I hate sniveling weaklings too...

Raytri I have a question for your wife...

You write: So what, in her mind, are we required to do about the lack of women in these hard science fields, and how do we measure when we've attained the goal of equality? See, this ultimately leads to quotas as a way of measuring whether we've achieved equality, and in their very essence, quotas are at their very root, a form of unfair gender bias.

So what does your wife propose that we do about these "gender gaps"? I actually APPRECIATED hearing from Sommers something other than the standard feminist ass-kiss party line that you normally hear from places as liberal as Harvard.

At what point do we chalk gender differences up to personal preference and stop feeling that we need to "do something" about them?

You know, every year I see the same lame-ass study about how women make less than men professionally. And yet, I personally have always made as much or more than most of the men I've worked with, and currently make about twice as much as my husband. My bone of contention with such studies is that they have a gender-based axe to grind and are used to sustain a perceived need for special interest advocacy groups (after all, what is the point of NOW if most women have attained equal opportunities in the workplace? Answer: There is none). Further, these studies don't take into consideration that women with the SAME educational attainment levels as men tend to make as much or more than their male peers (and the level of educational attainment certainly falls into the realm of personal choice..I don't really see that such gaps demonstrate a fundamental inequality wtihin our society which stupid braindead women drop out of school or choose not to further their educations as a matter of personal choice).

Further, these studies don't take into consideration other factors that are also a matter of personal choice. Alot more women than men choose to opt out of more demanding fields to raise a family and subsequently make less money. I do not believe, in this day and age, that women are forced to do this. I think it is a matter of PERSONAL CHOICE. Women choose to do this, and the very fact that women CAN CHOOSE is a matter for celebration, not dismay. As much as i've loved working, when my daughter was born, if I'd had the option (and I didn't), I would happily have ditched my career and stayed home with her, even part time.

I never thought as a young feminist who couldn't wait to enter the workforce that I would have those feelings, but i did. SO how much of my feelings were nurture? And how much were nature? I was utterly unprepared to be so captivated, so utterly enchanted, so head over heels in love with that baby...but I was. It broke my heart every day to leave her to go to work.

Sommers is taking heat for something that, in my mind, is largely true. Women tend to prefer professions with alot of human contact. Women tend to be more interested in working as a team, communicating with others, and we're more verbal. This isn't rocket science, the data which supports this is well-established. The hard sciences are not those professions.

Further, those professions do not offer the flexibility that many women want or need to be able to balance work and family. So what? Should the demands of the job be changed to accomodate women? I don't believe they should.

So, should we have programs potentially that encourage ALL STUDENTS to investigate the hard sciences? YES. It is in our national interests to do so. But the idea that women are not entering these fields because a) no one looks like them in the field (a veiled call for quotas) or b) because they face significant discrimination is, IMO, bollocks.

catz

__________________
I'll get nicer when you get smarter.

No, she opposes quotas except to redress immediate and obvious wrongs. She just thinks more research is needed before people start using "women are different" as an excuse. She thinks Sommers jumped the gun in an unhelpful way.

Research to figure out what causes it, and ensure that admission and educational policies don't make things unnecessarily difficult for either gender.

Since my wife is currently a stay-at-home mom, she agrees with you. She has a bone to pick with extreme feminists who view motherhood as a betrayal of the movement or something. She says she fought for the right to *choose* what to do with her life, not to exchange one stifling orthodoxy for another.

Her perception, however, is that societal expectations and differences in earning power still have something to do with the fact that more women than men become the stay at home partner. And that working women face some discrimination because it is assumed they will eventually have kids and either leave their job or cut back to part time. And that once they do that, getting back into the workforce is more difficult once you've taken five years off -- never mind that full-time motherhood hones myriad time-management skills and probably qualifies you to be an excellent project manager.

So while staying home may be a choice, it is a choice reinforced by other factors, and with a stiffer-than-necessary professional price.

