Don't Tell Larry Summers

Megan O'Rourke summarizes some new research indicating that women may be reluctant to enter some traditionally male-dominated fields in part because they're so . . . male dominated:

A new study published by Psychological Science of undergraduate women majoring in math, science, and engineering found fresh evidence that cues of gender-imbalance negatively affect not only women's performance but their desire to perform. (The study was conducted by Claude Steele and others.) In the study, some women watched a gender-balanced video about an upcoming conference in their field, while others watched a similar video in which male speakers outnumbered female. The participants who watched the latter video "reported a lower sense of belonging and less desire to participate in the conference, than did women who viewed the gender-balanced video."

That makes a lot of sense. More at the bottom of this article. Read the original paper (I'll admit that I haven't) in PDF here.

Comments

There was an article in the Economist some years ago on a Swedish report exploring why women got very expensive educations as biologists and then left the field. It turns out one big reason was they were discriminated against. There were equivalences - how many papers a woman had to publish to have an equal shot at getting a grant with a man. In terms of the factors affecting getting a grant, number 1 was knowing the people on the committee; number 2 was being male; and number 3 was quality of previous work.
I don't know how Swedish academia compares to the American model - perhaps it is very Germanic and conservative - but I wouldn't guess there to be a huge difference between us and them.

Posted by Peter | October 22, 2007 10:50 PM

I don't understand why this is supposed to be a problem. The same effect probably tends to discourage men from entering fields dominated by women. Both sexes probably tend to prefer to go into fields in which they are not the minority. This isn't coercive or exclusionary, it's just the effect of people making free choices.

This effect is one way in which social factors can amplify innate sex differences. If small innate differences between men and women in their interest and aptitude for math, science and engineering would tend to produce a modest gender imbalance, that imbalance may then be amplified by the self-segregation effect. Ditto for fields in which women dominate, like nursing and social work.

Posted by Mixner | October 22, 2007 10:54 PM

Why the Larry Summers hatin'?

He didn't have a feeling one way or the other, he was just saying one potential hypothesis is genetic differences. If you want to work in the economics sciences you can't just dismiss a hypothesis because it isn't PC.

Posted by Jar Jar Binks | October 22, 2007 11:17 PM

With a brother and sister-in-law both PhDs/Professors in the physical sciences, I can confirm from their testimony that, at least anecdotetally, my sister-in-law often meets with condescension at best and discrimination at worst, even though they're at a pretty elite institution.

And, Matt, I would have hoped a Harvard-grad would have tried to put this whole Summers thing to bed. All it does is increase his ability to get himself paid.

If you're going to mock him, mock him over the fact that for all of his supposed brilliance, he benefitted from some of the most underreported nepotism seen in the field of Economics.

Also, he is a git.

Posted by Greg | October 22, 2007 11:30 PM

Why the Larry Summers hatin'?

Because he had the temerity that suggest that some, just some, of the gender imbalance in science and math and engineering might, just might, be due to genetic differences between the sexes. All right-thinking people know that all such imbalance is due solely and completely to gender discrimination, and anyone who even suggests the truth might be a bit more complex than that should be attacked and stigmatized relentlessly.

Posted by Mixner | October 22, 2007 11:59 PM

Both sexes probably tend to prefer to go into fields in which they are not the minority. This isn't coercive or exclusionary, it's just the effect of people making free choices.

I'm not as sensitive to these arguments as most, but come on. How can you concede the study is probably valid and then say it's irrelevant? When most fields originally became dominated by men there obviously were incredibly strong 'coercive and exclusionary' elements at play. That's the entire point.

Posted by DJ | October 23, 2007 12:15 AM

Greg,

Summers is a brilliant economist, no matter what dimension you look at (awards, citations, publications in top journals, etc.).

Also, your sister-in-law might meet condescension because she's a bad scientist, just hypothesis worth considering. But even if she's a good one, facing condescension in a when presenting in a workshop is sort of par for the course.

Posted by Jar Jar Binks | October 23, 2007 12:20 AM

the above is also the reason why there are so few women playing offensive line in the NFL.

Posted by lucretius | October 23, 2007 12:30 AM

How can you concede the study is probably valid and then say it's irrelevant? When most fields originally became dominated by men there obviously were incredibly strong 'coercive and exclusionary' elements at play. That's the entire point.

How the field originally came to be dominated by men is irrelevant to the finding of the study. What the study found is that the mere fact that men outnumber women in the field discourages further entry into the field by women.

