauvanist pig"! Unfortunately it makes them look FAR worse than just about anything else they've done up to now. As for the military... the standards for hazardous jobs should be the same for men and women. If there aren't enough women who can meet the standards, then so be it. Men and women should not have their lives endangered by ineptitude - period. My son did his basic at Ft. Benning - no women. I was very happy about this - they pushed him to the limit, there were no "time out" cards or whatever they're called. He trained hard and he trained to be the best. It gives him a great starting point and a much better chance of survival (IMHO). When he got to his AIT - he was not impressed with the PT - everything was toned down to accomodate the women... This should never be - all of our soldiers should be trained to their top level - it's only fair to ensure they have the best chance in enemy territory. I think Summers should be handed a medal not railroaded out of a job. This is something that should have been discussed YEARS ago. Just because the women don't "like" it, doesn't mean the men aren't thinking it. And until it's confronted - it will always be a stumbling block. Just my .02

Hmm, maybe we should get MaryPat, aka Meep! to chime in here. She's famously geeky and Mathic, and at the same time wallowing in Mommitude with her very adorable little daughter.

I'm an engineer (female) with an aerospace (defense) company working the newest aircraft. (Dusty, John can tell you what I work.) I worked aerospace for 12 years before my plant closed and I decided to stay home with my 3 boys full time. (Working even part time with 3 kids under 4 was kicking my ass.) Last year I got a call from a small aero firm ASKING me to come work for them. It was all MEN I'd worked with in the past, all wanting me. No questions asked just 'come in and state your pay'. I told them only 10 hours a week and their reply was "We will take what YOU can give us". They are begging me for more. My family is my priority. (I love the men I work with. LOVE them.) My analytical capacity is the same as the men I work with and they know it or they wouldn't have called me. I was content being home full time. That said, my father was career Navy, aviator, and what you speak of is true. If a female was not qualified to fly and she was passed through, she is now dead. If she can't run with the big dogs, she's got to get off of that porch. Period. (Damn, John, am I on a roll with your blog this week or what??? *grin*)

Well, I had to cut my initial response short (boss came back in and was wigging out). I wrote a nice post last night- and it got eaten somehow, 'cause I don't see it anywhere. Maybe dissention in the ranks is sensed by the computer... Anyway, Boudicca is lucky. You worked with a group of guys who recognized your talent without regard to your gender. I haven't been so lucky. I'm in investments- have a list of stock brokerish licenses. I've been told by men to "go back to the kitchen where I belong" and "you couldn't possibly know as much about Peter Lynch as a man". Just a couple of memorable gems. I hung up on the first guy- deserves to be castrated. The other one, I proved wrong- just before HE hung up on me. I know there are differences between men and women beyond the physically obvious ones (peeing standing up has always been a pet peeve of mine too, Sanger). Baby boys and baby girls develop at different rates- and baby girl preemies have a better survival rate than boys. Girls seem to mature quicker, even at very young ages, both mentally and physically. We are definately wired differently. We've never pushed boy toys on my kids, but they both seem drawn to Power Rangers, GI Joes and Transformers without our help. But that doesn't mean that they don't like to pick up stuffed animals and play house with them or have tea parties- they both like to do that too. Ever read Margot Thomas's "Billy wants a doll" story? It's in "Free to be you and me". Read it sometime. Point is: Despite our physical and mental differences, we should all be judged by our individual abilities- not our sex, age, color or native language. If research is going to be done to determine what the differences are- go for it. But present your ideas in a judicial manner, with some backup first. My problem with Summers is the way he presented his ideas about the "genetic inferiority of women" when it comes to science and math. My reaction would be no different if he was a woman (or shim or in transistion or under re-construction- hehehe).

Cricket- Exactly. Poopyheads....