That actually is evidence that scientific culture, as currently constituted, is unnecessarily hostile to women. Because there's no particular reason why it has to be that way. Some of the greatest scientific advances these days are being made by teams of scientists, many of them working cross-discipline.

Personally, I think ability as a scientist comes down to creativity (which both genders have an abundance of) plus math ability and abstract thinking -- both areas in which men tend to have a slight advantage. Other gender barriers seem to me to be a result of a male-dominated scientific culture, not something intrinsic to science itself.

Not necessarily. On the other hand, I think one of the broader benefits of having more women in the workplace is the proliferation of flexible schedules and other family friendly policies -- which benefit both men and women and frankly improve our quality of life. So on a societal level do I think professions should change to accomodate their practitioners? Yes, especially on things that are not central to that profession. The only real question is "what is central" and "how much change"?

I don't think it hurts to pay special attention to groups that appear underrepresented. We have far too much history of discriminating in various ways to just assume that doesn't happen. We just should be careful not to mistake "underrepresentation" with discrimination.

__________________
Man up.

"But what's also interesting is that, now that she's almost five, my oldest is picking up on gender cues. She's already declared that pink and purple are "girl" colors while blue and brown are "boy" colors. When we play paper dolls (no jokes, please....) she won't let me put long hair on a boy doll because only girls have long hair, and she sometimes objects to me putting a football helmet on a girl doll.

On the other hand, my daughter's favorite game is "haunted house" (think lots of monsters and ghosts), and she thinks dinosaurs, toads and insects are really cool. She'll catch a bug and try to show it to one of her playmates, a boy, and he'll run away because it's "icky."




I didn't get farther than this section.... I felt it answered the argument poetically... the first girl will not be a scientist.... the second will....


Everyone made excellent points but we can look at this example and see that some people are hardwired one way and others are hardwired another... luckily, my wife is one of the type of girls that would be a scientist... she originally wanted to be a marine biologist and she tends to pet every wild animal she can get near. Oftentimes, I get a bit exasperated with her when she wants to hug some poison dripping, fanged monstrosity..... but then again, at least she hugs me!

__________________
I was banned from godlike productions(over 400 times)... and loved it.

"I haven't made you angry, have I?" -Malcolm Reynolds

One problem with that theory; they're the same girl.

__________________
Man up.

Interesting, but I'm a bit skeptical. Having spent a few years in academia, I see no paucity of men trying to prove themselves to their peers -- at any age. At least in the department I was involved in, if you didn't have that drive and competitive spirit, you didn't make it. I would also say that the "willingfullness to take major risks" often occurs later in your career, after you've earned tenure and your position is secure.

There is an interesting contrast among disciplines as to when major breakthroughs occur. In the humanities and social sciences, scholars often do their best work late in their career, whereas in the hard sciences the opposite is often true. A popular explanation for this difference is that these sets of disciplines rely on different abilities. In the humanities and social sciences, knowledge is king, and the sort of intelligence underlying knowledge tends to increase well into late adulthood, perhaps peaking in the late 50's. Conversely, major breakthroughs in science and math rely more on fluid intelligence, or the ability to reason, make inferences, and solve novel problems. On average, this ability peaks in the early 20's and declines with age.

There's an interesting body of work (I forget the researcher) that grew out of Piaget's studies and claims that all kids are basically scientists (or conversely, that science is an extension of early development).

Much of child learning occurs through observation, hypothesis testing, experimentation, generalization and induction.

And I think Sommers aired a refreshingly divergent and candid opinion.

I suspect Sommers would agre. However I don't agree that admission or educational policies shouldn't make things difficult. I tend to believe that such policies should weed out those who are clearly unsuited for the work and who lack the academic fortitude to complete.


I agree.

I think that differences in earning power have more to do with educational attainment and preferred field (supply/demand) than they do with sexism.