This implies that even in an idealized gender-neutral social environment, where men and women have perfect freedom to choose whatever field they like, if a gender imbalance arises in a field at all (and for whatever reason), it will tend to be self-reinforcing. As soon as men outnumber women, that will tend to discourage further entry by women, producing an even larger gender imbalance, producing even greater discouragement, and so on. It's a positive feedback loop.

And the same is probably true for fields dominated by women, like nursing and social work. Men are probably discouraged from entry by the fact that women outnumber them.

This gender self-segregation effect isn't exactly a new idea. Steven Pinker described it years ago.

Posted by Mixner | October 23, 2007 12:46 AM

This is a perfect example of how, for all their chest-thumping about living in the "reality based community", liberals will never let go of certain cherished mythologies. In this case, Larry Summers said women are bad at math.

Posted by Homer | October 23, 2007 12:54 AM

From O'Rourke's blog post:

Men who watched the videos didn't report any differences in their sense of belonging--but those who watched the video with more women expressed more desire to participate in the conference.

This seems to rebut the idea of a positive feedback loop, in that any female-only community will eventually be invaded by males. Male-only communities, however, will not be overrun by women, who seem to be uninterested in joining them.

Posted by Andrew | October 23, 2007 12:58 AM

I thought Larry Summers got canned for "the straw that broke the camel's back" reasons. He was disliked within the College(but not apparently, in the other Harvard schools) for being a jerk and/or not coddling the faculty. There was also the small matter of a Russian aid scandal that tarnished Harvard's name.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/27/business/media/27mclintick.html?_r=1&ei=5070&en=ab530fb04e7ba71a&ex=1141707600&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1141610629-3nAkOqVgdMEJRc2pQ6enWg%20&oref=slogin

For a brilliant guy who was probably the youngest Treasury Secretary since Hamilton, its surprising Summers didn't have the political savvy to realize if you have one foot in the grave and one foot on the banana peel, you don't go out and make provocative (if not offensive) public statements.

Posted by beowulf | October 23, 2007 1:11 AM

This seems to rebut the idea of a positive feedback loop, in that any female-only community will eventually be invaded by males.

Well, there are probably other, sex-specific influences at work also. Maybe men in certain fields with low female participation do want more women. But men don't seem to be rushing into nursing and elementary school teaching and social work. Those fields are, as far as I'm aware, still dominated by women.

Posted by Mixner | October 23, 2007 1:27 AM

Wow! Amazing how quickly the mob of assholes crawls out of the woodwork to respond to posts like this.

Posted by onymous | October 23, 2007 1:30 AM

beowulf,

If Summers' enemies' real problem with him was some other issue or set of issues, then they should have confronted him on those issues, instead of using the speech as an excuse to attack the man. Really, really craven and dishonest.

Posted by Mixner | October 23, 2007 1:42 AM

As soon as men outnumber women, that will tend to discourage further entry by women, producing an even larger gender imbalance, producing even greater discouragement, and so on. It's a positive feedback loop.

Yes, and the fields where that gender imbalance discourages women from entering tend to have a much higher status/salary on average than fields where the gender imbalance discourages men. In many cases that original gender imbalance was enforced by outright discrimination. Women today are getting shafted by discrimination that occurred in the past.

Certainly sounds like a problem, albeit one that is impossible to quantify due to the myriad of other factors at play.

Posted by DJ | October 23, 2007 1:46 AM

But men don't seem to be rushing into nursing and elementary school teaching and social work. Those fields are, as far as I'm aware, still dominated by women.

Those particular fields are also perceived as rather low-status, and indeed, it often seems as if no one is rushing into those professions. Nursing, in particular, always seems to be facing a shortage of late. Why would a sufficiently ambitious, intelligent person interested in medicine become a nurse rather than a doctor unless she was being discriminated against, as was historically the case? Now that women are being admitted into medical schools on an equal basis as men, the artificially high supply of "competent people interested in medicine but unable to become doctors" has dried up.

On pure speculation, I would guess that men tend to stray away from those fields because of the poor pay associated with them. Society places an expectation on men to make more money than their wives, and many men feel uncomfortable if their wife out-earns them. I expect that if elementary school teaching, nursing or social work see large, permanent increases in wages, they'd see a larger male interest.

Posted by Andrew | October 23, 2007 1:51 AM

Let me see if I understand this right, women, view a videotape of a conference and then make a determination if they want to participate in this conference depending upon the balance of men to women in the videotape.

A) What does conference participation have to do with entering a field?

B) What happened when men were shown these sorts of videos?

C) What if it's true. Is any of this somehow the men's fault?

D) Assume it's true. Does this support Patriarchy Theory, or does this weaken Patriarchy Theory?

