Well, that's the thing: if he's truly interested in finding out more, then the thing to do is write a paper (where he can cite his statistics) summarizing the research so far, not give "some attempts at provocation" at a summit for the National Bureau of Economic Research's panel. His speech sends up at least 4 red flags: 1.) no sources cited, 2.) he's not an authority in the field (he's an economist, not a scientist-- and the agenda for the conference is definitely looking at things from an economic/sociological standpoint), 3.) he wants to give "some attempts at provocation," which is usually not one's primary motive when setting out on a research hypothesis, 4.) (possibly the most egregious) he gives no justification for the ordering of his hypotheses other than his own opinion; he's supposed to be talking about the faculty research agenda, not just his research agenda. The speech is definitely not appropriate for the venue, because the venue is economics/sociology, not (hard) science (sociology of course being a science); he is definitely not the appropriate one for the speech, because he's an economist, not a scientist. So with all that in mind, the speech comes off as justification for him to stand up there and blather about things in an off-topic fashion. That is not the way one goes about research.
As for the ill and faint - the professor who fled the room presumably believes that there are no innate differences between men and women, and that only discrimination is keeping the numbers of high-ranked academic women from being the same as that of men. I'm sure she believes men have penises and women have vaginas (though that's not a satisfactory definition. I've never actually been able to come up with one, since there is not an absolute correspondence between XY/male genitalia and XX/female genitalia. There's the famous case of a neuroscientist who had an F-to-M sex change, and people began to comment about how his work was better than that of his sister... but he had no sister, they were referring to his previous identity).
That being the case, I would expect to see instances where male professors fled the room, ill and faint, because someone was suggesting that women were innately better than men at doing something. *crickets* Why? No one believes such statements (unless it's the usual trumpeting about "that feminine touch" and how women have this mystical power for relationships and intuition and making houses all pretty and raising children that men can't ever learn so let's not try, we'll just sit back and let them do all that), and they have no power. Nothing that women regularly do/are stuck with is considered desirable in our society. What we're "innately better" at is the stuff no one wants to do. The two statements would not be parallel, and not only because the power differentials. Also, you'd have to find the female equivalent of Summers to make a such a statement.
I'm reasonably sure, after reading Sommers' article, that she's never read Why So Slow?. It is not a manifesto. It is a very meta meta-analysis, and everything is meticulously documented, sourced and footnoted. It would be very hard to fudge data when presented in that fashion. It's disappointing that Sommers chooses to misrepresent such a book in order to achieve her ends... but I guess she was going for her own "attempt at provocation." It makes me suspicious of the rest of her claims.
And one might take a completely different track and ask: Why is it that we judge "success" as "how well you do in a paid profession?" Because that is denigrating anybody who chooses to be a homemaker instead. Right, which is one reason men have to put up with such guff when they choose to become homemakers... "Don't you know you're supposed to be the provider, you sissy?"
However, looking at the agenda, this conference seems very much slated towards making sure women who want to be scientists and mathematicians have no systemic biases against them... there's no trace of bashing homemakers about it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sarken
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-28 12:29 pm (UTC)As for the ill and faint - the professor who fled the room presumably believes that there are no innate differences between men and women, and that only discrimination is keeping the numbers of high-ranked academic women from being the same as that of men.
I'm sure she believes men have penises and women have vaginas (though that's not a satisfactory definition. I've never actually been able to come up with one, since there is not an absolute correspondence between XY/male genitalia and XX/female genitalia. There's the famous case of a neuroscientist who had an F-to-M sex change, and people began to comment about how his work was better than that of his sister... but he had no sister, they were referring to his previous identity).
That being the case, I would expect to see instances where male professors fled the room, ill and faint, because someone was suggesting that women were innately better than men at doing something. *crickets*
Why? No one believes such statements (unless it's the usual trumpeting about "that feminine touch" and how women have this mystical power for relationships and intuition and making houses all pretty and raising children that men can't ever learn so let's not try, we'll just sit back and let them do all that), and they have no power. Nothing that women regularly do/are stuck with is considered desirable in our society. What we're "innately better" at is the stuff no one wants to do. The two statements would not be parallel, and not only because the power differentials. Also, you'd have to find the female equivalent of Summers to make a such a statement.
I'm reasonably sure, after reading Sommers' article, that she's never read Why So Slow?. It is not a manifesto. It is a very meta meta-analysis, and everything is meticulously documented, sourced and footnoted. It would be very hard to fudge data when presented in that fashion. It's disappointing that Sommers chooses to misrepresent such a book in order to achieve her ends... but I guess she was going for her own "attempt at provocation." It makes me suspicious of the rest of her claims.
And one might take a completely different track and ask: Why is it that we judge "success" as "how well you do in a paid profession?" Because that is denigrating anybody who chooses to be a homemaker instead.
Right, which is one reason men have to put up with such guff when they choose to become homemakers... "Don't you know you're supposed to be the provider, you sissy?"
However, looking at the agenda, this conference seems very much slated towards making sure women who want to be scientists and mathematicians have no systemic biases against them... there's no trace of bashing homemakers about it.