Wow! 1) Sorry to have dropped comments and left, but yesterday got hectic in the PM. 2) I have to say this thread has some of the finest discussions/comments/opinion renderings I have read or heard on this subject, ever. Though you all don't really have a choice about who shares the waterhole here, I sure am pleased to be included in such company. No kidding. 3) I find it most amazing that we all share similar opinions about the subject; that even from difference perspectives, w/ different experiences, and different social/gender backgrounds, we all seem to have come to the same--fairly common sense--conclusions: People should be judged by ability; that gender-based "diversity" quotas are hardly better than discrimination based on gender. Wouldn't it be nice if the rest of society could discuss this and other sensitive issues with such calm. 4) I think a big part of the problem people have with summers is that they misunderstood the comments he made. While he certainly could be interpreted as citing "genetic inferiority of women" all he said was that most men and women are better or worse at different things, and that research seems to indicate this is tied to gender-genes. This is NOT the same as saying people are better or worse because of a their color, which supposedly cannot be told simply by looking at cell structures or genetic makeup. It is saying that research seems to show there are real, important genetic differences between men and women, and that those difference may have something to do with the things that most men and women are good at, or more to the point, that men or women may be most inclined to enjoy doing, and that they are best at. 5) It always amazes me how people focus on the negative and not the positive, and only on those negatives that are about them. This is no different a situation. See, the other half of what Summers said is that women tend to gravitate to and be better at "social" careers--people stuff. Well, I don't hear men getting all riled about that. Why? Because it's a stereotypical truth, and most of us know it to be true anyway. Really good people-skills men are salespeople. Everything else is pretty much mechanics, including Finance fields which is really just about manipulation and has a very large spatial component (interrelationships of components, relative strengths and weaknesses, etc.) 6) Personally, I hate race or gender-based quotas--but especially gender-based anything. Partly this is so because of my sense of fairness, partly it's because my life is different than it would have been if everyone was treated fairly. I was denied entry into law school in 1989 because I was a mediocre white male. Not because all other accepted applicants were more qualified than me (they were not), but because my LSAT scores put me in the mediocre white male category, which fell below the mediocre people of color and mediocre female categories for selection. Bottom line, I was denied entry into law school because I was white and male. And this is NOT my imagination or paranoid suspicion. I was told this by the Dean of the law school, in those words, when I went to ask him why I was not selected. He also told me the school had a policy, upheld in court the previous year to split every freshman class equally between men and women, 50-50, taking the top scoring folks from each gender, regardless of the LSAT scores or other qualifications. And after men and women were divided, non-caucasians were given preference over caucasians (non-white being given a higher score on the eval sheets than white). Was I bitter? Even now, no. Was I angry. Yes. I understood that women and non-whites faced more obstacles than I did, but the solution should not have been to discriminate against me. I deserved the same chance every other person deserved, regardless. The solution is to remove the obstacles, not to create more for me. More to the point, all of this also means that there are probably people out there who are now lawyers who are not as good at it, or who cannot serve their clients as well as I might have. They put a more "diverse" face on the profession, but in my mid this just calls into question the standing of the field. 7) Which brings me to this: Even though it is it NOT a given that the quality of a field or profession decreases by forcing race or gender diversity without regard to ability, I think it's pretty good odds that it does. "Diversity" as applied in our society today is intellectual, racial, and gender-based fascism. Adherence to the tenets of Diversity forces people to say things and make decisions that are based not on skills or merit, but on traits or attributes that have nothing to do with the ability to get the job done. Diversity also forces people to be quiet when they shouldn't have to. And this, I think, is exactly the case with Summers. What he said may prove to be wrong, but it may not--and probably isn't--but because it's a touchy subject, and because the feminists have declared that woman is mans' equal in every way, it would be anathema for any of them to even think about considering the alternative. It is because of this alone the Summers is being lambasted, and has been called every sort of silly name; accused of all sorts of intellectual perversity. To bad that. Woman would be better served, I think, by proving him wrong than by dismissing him out of hand. 8) On a final note: At about the age of 5, my daughter decided she wasn't going to sit down to pee anymore, that she could stand and do it, just like me. She insisted, demanded that she could do it, and that she be given a chance to prove it. I told her to go for it, then I stood there, arms crossed, leaning against the door frame while she pushed her pants to her ankles, leaned her legs against the bowl, and proceeded to pee all over the place--everywhere except in the toilet. She wasn't happy, but it made the point better than any verbal argument I could have given her. I even cleaned it up. This to me, is a metaphor for our current situation. Men (and many women) are standing there, arms crossed, leaning against the door frame, while other people with firm notions demand we are all equal in every way--that there are no gender differences that might affect our ability to perform in certain fields--and they refuse to believe until they fail. I know that's a simplistic view, but it is kind of how I feel. In our society everyone is demands and is expected to be given a chance to fail, even unto destruction of themselves or others. Even when other people with more experience or solid knowledge see the impending crash. While it's true my daughter might have been able to pee in the toilet, that would have been the greatest exception, and nowhere close to the rule. 'Nuff said for now, eh? -SangerM

