The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The Larry Summers saga - women’s scientific aptitude and the truth about choice > Comments

The Larry Summers saga - women’s scientific aptitude and the truth about choice : Comments

By Leslie Cannold, published 24/3/2005

Leslie Cannold argues that Larry Summers' thesis that women lack 'intrinsic aptitude' is very mistaken

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
And Summers is the President of an apparently eminent academic institution! Where exactly are the academic skills in his speech? A bunch of waffly, spurious connections and anecdotes from Summers. Damaging stuff. What a fabulous connection he makes between the conversations of his very young twins and his theory that all females are predisposed to child-rearing ...

"I guess my experience with my two and a half year old twin daughters who were not given dolls and who were given trucks, and found themselves saying to each other, look, daddy truck is carrying the baby truck, tells me something."
Posted by Audrey, Thursday, 24 March 2005 12:01:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reading this article I was reminded of another article containing the lines:-

“Feminist organizations seem to be in a desperate hunt for a cause. In that quest, they are starting to sound downright silly”
by Kay Daly (a she, so it’s safe to read) in “Feminist Follies” http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/kdaly_20050301.html

And also

“It is hard for the average person to take the recent Harvard fracas over sex differences seriously”
by Janice Shaw Crouse (another safe article written by a female) in “Rejecting ideological tyranny” http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Crouse20050323.shtml

More interesting thoughts in this last article :-“For the radical feminists, equality of opportunity is not enough. It is no longer sufficient to have empowerment to achieve their potential. They seek control: acquiring pure power for its own sake.”

Now if the evil Prof Summers said the wrong thing, then what was the right thing, OR what is acceptable for a male to say about female gender and what is not?

Can a male say the following:- Compared to men- women wear more dresses, grow their hair longer, carry more handbags, and wear more cosmetics?

Is this acceptable to say, yes / no?

What about:- Compared to men- women prefer to wear more dresses, prefer to grow their hair longer, prefer to carry more handbags, and prefer to wear more cosmetics.

Is this acceptable to say, yes / no?

What about :- Compared to men- women prefer to do courses that contain less science and trade work.

Feminists must come clean at some time, and perhaps write a manifesto that details clearly and exactly what men can / cannot say regards the female gender. That way everyone will know.

And while they’re at it, they could also include what feminists can / can’t say about the male gender.

But within Australia, one cannot go past the Social Scientist Dr Susan Maushart http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,4040621%255E17282,00.html, who’s contribution to Australian Social Science seems to involve making highly maligning comments regards the male gender and her own children each and every week in The Weekend Australian. But not much objection ever shown from Australian feminists regards that.
Posted by Timkins, Thursday, 24 March 2005 3:44:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Even if what the Havard man says is true, he shouldn't have said it. But we're more the merrier for it.
Posted by Penekiko, Thursday, 24 March 2005 5:32:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think its futile to try to even measure womens/mens success in fields of academic enterprise, after all, its NOT a competition !
The simple fact, illustrated by the responses of some women who were asked why they took on part time work rather than full time academia was the issue of home life, and 'second shift' but the undeniable and irrefutable biological fact is, women are designed as the vehicle of child bearing and of nurture in the early stages of a new young persons life.
I feel a better approach is also not to speak of 'gender bias' when the bias in inherantly biological. It is a natural outcome of these complementary differences, and the reality of children and home life, that should wake us all up to the fact that we are in it together.

Instead of women saying 'remove the gender bias' so we can have the same academic stats as men'.. why not explain the reasons for it and get with the program of not being in competition ! Rejoice in your womenhood, blossom in child nuture, celebrate your academic acheivements, but don't seek to be 'like men', just seek to be ur best in the context of what you are.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 24 March 2005 8:30:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maths, science, art and english were my top subjects at school. Excelled at them and loved them - no one told me I shouldn't be any good at maths just because I was a girl.

I don't know why Boaz sees any posts promoting equality of opportunity as a competition. Not all women make great mothers, not all men make great fathers either. To impose motherhood or fatherhood on those who aren't willing is very wrong.

There is no reason why the workplace shouldn't become more family oriented this would free up men as much as women. A lot of men are more interested in their families than pursuing a career.

I don't want to be like a man - I don't know any women who do (except for Robbie but that's another story).