E) Assume it's true. Should we spend more money encouraging women enter a field and make career choices than we spend on men? Should we have hiring quotas? Should we change hiring factors? Should we make hiring women easier than hiring men? Should we merely ensure that all hiring standards are gender neutral?

Was this post part of your deal with teh feminists from two days ago, or just part of your deal with your grrl friend Sarah?

Posted by feh | October 23, 2007 1:59 AM

DJ,

Yes, and the fields where that gender imbalance discourages women from entering tend to have a much higher status/salary on average than fields where the gender imbalance discourages men. In many cases that original gender imbalance was enforced by outright discrimination. Women today are getting shafted by discrimination that occurred in the past.

Unless all of the "original" imbalance was caused by discrimination and its effects, and none by innate sex differences in aptitude and interest that affect career choices, or other mechanisms, then even in a perfectly gender-neutral social environment there would still be some imbalance, and that imbalance would presumably grow larger through the effect described in the study (women choosing not to enter the field because they're already outnumbered by men).

But whatever its cause, if you consider the current imbalance to be a problem, what remedy do you propose? Suppose you root out and destroy every last bit of discrimination you can find, and men still enter the field at twice or three times the rate of women, then what?

Posted by Mixner | October 23, 2007 2:06 AM

"Nursing, in particular, always seems to be facing a shortage of late."

When you hear claims of a labor shortage in a particular industry, it usually means that employers are trying to justify the need to import cheaper workers from abroad. There is no shortage of nurses now, because nurses are well-paid.

"Why would a sufficiently ambitious, intelligent person interested in medicine become a nurse rather than a doctor..."

Oh, let's see:

Because getting into medical school in the U.S. isn't an option for anyone who had a GPA of less than 3.5 or so in college.

Because it takes a fraction of the time to become a R.N. than it does to become an MD board-certified in a specialty.

Because the pay for RNs can rival that of the lower-paid medical specialties.

Because physicians-in-training are treated like shit for several years.

Posted by Juan | October 23, 2007 2:07 AM

I don't understand why this is supposed to be a problem. The same effect probably tends to discourage men from entering fields dominated by women. Both sexes probably tend to prefer to go into fields in which they are not the minority. This isn't coercive or exclusionary, it's just the effect of people making free choices.

It is preposterous to look for some kind of symmetry here. There is no profession dominated by women that is as prestigious as any of the sciences. Consider the possibility that some, just some of the aversion women have to being alone among large groups of men is on account of their prior formative experiences, some-just-some of which are reflections of lamentable and improvable aspects of society.

I suppose I can't prove it or quantify in blog comments, but it is also the case that there is a lot of overt sexism in the sciences, almost unconcealed except in grant proposals. It seems to me that it barely exists among younger scientists, which is great, but the 60-year-olds do wield some influence.

jenny

Posted by jenny | October 23, 2007 2:08 AM

Why would a sufficiently ambitious, intelligent person interested in medicine become a nurse rather than a doctor unless she was being discriminated against, as was historically the case?

Off topic to your actual argument, from what I've seen, the nurses claim that if you actually want to care for people you become a nurse. I think they also say they are not inferior to the docs, but a peer of the docs.

I know that if you're in the hospital, you better hope you have a good team of intelligent, caring nurses.

Posted by jerry | October 23, 2007 2:10 AM

Andrew,

Those particular fields are also perceived as rather low-status, and indeed, it often seems as if no one is rushing into those professions.
Nursing, in particular, always seems to be facing a shortage of late. Why would a sufficiently ambitious, intelligent person interested in medicine become a nurse rather than a doctor unless she was being discriminated against, as was historically the case?

She probably wouldn't. But we cannot assume that men and women are equally interested in or have equal aptitude for becoming a doctor. Or a nurse. Or anything else. If talents and interests innately differ by sex in ways that are relevant to occupation, we wouldn't expect equal gender representation in all occupations even in a perfectly discrimination-free social environment.

Posted by Mixner | October 23, 2007 2:18 AM

On pure speculation, I would guess that men tend to stray away from those fields because of the poor pay associated with them. Society places an expectation on men to make more money than their wives, and many men feel uncomfortable if their wife out-earns them. I expect that if elementary school teaching, nursing or social work see large, permanent increases in wages, they'd see a larger male interest.

I agree. But I don't think you're ever going to get wages for teachers and social workers anywhere near the levels of, say, doctors and lawyers and business executives. Some occupations will always pay much more than others, and if the talents and interests of one sex tend to be more consistent with higher-paying occupations than the talents and interests of the other sex, gender-based economic inequality isn't likely to go away.

