I just got the impression that he was saying that maybe it was just possible that if you account for all factores of socialization, the average engineering aptitude of women (how one defines 'aptitude' I don't know) may be less than that of men. Which, you know, might be true. I don't know if it's true. I get the feeling nobody knows if it's true. Nor would it mean, if it were true, that all women have less potential than all men. Lots of women are better engineers than I could ever be, but it's possible that the average aptitude of women is lower. (For the record, it is also possible that the average aptitude for men is lower, although the imperfect evidence that we actually have makes this seem unlikely.)
The only possible use I could think of for such knowledge, by the way, is to explain a part of the numerical differences which exist between male and female engineers. As in, in the perfect society, where there is no gener bias whatsoever, men might still outnumber women in engineering jobs withough making the society any less perfect. (If there were innate differences in potential, the person in charge of said perfect society wouldn't worry about a gender disparity in engineering, because he or she would realize that the disparity was to be expected.)
If the innate disparity were true, it wouldn't justify denying women jobs for which they were qualified. You'd still have to judge people as individuals and measure their abilities fairly. You just might not suspect a nefarious bias if the ratio of men to women hovered around 21:19 instead of 1:1.
Of course, there's probably no way to measure potential anyway, and, even if we could, the the results of the study -- however they turned out -- might not help get rid of a gender bias (by which I mean unfairly dismissing a qualified individual because of gender). So maybe it's not something we need to know.
The only way I can think Summers suggestion bad is if it provides ammunition to people who want to keep women out of the sciences. (I don't think anyone would argue that Summers wants to.) Otherwise, he's presenting a theory to explain a gender imbalance. If it's wrong, it's wrong. But we shouldn't call it bad unless it leads to bad results.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
zvi and
um....
Date: 2005-02-20 08:53 pm (UTC)The only possible use I could think of for such knowledge, by the way, is to explain a part of the numerical differences which exist between male and female engineers. As in, in the perfect society, where there is no gener bias whatsoever, men might still outnumber women in engineering jobs withough making the society any less perfect. (If there were innate differences in potential, the person in charge of said perfect society wouldn't worry about a gender disparity in engineering, because he or she would realize that the disparity was to be expected.)
If the innate disparity were true, it wouldn't justify denying women jobs for which they were qualified. You'd still have to judge people as individuals and measure their abilities fairly. You just might not suspect a nefarious bias if the ratio of men to women hovered around 21:19 instead of 1:1.
Of course, there's probably no way to measure potential anyway, and, even if we could, the the results of the study -- however they turned out -- might not help get rid of a gender bias (by which I mean unfairly dismissing a qualified individual because of gender). So maybe it's not something we need to know.
The only way I can think Summers suggestion bad is if it provides ammunition to people who want to keep women out of the sciences. (I don't think anyone would argue that Summers wants to.) Otherwise, he's presenting a theory to explain a gender imbalance. If it's wrong, it's wrong. But we shouldn't call it bad unless it leads to bad results.