I have 2 children and manage to balance caring for them with my landscape business - like many women I wound up self employed to find the flexibility I need for my career and my family. I have a full life as a result and wouldn't have it any other way. My children were in child care from an early age and their social skills are way superior to mine when I was their age.

I will never rise to great heights in my profession because of the constraints of my family responsibilities and this is true for many women. This is why we still don't have equal representation in the higher levels of academic achievement. Larry Summers has not looked at the big picture and, unfortunately, his remarks will bring out the misogynists as this forum has demonstrated.
Posted by Ringtail, Friday, 25 March 2005 9:00:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringtail,
Your repeated claims that there are “misogynists” in this forum are definitely in need of substantiation and much clarification (ie specific details are now necessary).

Many men forego their careers for family. If they wanted more money or to further their careers they could get a job working in a mine or on an oil rig somewhere, where they can earn considerable income, but they may also be working 12 hr shifts (often in very harsh working conditions) and maybe have 4 days off per fortnight etc. The opportunity is there for many men, but they don’t take it because they would rather be closer to their families.

Instead many men do that type of work to earn money to get married, put a deposit on a house and start a family. However with the current divorce rate, (together with the almost guaranteed separation of the father from their children that goes with it), that dream becomes a nightmare for many, if not most fathers in today’s society.

What is most noticeable, is the almost complete absence of comment by feminists and many women on articles that malign the male gender(and there are many such articles, advertisements, TV shows, movies etc), while almost any comment by males about the female gender is instantly attacked, and labelled as “misogynist”.

A question for you, is what can a male now say about the female gender, and what can’t they say about the female gender?

And also, what can the female gender say about the male gender and what can’t they say about the male gender?

And also, is it acceptable to be continuously labelling someone (male or female) as misogynist without any specific details being given, or is this generalized “flameing”.
Posted by Timkins, Friday, 25 March 2005 9:41:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringtail ! good post, believe it or not, because you ILLUSTRATE exactly my point about a much more positive approach by our child bearing better halves to managing their lives than the attempt to fit into the regular work-a-day grind that men and single or childless women tend to see as the holy grail of personal fulfillment.

I am not against equal opportunity, lets get that straight. I AM against 'stupid' equal opportunity, i.e. putting female police in charge of male offenders who are able to take their guns and blow away 4 people. I'm against putting females on the front line of either police blockades against protestors, or on the front line of combat operations where hand to hand combat is a strong likelihood.
That is purely pragmatic, and recognizes that we guys are stronger than you gals. Its the way it is moit.

Now, for the biological reasons already discussed, I totally support YOUR approach, because it gives WAY more fulfillment than being limited to what some 'boss' thinks ur worthy of, it avoids work place politics, it gives you freedom to expand and grow as much as your energy and inclination allows, AND..... gives you the time to manage children effectively ! Now.. what is not to love about THAT ? That is where I'd like to see ALL women who have families. i.e. HAPPY :)

Anyone who tells me I should be happy travelling in traffic snarls, or crowded trains for 2 hours a day just to get to a job where I face all kinds of constraints on my creativity and drive is in need of professional help I reckon. As it is, I am self employed, live on the edge of melbourne, on a large block surrounded by trees, next to a golf course yippeee....

Tim, I see the age of miracles is not ended, you made a 'short' post and it had no links :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 26 March 2005 9:13:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said, Timkins and Boaz_David.

Of course, we will inevitabaly attract meanspiritedly vicious epithets from the likes of Ringtail (who will earnestly tell you how ‘compassionate’ they are)---but that’s their predictable style because they can offer no rational counterpoint.

But it is Penekiko with whom we need to take most serious issue. His/her statement that “Even if what the Havard man says is true, he shouldn't have said it” is a frightening exhibition of the pure “Nazism” that so characterises much of the feminist movement.

I am quite shocked that such a dictatorial willingness to suppress the truth is so blatantly exhibited and yet not a word of dissent.

In Penekiko’s words do we see the fundamental reason why rampant gender feminism is finally proving to be the social disaster that it really is.