Posted by Mixner | October 23, 2007 2:39 AM

Suppose you root out and destroy every last bit of discrimination you can find, and men still enter the field at twice or three times the rate of women, then what?

I'm glad you're on board. We'll be planning consciousness raising meetings with major corporations and universities over the next year, as well as campaigning for anti-sexism and anti-racism training for all employees. New policies protecting those who have historically been discriminated against.

I don't know what we'll do if all of these policies are implemented and the evidence of discrimination disappears. But we'll certainly check in then.

Posted by DivGuy | October 23, 2007 8:04 AM

Mixner,

I am impressed with the stellar work you are putting into this debate. There are different anti-feminist positions that one can take, and you seem to be taking all of them, even the ones that undercut the other ones you are taking. Some people might have felt compelled to take a single position and stick with it.

But your criticism of the way that Summers was fired suggests you were not following that story too closely. The reasons given for firing Summers had nothing to do with his comments on women in science. People naturally enough accused Harvard of being dishonest and underplaying the role of that dispute in his firing, but the people who fired him argued that it was his running of Harvard that got him fired.

Now you are arguing that if it was not the science comments that got him fired, then that is what the debate should have been about. But it was not the people who fired Summers who made the debate about that. It was Summers' defenders (most of whom weren't really defending Summers, but rather were defending some nebulous idea that PC is out of control on campuses, and this just proves it).

Posted by Lon | October 23, 2007 9:30 AM

I can think of two traditionally male-dmoinated fields, where discrimination against women was massive, that are no longer male-dominated: law and medicine. Currently, about a quarter of doctors in the US are female (and more than half of medical students are female). About a quarter of the lawyers in the US are female, and about 45% of all law students are female.

Why did those two fields change, but not the hard sciences? (Medicine is especially interesting, because it's fairly math heavy.)

Posted by A Nonny Mouse | October 23, 2007 10:10 AM

" (Medicine is especially interesting, because it's fairly math heavy.)"

??? AFAIK aside from Org.Chem (and whatever prereqs you needed for org.chem), there's not much in the way of math in medicine, except maybe a bit in physiology and pharmacology. Clinicians and even researchers in medicine are notoriously weak on statistics, frex., which drags down to the quality of articles in medical journals.

But biology, including molecular biology, are at least 50/50 male female, so it's not that surprising that medicine would be the same.

And, in engineering or physics or chemistry, the womeon who are in it are generally more competent that men: you rarely see an incompetent women engineer. I've always tried to get women bosses because of that.

Posted by Sock Puppet of the Great Satan | October 23, 2007 10:42 AM

Well, this is pointless. If there is unfair discrimination towards women in the sciences, as in hiring practices, salary, etc., then we should take steps to deal with that. But if women themselves don't want to go to a conference because there are too many scary men there, then it just sounds like the women have a discrimination problem.

How about show white people a video of a conference with a lot of black people at it. Are the ones who don't want to participate because there are too many black people there, which would affect their 'sense of belonging,' victims somehow? Or do they themselves have some sort of problem that they need to overcome?

Posted by jim | October 23, 2007 11:24 AM

Not pointless, it gets zuzu, jill, and amanda off poor matt's ass and reestablishes his usefulness as a tool.

Harvard philosophers, what's the point of them if they adhere to politically correct thought?

Posted by feh | October 23, 2007 11:35 AM

Lon,

There are different ... positions that one can take, and you seem to be taking all of them, even the ones that undercut the other ones you are taking. Some people might have felt compelled to take a single position and stick with it.

And yet, curiously, you don't seem able to actually identify which positions you think undercut which other positions, or why. Funny, that.

But your criticism of the way that Summers was fired suggests you were not following that story too closely.

I didn't say anything about Summers' firing. I was talking about the way he was treated in response to his speech. But to the extent that his firing was a response to the speech, it was despicable.

Posted by Mixner | October 23, 2007 11:41 AM

Mixner, Lon no doubt believes that all the Bushies really did leave their jobs just so they could spend more time with their families. Because people talking about firings never spin an issue.

Posted by feh | October 23, 2007 11:46 AM

@jim
Ideally, that's what you would do. Educate the potential attendees about their biases so they can make a conscious choice to overcome them and educate existing groups so they can work to be more welcoming.
I mean, if this was about smell, accommodation, location or whatever, everyone would be agreeing that it needs to be fixed so as not to miss out on the contributions of smart capable members of group x. There is really no element of bending over backwards here.

Posted by markus | October 23, 2007 11:52 AM

Who is this Mixner fellow and what rock did he crawl out from under? Let me start by saying that there is a basic premise to his (and I assume it's a he) argument that's a bit unpleasant to feminists and progressives, but which I believe--when women aggregate in certain fields, it is often genuinely voluntary. It's also the status quo. That doesn't mean it's "right" in all cases.

