I like your point with the racism/sexism genetics thing. "You say I can't do physics? Fine, then I will breed this ability into my children!" XD
But if scientific inclination/ability were to any degree sex-linked (if we could indeed find out at all), then what would that change? Boys are better at spatial relations but we don't stop teaching girls geometry, and we don't teach them any differently. And when girls are bad at geometry, we don't let them use "but I'm a girl!" as an excuse.
People may not think he's sexist, and he doesn't think of himself as sexist, but to me, the statement "that in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination" is inescapably sexist, even if he didn't mean it that way. He presents that "intrinsic aptitude" bit as fact, not theory to be debated, which is where the sexism lies.
And although I agree with most of his statements re: social factors in the way of women's advancement, I definitely disagree with what he calls "lesser factors." If my own (relatively pampered) experience is any guide, then there's a lot of work to be done re: socialization and continuing discrimination, not just for professionals in those fields, but for the common population as well.
Seems to me Summers is being a bit hasty in his assessment of current data. He assumes that the proportion of women who graduated 20, 25 years ago, should have the same proportion in management and professional positions today. Which would be nice, but unfortunately untrue. Social pressure must be fought off at every step of the way.
And since we're not even close to having done everything we can possibly do to promote the cause, then of what possible use was this comment of his? It doesn't help the PR campaign at all. Except insofar as any attention is good attention.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
zvi and
Re: um....
Date: 2005-02-23 06:09 pm (UTC)But if scientific inclination/ability were to any degree sex-linked (if we could indeed find out at all), then what would that change? Boys are better at spatial relations but we don't stop teaching girls geometry, and we don't teach them any differently. And when girls are bad at geometry, we don't let them use "but I'm a girl!" as an excuse.
People may not think he's sexist, and he doesn't think of himself as sexist, but to me, the statement "that in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination" is inescapably sexist, even if he didn't mean it that way. He presents that "intrinsic aptitude" bit as fact, not theory to be debated, which is where the sexism lies.
And although I agree with most of his statements re: social factors in the way of women's advancement, I definitely disagree with what he calls "lesser factors." If my own (relatively pampered) experience is any guide, then there's a lot of work to be done re: socialization and continuing discrimination, not just for professionals in those fields, but for the common population as well.
Seems to me Summers is being a bit hasty in his assessment of current data. He assumes that the proportion of women who graduated 20, 25 years ago, should have the same proportion in management and professional positions today. Which would be nice, but unfortunately untrue. Social pressure must be fought off at every step of the way.
And since we're not even close to having done everything we can possibly do to promote the cause, then of what possible use was this comment of his? It doesn't help the PR campaign at all. Except insofar as any attention is good attention.