Leslie Cannold’s piece is riddled with disingenuities, delusions and flat-out falsehoods. Because these are critically important social issues, and my focus is the relentless destruction of Australia’s social well-being, I have taken the time to extensively analyse and respond to most of the points Cannold makes. Due to the 350-word limit on this forum, that work is posted at http://www.oz-aware.com/feminism1.htm
Posted by ozaware, Saturday, 26 March 2005 9:24:42 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Behold, the Messenger has returned to spread wisdom among us. Do not debate "St Peter", for His message is that of Ultimate Truth, as passed down to him from the Ancients.

Call Him for what He is and Ye will be struck down by a bolt of censorship.

Hallelujah, He is Risen!

Praise the Lord and pass the patriarchal bulldust!

For a real laugh follow St Peter's link.
Posted by morganzola, Saturday, 26 March 2005 10:38:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz,

I try to look at an issue from different aspects before I make a judgement, so I include links to some articles I have referenced.

Unfortunately this method of looking at issues has resulted in myself eventually forming an objective judgement that feminism is one of the most fraudulent, hypercritical, corrupted and damaging social systems ever seen in western society in recent decades.

In relation to Larry Summers, the author presents a distant and biased viewpoint, but a more localised and objective view is contained in an article titled “Dear Ellen”; or,
Sexual Correctness at Harvard” by Ruth R.Wisse (who is a female professor currently at Harvard)
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/production/files/wisseadvance.html

This article contains the following:-

“As for an ideal of equality based on equal outcomes, it not only sabotages equal opportunity but engenders a system that corrupts everyone who participates in it.”

“But that is not the end of the corruption. The women’s caucus at Harvard, which boasts of representing 90 percent of the senior female faculty, claims to be fighting for “diversity.” There are currently 86 tenured female professors in the arts and sciences at Harvard; there may be a tenth that number of tenured Republicans, male or female. By substituting sexual for intellectual or any other kind of diversity, feminist watchdogs have already done their bit to help create Harvard’s notoriously monolithic faculty.”

“As it happens, a friend of mine who is a member of this same group recently attended her 25th reunion at one of the “seven sister” colleges…. But instead of flaunting their achievements, many of these classmates resentfully took the occasion of their reunion to rail at the school’s administration and faculty for not having encouraged them to aim for husbands and families while they still could. “Why weren’t we told?”

So, what exactly is being complaining about? Prof Summers, women's reproductive systems, the fraudulent nature of feminism, the hours involved in science and technology work etc

It is uncertain, but it is very noticeable that so much maligning of the male gender goes uncommented on.

Is this maligning of the male gender acceptable to feminists?
Posted by Timkins, Saturday, 26 March 2005 11:09:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Only when the playing field is truly level - both at home and at work - "

But inevitably we revert to an unbalanced discussion of the rights of women only.

Sadly, there's no male "Equal Childcare Opportunity" funding, akin to female "Equal Employment Opportunity" funding. Without official encouragement, fathers are increasingly abandoning pay increases/promotions to spend more time at home.

An Affirmative Action program giving fathers preferential options to stay home would allow careers for more mothers.

"Women do give up and accept life on the Mummy-track, a lack of real options to balance work and family is the cause."

The same essential imbalance quashes Dad's desire to spend more time with family. Father's conundrum is "life on the Lost-Family-track". Dad's financial-provider role steals his desires just as Mum's child-nurturer role steals hers. Dad's overtime means Mum must care for the kids.

BOTH parents should be encouraged to pursue their "non-traditional" roles: freeing Dad for family, freeing Mum for a career. Women can better advance careers when men are afforded time with families.

This is particularly true in divorces, where maternal demands are magnified. By acknowledging in law the majority who want shared equal care after divorce, we would free time for more women to advance careers, and also satisfy men's desires to be with their children.

Some divorced mothers resist shared care because they fear reduction of their nurturing role. Yet women could more easily pursue financial independence, which is also enormously desirable and empowering for most women.

The divorce reality, now, is mothers financially trapped for years until their children reach 18, whereupon they are finally "freed", but without job skills.

Indeed, incentives to employers to take on time-share employees are needed.

It is true; we need equality both at home and work for women to excel in the workplace.

I have, however, seen few women with gnawed stumps. Empowering women also means allowing them to stay at home if they desire. It's not logical to claim US PhD and Science students and academics as indicative of the general Australian population.
Posted by Andyman, Saturday, 26 March 2005 6:38:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz_David,

Society would function much better if police and army ranks drew only on female recruitments. Evidence: God Emperor of Dune, by Frank Herbert. Yes it is obviously a science fiction novel, but keep in mind that fiction is often an effective way to convey philosophy and sociology.