H.L. - I do think that washing down the PT reqs, for example, is silly, if they are required to do the job. If someone wants to be in the Infantry, and it requires the ability to carry 60-lb rucks and hike 20 miles a day to be sure that you can met the stresses of the job - h*ll yes! I don't think we need women being allowed to 'qualify' for something just to say we have women doing it. That's what I meant by self defeating. I recognize that setting of different standards for various jobs within the military forces would be tougher than having one for men and one for women - and I don't know how to deal with it in Basic/Boot without simply separating the training groups by gender. (Which I am not opposed to, by the way.) Since I have no mil background, however, I don't really know whether there is a better way to set things up - it is a quandry. I was thinking more along the lines of the technical and business arenas, as the professor's comments were aimed directly at the math and science areas of knowledge and study. It is silly to say there is something genetic separating us into "men can / women can't" (or vice versa) when it comes to fields of knowledge. To lower the standards required to gain a particular level of degree or certification in technical areas for some kind of 'inclusion' policy is not a good answer to me. -Barb

SangerM - On your #2 above ("I sure am pleased to be included in such company") - that goes double for me! I lurked here for a long time before commenting, partly because I wasn't sure I could paddle fast enough to keep up with you all! This is indeed one of the finest places to visit and discuss. (And then turn around and have fun !)

I wrote above: In all of my last 3 platoons (the ones I ran), my subordinates consisted of females and males in nearly equal measure. To a person (both genders), they all performed as well as they could, given their intellectual, physical, and emotional strengths and weaknesses. This was true. It is also true that we went to the field together, as in we lived in and shared tents and work places (yes we slept in the same tents--in our clothes or underclothes, inside sleeping bags when needed). In the helicopter platoon, that meant four people of mixed gender working as a team to operate the aircraft and perform the mission. Gender was insignificant during the mission, but had some impact during the setup and teardown of the living spaces and operations hooches, etc. Mostly it did NOT matter. Also, since we worked in close, public places there was never time for people to get intimate without others being able to see. In the ground platoon, 3-4 person teams of mixed gender used sheltered-systems that were mounted, first on 5-ton trucks, and later on tracked vehicles. On the first system, everything, and I mean everything was manually done. This included hauling around wire spools that weighted hundreds of pounds, erecting and lower antennas that weighed quite a bit, or that required brute strength to hold steady while the guy wires were secured. We also had 10KW trailer mounted generators, dozens of fuel cans, and so on. It took HOURS to completely setup one of our sites and it took stamina and strength. Mostly, gender made no difference; however, I had to organize my teams so there were always both men and women on the team. Always. I could have organized men-only teams, but when I tried organizing women-only teams, they had problems with those things that required dumb brute strength. So what did I do? I adapted. I assigned people in mixed teams that worked. OF course, more than a couple of times, I had to rearrange teams because of sex and love issues, which I NEVER had to deal with when I was in tanks and Infantry, but hey, that was life. Later, the Army developed hydraulic/pneumatic mast systems and put 30KW generators on bigger trailers that had gas tanks on them, and made the cables smaller, and added automatic ground rod pounders, etc. This reduced the strength requirements a good deal, but it did not get rid of the need to haul around strands of concertina, or carry rucksacks, or all the rest. So, I still had to assign mixed teams, and I still had to play chaperone more often than I liked. Add to this that our unit was among the first to get graduated female West Pointers. In fact, of the 5 officers in the company, 3 were newly minted butterbars, two WP, one OCS. Here too, any problems (and there were a few) revolved around sex, and almost nothing else. And it wasn't the men who caused the problems at that level, either. In my platoons it was about even, but among the officers, the sex was the problem and it revolved around the women. So what's my point. Well, it won't be pleasant to hear, but it's this: I hated being in mixed gender platoons/units, and I hated being in charge of them, and that was among the reasons I left the Army before retiring. I hated baby-sitting, I hated having conversations with women about their periods or the need for extra sanitation in the field, or having to stand in front of a formation holding up a GIANT medical sanitary napkin to show the women what they would be given if any of them AGAIN forgot to bring their own to the field; or having to talk to my mixed groups about using condoms if they were going to screw; or hearing that one female NCO's diaphragm was falling out when I asked her why she was leaving our PT formation; or having my butt chewed by my 1SG because a used condom was found outside the window of one of my women's barracks rooms, or having to counsel two of my female NCOs for discussing the anal sex one of them had had the night before in front of a couple of pretty stupid young guys who got upset. I hated having to listen to women cry because joe-schmuck used them, then moved on to the next silly twit who fell for the lines; or on the other hand, having to listen to the boys cry because the girl they loved wasn't interested in them or because she had dumped him for another idiot in my platoon, or worse when the guy found out that the girl was doing it with almost anyone who asked--stupid men! And I hated having to tell women they needed to put on more than a sheer nightgown when going to the latrine in the mixed gender barracks, or being called while on Staff Duty to come deal with the couple who were screwing so loudly in one room that it was disturbing folks down the hall, or having to listen to one of my soldiers rant for an hour because another of my soldiers had screwed the first soldier's sister in the first soldier's bed! Do you get the idea, yet? And you think this was the exceptions? Hah! This is just the TIP of the iceberg! And most of all I hated having to deal with female Officers who didn't understand why it was wrong to show up for PT in skimpy, form-fitting aerobics togs, or why it was wrong to wear WAY too much perfume or makeup, or why it was wrong to have sex with my male AND female subordinates, even if they were in different platoons--AND especially when that involved venereal disease!!! And I doubly hated it when the one newly minted female West Point LT was made to resign for having a love affair with her male Platoon Sergeant, but he was reduced in grade from E-6 to E-5 (and he'd been on the E-7 list). Double standards? Let me tell you, in the 80's there were nothing BUT double standards. I was told by one woman that she would get herself pregnant and get out of the Army rather than stay in my platoon (which she had just been assigned to) because she heard I was a hard-a$$. Then she did just that!! If a man had told me that, I'd have owned his a$$. My complaint against her was deemed trivial. [uo oh... I think need to take a deep breath] Look, that's all water under the bridge for me, but I say with all sincerity, I hated working in mixed gender units, and I would never go back to doing such again. Mixed gender workplaces are different. One does not HAVE to deal with the intimacies of life, but in the military, in the field, in peacetime and war, you have NO choice but to deal with it. And anyone who says they are the same environments either hasn't been there or wasn't doing his or her job. -SangerM P.S. I just asked my wife to read this. She has heard most of this already, having listened to me rant for years while I was in the Army about this stuff. I assure none of the above is made up or exaggerated for this discussion -SM