I have to say that I really haven't experienced anything that has held me back professionally as a result of my gender. Sure, I've had some instances in which i dealt with some issues around sexism, but I handled them and they were ultimately non-issues.

Has she gone back to work yet? I have never faced that.

Well, durr. Did she really expect otherwise?

A woman who has opted out of the work force while I have racked up those years of experience is going to be professionally behind me. Choices have consequences.

I disagree that it is stiffer than necessary...Choices have consequences. Just as your wife cannot get that time back neither can I get the time back with my kids that I have missed. That's how life works. We make choices and we deal wtih what follows. She chose to be at home...I worked. I am subsequently then ahead of her professionally, while she had life experiences with her kids that I will never get and will perhaps regret the rest of my life. I disagree that she is then entitled to special treatment to compensate her professionally when she returns to work from a freely chosen exile at home. As far as mothering skills, and their marketability in the professional marketplace, I would point out that their relevance largely depends upon the professional position. I don't think that being a stay at home mom would necessarily have added to my professional demand in my particular field because it would have been time away from current developments in the field and direct work experience. Your wife may ultimately be a better employee because of her time spent at home but it is'nt necessarily a given. It's entirely possible that I am a better employee for having done the time in the trenches actually doing the job.

As far as undue pressure on women to stay at home, I would argue that much of that is self-chosen and self-imposed. No one expected me to stay at home after I had my daughter, and my mom, the stay at home mom, gave me a stiff upper lip speech about being a mom meaning that you do whatever you have to do to take care of your children even if that means working. Any pressure I had in regards to regrets about not staying at home was entirely self-imposed.

Further, BECAUSE I WAS TRULY EXCELLENT AT MY JOB, when I had my second child, I was in a position to negotiate a work situation that worked for me, my kids, and my employer and work at home 2 days a week in a job that normally wouldn't have been considered for that option. So I would suggest that women who are really good at their jobs have a great deal of flexibility to negotiate their own situations. Again, supply/demand. Women who are not particularly educated, or particularly specialized, and thus, are more easily replaced, have less power in negotiating compromises with their employers. But I disagree that this lack of bargaining power is a result of sexism. Again, personal choices have consequences.


Bollocks. I contend that rather than changing a particular culture of a field to be more accomodating to them, women have to make the case that they can add to the field. It amazes me how women from a younger generation feel entitled to tell other people how they must adapt to make them "comfortable."

And others have been made by individuals working individually. Still, even within a team, the actual study of hard science is a pretty individualistic endeavor, whether women like that or not. It comes down to knowing, understanding, and regurgitating facts.

I disagree that the field of science is a hostile environment to women. If women aren't particularly suited to it, I don't necessarily agree that it is because the field is sexist. I work in law enforcement which many feminists consider hostile to women. What I have found personally is that some women simply not able to adjust to dealing with the negativity of working with offenders day in and day out. Does that mean the field should change to suit them? Or that they have to find a way to accomodate the demands of the field? I would argue the latter. And frankly, I don't want a woman on my local police force who cannot cope with the demands of the job as they presently exist.

But do they benefit the field? Not necessarily. In any employment situation, the primary concern of the employer is going to be what benefits the employer, not the employees. If there is not a substantial benefit to the employer in terms of productivity, then I see little reason why these accomodations should be forced down the throats of employers.

Agreed.

Catz[/quote]

__________________
I'll get nicer when you get smarter.

Similarly, isn't more research needed before people start using "women are socialized against science" as an excuse? Why is that also not "jumping the gun in an unhelpful way?"

I think both ideas need to be on the table, and not just because there may be an element of truth to both. Controversy drives interest, interest drives funding, and funding drives research. Research on this sort of issue is dependent on government and the politics of pressing sociopolitical exigencies. By muzzling one side of the debate from the public, you are effectively delaying progress on the issue.

But when I use the term, I refer to politicians and special interest groups (of which you are not as far as I know). Just so you know. In any event, there were several (mostly women's groups) who did call for his job.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.