"Leto II founded the Fish Speakers to enforce his rule over
everything that exists anywhereuniverse. He found the existing military organisations, the Fremen and the Sardaukar, unsuitable to his needs. Leto believed that male dominated military organisations were essentially predatory and would turn on the civilian population in the absence of an external enemy. He also needed a reliable religious organization to enforce what came to be known as Leto's peace to ensure the unfolding of the Golden Path. Leto trained them to be fanatical, disciplined, and extremely effective soldiers and police. Leto used the Fish Speakers in his breeding program, taking advantage of their speed and strength."

from http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/F/Fi/Fish_Speakers.htm

The Havard man said more or less, "women aren't as intelligent as men." Well who in this forum believes that? Now, if you were VC of a prestigious institution, would you say what he said?
Posted by Penekiko, Sunday, 27 March 2005 9:18:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Penikiko, I would probably be regetful if I'd said what he said :)

Timkins and Andyman, yes, noted.
Andy, the main point on your post I have reservations about is trying to make the playing field so 'even'. If we all had the same "equipment". I'd agree. But we don't. Females are the nurterers, and men are the warriors,protectors, providers. Once the nurtering is basically done, arrange it how u like, maximize ur potential by any means, but never, NEVER let those precious children (if there are any) come to the view that they are just 'baggage' who are in the way of better careers.
I feel we have become so much slaves of the '2 income' mentality and economy, driven by our sense of what we 'should rightfully have' (consumerism) that we have lost track of true happiness, which is (in my arrogant godbothering narrow minded opinion :)) To enjoy family life, and good meals and shared work and recreation.

I recommend a close reading of the book of Ecclesiastes, written by King Solomon who had 'tried the lot' and ended up with some notable conclusions. (about life)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ecclesiastes;&version=64;

It opens with these words:

1 The words of the Teacher, son of David, king of Jerusalem:
2 Meaningless! Meaningless! says the Teacher. Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.
3 What does man gain from all his labour at which he toils under the sun?
4 Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains for ever......

---

.. And the existentialists thought they had discovered something 'new' :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 27 March 2005 7:11:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Penekiko,

The Harvard man (Prof. Summers) did NOT say (or imply) that “women are less intelligent than men”.

When we start basing our comments on untruths then the whole discussion becomes idiotic and pointless. Your mistake is an unfortunate example of what happens when emotions take over.

Only an idiot would believe that women (generally) are less intelligent than men (generally). But every rational, grounded person—male and female—would accept that women and men are....…different.

The word ‘different’ contains no implication of ‘superiority’ or ‘inferiority’.

The simple reality is that men and women are superior to those of the opposite sex; only in different facets of their natural abilities.

There is a great and largely unrealised danger to society in the propositions of gender feminists like Leslie Cannold. The essay at http://www.oz-aware.com/unconscious1.htm explains.

There's ample evidence---and growing---that gender feminism has caused great harm to all men, women and children, in any order you please.
Posted by ozaware, Tuesday, 29 March 2005 1:07:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok, so if he didn't say or imply what I said he did, what is the problem? Why are we posting on this forum? Why did this person write an article and what was the article about (I've forgotten).

I am confused.
Posted by Penekiko, Tuesday, 29 March 2005 3:11:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Penekio
The situation with Summers represents a battle going on within US universities between the left and right side of politics. Most of the US universities are heavily dominated by left wing politics, and also by feminism, and many people in the US have now begun to complain about it as there is so little diversity of thought anymore. Complaints have come from the students and from the parents who save all their lives to send their children to university, only to have them brainwashed by a left wing politician or by a feminist.

Summers is much more right wing than left, and it has been thought that the meeting he was invited to attend was a staged set-up, to try and ambush him in some way, and then attempt to ruin his career. It is probable that if he had made remarks negative towards the male gender at that meeting, the feminists there would probably had applauded him, but they waited until he said something about the female gender, and then played the part of drama-queens, saying that they felt physically ill etc.

So the meeting was probably a staged set up, to try and take out Summers from Harvard, and to keep the present status quo of left wing politics and feminism within the US university system.