AFSis: You wrote: The quote above is from the inquiry made by faculty at Harvard and mirrors my criticism of Summers' remarks. I am not arguing that gender differences do not exist- it is how you present your arguement that makes the difference here. Why? If the argument is valid, what difference does it make if he sugar-coats it. If the argument is not valid, then saying it differently, or in another way is not going to make it true. As for the quote by the other Harvard guy, I hate to say it, but I have little faith in anything that comes from a professor at any major US college. What was that fellow going to do, agree?!? Yeah, Right. After what happened to Summers, the only poeple on any cmapus who are talking are those who disagree anyway, or who are opportunists looking for a way to increase their cachet among the PC police. I assure you, I am not dissing you, but I do not agree with you, and especially with Mendelsohn's comments. 1) He's part a critical group--safety in packs. Where's his considered opinion based on facts? 2) Summers might have been right, might have been worng, but just because he "seems to be off the mark" doesn't mean he is. If Mendelsohn knows better why doesn't he just say so? Why? Because he _can't_. And THAT is MY point. All Mendelsohn really said is that he disagrees. So what? 3) Then Mendelsohn says "There's an implication that they've taken themselves out of that role. But he brings forward no evidence." Well, an implication is not a statement of fact. This is very nicely worded tripe designed to make it sound official and scholarly, but really just means "I do not agree because it sounds wrong and that other guy hasn't proven what he said." Besides, there is some evidence to support the idea that women have indeed self-selected professions that do not involve certain kinds of math or science. See, you quoted a guy who didn't really say anything just because he said it in a way that sounded like it meant something else. In fact, all Mendelsohn really did was buy some brownie points without taking any chances at all with his career. Nice, safe, perfecty qualified comment. Extremely typical of the North-American educanto-speaking wuss. -SangerM

Sanger- I agree with you on the mixed gender units. Not a good idea. Never was; never will be, for the reasons you stated. The rest: we'll have to agree to disagree, and since it appears I'm the minority here, I'm not going to say another thing about it. This may have been a civil discussion, but I just can't say anything more about it without getting all worked up, and I'm already worked up about something happening elsewhere. Sorry to bail, but I just can't.

Yeeha. I was startin' to feel like the local liberal...

Ah, she was just feeling a litle lonely, Sanger. Being one of apparently two sorta libs in the Castle (I'm apparently the other one) she was feelin' a little lonely. Everybody behaved... which, as Dusty said, ain't like DU, or, I would add - the Rottweiler Emperor's place. We managed to have a wordy discussion here even without a troll to feed, and while there may have been some occasional table slapping, no one took off a shoe, pounded the table and said, "We will bury you!"

Well, even if there were trolls, I have usually had civil discourse on blogs, unless you go to DU or even LGF. I haven't sounded off on the Brit Hume thread over at Cass's because I haven't read it all yet and I sometimes get so mightily irritated that I am afraid of saying something true, but rude. Therefore I sit and think and either say nothing or I will offer something that sounds lame by comparison. I know what my weaknesses are in a debate, and yet, if it is something I have strong thoughts about, I will do my best to articulate them and let it go.