The rest of his argument goes wrong in many ways. There would be less wrong with "male work" and "female work" if female work were valued the same as "male work". For the most part, female work (elementary school teaching, nursing, daycare worker, house cleaner, secretary) is valued *much* less than male work, both socially, and in pay. So, on those grounds alone, the status quo is unacceptable as a permanent goal. If work were truly "separate but equal", there's still the problem of discouraging people who genuinely want to work in a field that isn't their gender's, but it's not as bad as things are now.

What's actually pretty interesting to me, though, is to look at the areas where the status quo has changed. For example, veterinary practice and specialty of OB/Gyn have become truly dominated by women in the past several years--women have not just received parity--they've taken over. Both are academically rigorous, scientifically oriented fields, even if there is more of a "personal touch" involved than in say, physics. If the prestige and pay for these fields significantly diminishes compared to when they were male dominated (adjusting for factors such as shorter work hours, if any), then the pessimistic downside is that women are "income poison" to any field they want to enter. On the other hand, if prestige and pay remain roughly the same, maybe there is a way to get past all of this.

I think the same trend is starting to take over academia (esp. outside the sciences)--nobody would blink over a female history or English professor, and we are starting to blink quite a bit less at female Ivy League university presidents (ironic, isn't it)--a position that's still considered pretty prestigious. Any other examples out there?

So my take is that where we came from was not good, and some work preferences may in fact be real (women who want to raise families are going to be less inclined to work that will not accomodate a more flexible schedule, for example), but none of this is set in stone, and a lot of it can be changed with the right impetus.

I also believe that what's good for women tends to be good for society--no need to see the thing as a battle of the sexes or zero sum game.

Posted by JMS | October 23, 2007 12:00 PM

I'm not seeing anyone here that crawled out from under a rock -- I am not sure I understand your need to demonize a person that disagrees with you.

elementary school teaching, nursing, daycare worker, house cleaner, secretary

School teachers are underpaid. Nurses, I don't know what their salaries are but it is likely true.

Daycare workers? The ones I've dealt with were all women owned businesses that set their own fees and paid pretty well.

House cleaner, administrative assistant? Supply and demand and pretty much unskilled labor. And more than just a bit of wage destruction from undocumented workers.

Posted by feh | October 23, 2007 12:15 PM

>>Nurses, I don't know what their salaries are but it is likely true

Nursing is a relatively high-paying field, believe it or not, mainly because there is a shortage of nurses. Many hospitals are forced to recruit nurses from China and other countries because of the shortage.

Posted by jim | October 23, 2007 12:23 PM

JMS,

Who is this Mixner fellow and what rock did he crawl out from under?

Who are you, and what burrow did you climb out of?

There would be less wrong with "male work" and "female work" if female work were valued the same as "male work". For the most part, female work (elementary school teaching, nursing, daycare worker, house cleaner, secretary) is valued *much* less than male work, both socially, and in pay. So, on those grounds alone, the status quo is unacceptable as a permanent goal.

How do you propose to make "female work" and "male work" equally valued economically? Federal wage controls?

So my take is that where we came from was not good, and some work preferences may in fact be real (women who want to raise families are going to be less inclined to work that will not accomodate a more flexible schedule, for example), but none of this is set in stone, and a lot of it can be changed with the right impetus.

What "impetus?" You're all very vague about the precise nature of the remedies you seek for these alleged problems. What are you proposing, exactly? Explicit gender preferences? Quotas?

At least you seem to recognize that the causes of gender disparities in income and representation in different occupations is a bit more complicated than just discrimination.

Posted by Mixner | October 23, 2007 12:53 PM

It reminds me a discussion how some people work to increase self esteem of girls so much that they would not be interested in sex.

(The context was that offering birth control in middle school can undo hard work on raising the self-esteem of girls.)

Somehow, men did not recall having sex of not having sex being particularly connected to self-esteem. Personally, I was a particularly scrawny kid at 14 and what little self-esteem I had was related with my mathematical aptitude. I got into a special program, so the pecking order was indeed related to it. In general, boys are supposed to get peer acceptance with some aptitude, be it math, football or whatever. At least this is the way we want them to be.

For girls, apparently the most important aspect is conforming to social norms. At least this is the way we want them to be. So later we have a problem if the norm is not to be a girl.

My conclusion is that the problems of gender inequalities are deep-rooted and they deserve some patient policies. Starting from encouraging the school girls to compete in a way boys do, which is done, and with some job preferences, which is done, etc. But one should also be alert to many stupid attitudes, and kvetching is one way of influencing them.

Posted by piotr | October 23, 2007 1:59 PM

feh,

I'm sorry, perhaps I should have made my point clearer for the reading impaired.

In reply to beowulf's comment about why Summers was fired, Mixner said, "If Summers' enemies' real problem with him was some other issue or set of issues, then they should have confronted him on those issues, instead of using the speech as an excuse to attack the man. Really, really craven and dishonest."

As I noted, if one actually followed the debate around Summers firing the people who fired him talked about the other issues, and people like yourself said, no it is really the biology thing.

I was noting the absurdity of attacking Harvard for not focusing on the other issues, when Harvard tried to focus entirely on those issues.

This is a point that has to do with being accurate, and has nothing to do with why I think Summers was fired. Some times it is good to say true things, even if they do not fit with the political point you want to make.

Now, oddly Mixner is saying that in responding to beowulf's comment about why Summers was fired, he wasn't talking about why Summers was fired. Perhaps he is right, and his response was simply a non-sequitor. If so then I incorrectly identified the falacy in his response to beowulf. But againt this discussion all requires trying to be accurate rather than trying to score political points.

I am not a Harvard grad, and so don't follow the infighting there very closely. But my impression is that Sommers was making changes that would undercut the importance of the people who were voting on whether to keep him in office. And I do believe that college professors care more about holding on to their power than they care about whether the President makes politically incorrect remarks. But I could be wrong about that. And it really was irrelevant to the point I was making.

Posted by Lon | October 23, 2007 2:53 PM

Lon,

Now, oddly Mixner is saying that in responding to beowulf's comment about why Summers was fired, he wasn't talking about why Summers was fired.

I was talking about the reasons why Summers was attacked. But as I said, to the extent that the speech was a cause of the firing, the firing was despicable. You shouldn't be fired for describing a scientific hypothesis.

Posted by Mixner | October 23, 2007 3:06 PM

Mixner,

As far as I know, the people who attacked him for saying that biology may explain the low number of women in science were attacking him because of what he said. In particularly they were attacking him for what they saw as presenting an old idea which they considered discredited as if it was a new idea that had never been discussed, while adding nothing to the debate of a scientific nature. In general, they did no favor to their cause with the emotional nature of their response, but it was not as arbitrary a response as it became when it was parodied in the press.

As I said, in my last post, and as beowulf said, in the post that you acted as if you were responding to, but now seem to be indicating you were not responding to, that remark does not really seem to be the prime problem that the Harvard community had with Summers, although it certainly didn't help. He was trying to institute changes. I have no idea if they were good or bad changes. Bureaucratic communities are famously adverse to changes, particularly ones that weaken their own importance.

That was something Rumsfeld found out when he tried to change the military. And not surprisingly, the military seized on Rumsfeld's incompetence with regard to Iraq rather than his more reasonable attempts to make changes in military structure in opposing him.

None of this suggests any bad faith on the parts of the people who opposed Summers in either case. That seems to simply be manufactured to dismiss them.

Posted by Lon | October 23, 2007 3:35 PM

Lon,

As far as I know, the people who attacked him for saying that biology may explain the low number of women in science were attacking him because of what he said.

He didn't say that. He said only that biology may partly explain the low number of women in science. Do you think it was fair to attack him for saying that? If so, why?

Posted by Mixner | October 23, 2007 3:45 PM

Mixner,
As I said, my impression is that the attack on him was based on the fact that he presented this idea as one that was out of favor because it had never been considered, and not because it had been considered and rejected. That seems to me to be a legitimate basis of objection.

This is particularly true when the policies that follow from accepting the position are ones that are likely to be harmful to people who begin with a disadvantage to begin with.

I do not think that the idea that innate differences between genders plays a role in the disparity between the sexes is a silly one. And it should certainly not be dismissed out of hand. But given the historical usage of such claims, I am not bothered by women being sensitive to such arguments being put forward in misleading ways. I would need to see more of the context of the speech to know if Summers, in fact, put it in misleading ways.

I do know, in part from my experiences in academia, that there seems to be no subject which the press seems to so consistently overstate as charges of political correctness. I am not sure I have ever looked into an accusation of political correctness in the press and not found out that there was less there than meets the eye upon closer examination.

Posted by Lon | October 23, 2007 4:31 PM

Apparently, the Patriarchy had conceded to power-share at Harvard with women in such trivial outposts as the Harvard Law School and the Harvard Business School, but it desperately clung to that central bastion of male control of society: the Harvard mathematics department. ...

The more meritocratic the field, the more feminists accuse it of discriminating against women. In mathematics, new proofs either quickly fail or are accepted forever. In contrast, women flourish most in notoriously faddish, cliquish domains like the humanities. In Harvard's English department, 20 out of 51 professors are women, and at less exclusive colleges, they often comprise a majority.

http://www.isteve.com/2005_Education_of_Larry_Summers.htm

Posted by Steve Sailer | October 23, 2007 4:35 PM

Lon,

I do not think that the idea that innate differences between genders plays a role in the disparity between the sexes is a silly one. And it should certainly not be dismissed out of hand.

Not only is it not silly, but there is a substantial body of evidence for it.

But given the historical usage of such claims, I am not bothered by women being sensitive to such arguments being put forward in misleading ways.

Oh please. The women (and men) in question weren't "being sensitive," they were screaming bloody murder at Summers just for mentioning the hypothesis. The intellectual straitjacket of the paleofeminist far-left is so tight that even to mention the mere possibility that men and women are biologically different in ways that affect their career choices and incomes is intolerable.

I would need to see more of the context of the speech to know if Summers, in fact, put it in misleading ways.

"Misleading ways?" What's that supposed to mean? Misleading, how? Unless you have evidence that Summers was trying to "mislead" the audience, you have no basis for making such an accusation.

Posted by Mixner | October 23, 2007 4:54 PM

Steve Sailer,

Slightly off-topic, but I think this column from today's Financial Times might interest you: Merit Should Prevail. It's about attempts by London's mayor to diversify London's cab drivers, 95% of whom are currently white males. An excerpt:

"London’s taxi drivers are famous for their distinctive cabs, their high fares and The Knowledge – the series of examinations they have to pass proving they know every street in the city within six miles of Charing Cross.

Ken Livingstone, London’s mayor, has noticed something else about London’s cabbies: they are almost all white men. Together with the London Development Agency, he has launched a project to change this."

Posted by Fred | October 23, 2007 5:00 PM

Lon, ignore the press then.

http://thefire.org

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which is mainly a bunch of ACLUniks, former ACLUniks, or fellow travelers fighting against speech codes and other forms of political correctness on campus.

Off topic but related, want to read something really interesting? Betty Dobson on the Vagina Monologues and V-Day. It's very difficult to criticize V Day without sounding anti-woman or pro-violence. Dare we ask why so many feminists think women have cornered the market on being victimized by violence?Will we sound too insensitive in mentioning the violence caused by poverty, hunger, and wars that affect women, men and children of every gender? Are we to ignore all the wives who verbally abuse and dominate husbands? Shall we pretend there are no mothers who all too frequently raise a hand to punish a child? It's almost as if feminists insist on ignoring the power that many mothers wield in the home to preserve the image that all woman are helpless victims incapable of violence.

Could we cut to the chase and say that the source of violence against women comes from the extreme fundamentalists in all the major religions including Christians, Jews, Hindus and Muslims? That all forms of authoritarianism exercised by both women and men are the source of violence along with ignorance and prejudice?

Posted by feh | October 23, 2007 5:19 PM

"Dare we ask why so many feminists think women have cornered the market on being victimized by violence?"
Except, of course, that they haven't. I mean, seriously, this is a lie, knowing or not.

"Will we sound too insensitive in mentioning the violence caused by poverty, hunger, and wars that affect women, men and children of every gender?"

Well, it depends. If you're mentioning it primarily to raise awareness and spark action, or even out of sadness, anger or despair, then no, not at all. If, on the other hand, you're doing it in order to smear your ideological enemies (in Betty Dobson's case, feminists), then yes, it is remarkably insensitive, and downright gross to boot.

Feh indeed.

Posted by Dan S. | October 23, 2007 7:37 PM

Obviously that should be "Except, of course,that they don't" (ie, think such a thing).

Posted by Dan S. | October 23, 2007 7:39 PM

I know she was a founder of the pro-sex feminist movement. And here I thought Amanda Marcotte was a pro-sex feminist too, but I guess she's not a feminist either?

Why didn't anyone tell me?

(Where do they keep the credentials of who is and isn't a feminist, and who is doing the checking, because it seems to change on a daily basis.)

Here's Feminist Wendy Kaminer on feminist victimization. (If the link to google books doesn't work, google wendy kaminer victimization.) (Is Kaminer still a feminist?)

Note: Google identifies some Pandagon pages including the one above as containing malware. Since I use firefox and noscript, I figure it's safe for me, but click at your own precaution. I assume there are not any virii there, but that Amanda's nonsense is so robotic in nature and harmful to thinking creatures that even the googlebot is forced to mention it.

Posted by feh | October 23, 2007 10:32 PM

Looking at it a third time, the link to Pandagon above was not written by Amanda but by Arwen.

Please substitute this link instead.

http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2006/10/15/plus-orgasms-increase-worker-productivity/

And google says that one is filled with nasty malware too, so don't blame me if your genitals fall off.

Posted by feh | October 23, 2007 10:57 PM

feh,

Did you really mean to respond to my claim that newspaper tend to be slanted towards accepting claims of political correctness by linking to a site that is dedicated to proving that political correctness on campus is out of control? If I said that newspapers were slanted towards alarmism on Global warming would you link me to Gore's website to prove that is not true?

Despite the bizarreness of the link, it is odd that the site, despite its purpose, does not do much to establish your point. Most of the items listed are things that never amounted to incidences of political correctness, but rather things that were headed out prior to that happening. There is one case that was settled to FIRE's satisfaction, whose details are oddly lacking in FIRE's account, making it hard to say that one has the full story.

The only active story, one I had seen promoted on Townhall, although without the link, is from Hamline (and as goes Hamline so goes the academic world). There is a dispute as to whether the student was suspended for his political positions, or for making threatening claims in a letter to the administration. FIRE prints the letter, and what they print suggests the man is a crank, but does not contain any threats. But the letter periodically contains "..." which tends to indicate redactions.

So either the crank does not understand punctuation. Or FIRE is running its website for the kind of true believers that are convinced that a letter does not contain threats, because there are no threatening remarks in a redacted version of the letter.

So I am not sure what about that site was supposed to indicate that political correctness is out of hand. A scan of the site actually suggests that incidences of political correctness are scattered, occur mostly outside of the major universities, and are resolved satisfactorily from the perspective of an advocate group against political correctness. Was that what I was supposed to get from the website?

Posted by Lon | October 24, 2007 12:24 AM

What you said, was that you don't believe the press, which is fine, I don't either. So I pointed you to the lawyers that take on the cases.

If you said you didn't believe the press on Global Warming, yes, I would point you to Gore or to realclimate.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the value of speaking to the experts with the data.

http://thefire.org/index.php/case/

If you don't get, by examining the founders, mission, directors, and staff of FIRE that it's a group of free speech oriented lawyers, that are left, right, and libertarian,

When you examine their cases you can conclude they were not at major universities, but I certainly see universities from ASU to Yale, including Harvard, Columbia, Brandeis, Johns Hopkins, Tufts, UC Berkeley and many others.

If what you want to take from the site is that by involving an organization full of lawyers that write letters and take people to court that there is no free speech problem on campus, well, to each their own. Most people do not have access to such resources, but I guess you do.

Posted by feh | October 24, 2007 12:38 AM

feh,

Apparently what we are disagreeing with is whether in trying to understand what is happening in a particular situation, it is sufficient to go to the advocates on one side. My own view is that that is what one should do if one wants to fire up ones sense of indignation. But if one wants to actually understand a situation it is minimally necessary to find out what case the other side is making.

And which of those cases from major universities do you see as proving your point? I tried to follow a couple of those links, but the site that you recommend as clearing these things up does not seem to give more than its own claims that an injustice was done. At Brandeis, my own alma mater, FIRE thought that someone accused of sexual assault did not receive proper due process. The courts disagreed. What one finds on the site is not the courts reason for disagreeing, but two responses by FIRE. One is to declare victory. The other is to attack the ruling. That is to say, of the two ways that one can spin an unfavorable verdict, FIRE chose both. And did not provide the kind of direct information that might be spin-free, or give the argument on the other side. This case was from 2000. So I had not gotten to it looking at the original link which is backward chronological.

The issue at Harvard was similar. Someone was suspended over charges of sexual assault. He was not convincted in court. FIRE thinks this means he should have been reinstated. But the leap from the one to the other is a large one. It is not surprising that Harvard would not have the same guilty beyond a reasonable doubt standard as the courts. The courts are dealing with taking away ones right to liberty, Harvard is balancing the interests of its students. So there is no more contradiction in this than there was in OJ being cleared in criminal court and convicted in civil court. That the site does not see the need to address this again does not speak well of their standing as a source of unbiased information.

But then that is why one generally should not point to advocacy groups for ones unbiased information. If the point is to get biased information, then that is another matter.

Do you really not see the problems with these cases? I notice that you did not address the question of why FIRE chose to answer the charge that a letter contained threatening material by publishing an apparently redacted letter. Doesn't that make you curious?

Posted by Lon | October 24, 2007 9:46 AM