Many women in the US have now seen through the charade of the feminists at Harvard, and have begun to speak out about it, and I have previously given some links to their example articles

Whether US parents will continue to send their children to a US university is another matter if the lack of diversity in those universities continues, and whether parents will continue to send their kids to universities in Australia if they become so lacking in diversity as they are in the US is also a looming issue.
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 29 March 2005 3:36:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Summer's remarks are just daft, but he is perfectly entitled to make them. Everyone has a right to say silly things, but they have to be prepared to cop the flack that follows.
Weighting the public sphere to keep women at the lower end of it, is not just a problem for women. Only accessing half the available talent properly is a tax on all of us.
For example, the angst expended over the fact that boys do less well at school than girls, something that is not a recent phenomenon, by the way, is interesting. In the whole debate I never hear a soul worrying about what happens to all those talented, high performing, highly educated girls after they leave school and university. The loss to society of maximising their brain power must be incalculable, but we don't seem to care much, because it is female brain power we are losing, something we still don't value very much.
Yes, intelligent, educated mothers are a good thing, but motherhood alone simply does not exercise the brain enough. I know, I spent 5 years at home when my kids were small and I was never more miserable in my life. I loved my kids, but hated my isolation and the sheer boredom and drudgery of my days. I went back to work part-time and found myself again. I dread to think what kind of mother I would have been if I'd stayed at home any longer.
It always strikes me as so convenient for blokes when they argue that women, by virtue of their biology, should just accept earning less money, exercising less political power and doing much more of the boring, mundane, unrewarding work. What are they so afraid of, I wonder? Let the most talented bloom and shine, whatever their bloody gender. All of us will benefit when we do, but surely it is the least we can do for our sons and daughters?
Posted by enaj, Wednesday, 30 March 2005 1:35:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins is exactly right.

"Femininazism" has been aggressively advancing in our society using deadly techniques that often pass unnoticed. In Leslie Cannold's essay is an example:

"calls for his resignation have been coming thick and fast"

Gender feminists have no interest in freedom of speech. They will "cut the throat" of anyone who does not toe their line. In this sentence we see that their response to Professor Summer's (at least 'informed', if not scientific views) is to seek to literally destroy him by ousting him from his livelihood.

These people are as dangerous to our society as the Nazi movement was to German society sixty years ago. Yet, sucked in by their disingenuous appeals (which also was Hitler's technique!), very few 'ordinary' people realise it....
Posted by ozaware, Thursday, 31 March 2005 7:40:30 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If I was paranoid I could understand what was going on on this forum, unfortunatley I decided that paranoia wasn't for me. This is not a comment on your post enaj.
Posted by Penekiko, Thursday, 31 March 2005 7:40:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted for flaming]

Back to the issue, Summers words were thoughtless and many women are understanderbly upset. However, it is better that attitudes like his are brought into the open and discussed rather than in the past where women were unable to openly complain without fear of censure.

As a number of participants in this forum demonstrate - equal opportunity for women requires constant vigilance. How easily are some men threatened by intelligent independant women - to the point they have convinced themselves that feminism is akin to nazism - wot rot!

I am not interested in some helpless, submissive female - while I don't mind being protective I prefer a women who can take care of herself - leaves more time for other pleasurable activities. Ladies not all of us live in fear of you and I'm man enuff to say it.
Posted by Ambo, Thursday, 31 March 2005 7:56:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The usual suspects Timkins, the usual suspects and arguments abound. Women do balance things differently from men, but no matter how much maligned you guys may feel in the working world, we live in a patriarchal society in the working world (no one can argue it's matriarchal). As a working woman with no children, I would still give my eyeteeth to be able to earn enough money to employ a house cleaner so that when I get home I don't have to do another lot on the weekend. And pursue other things. It is all about balance. If anyone wants to work at their job for 50 hours a week, it had better be their business otherwise they have a lousy boss or are on a treadmill from hell. Nobody on their deathbed would say "Gee I wish i had spent more time at the office" but in this life, to be dismissed by an acedemic dickwhack as to your gender equals ability to take on certain things in an environment that needs changing for all workers, gets on my proverbial goat.
Posted by Di, Friday, 8 April 2005 10:41:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy