Anglofille writes:
"Lawrence Summers has resigned as the president of Harvard, my former workplace. (Hi Harvard friends!) Summers, a boorish, sexist jerk, resigned under intense pressure from the faculty. Gee, it must be open season on arrogant men in positions of power. ’Bout time."
Maybe I'm missing something, but what did Summers do that merited his resignation? I read that he raised the issue of why there were less women than men at the top of certain academic professions, opined that discrimination against women might not be the main reason, and gave some alternative explanations. Is that really it?
-ViL, who gets paid less than the Vol...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
ViL: Sorry this is not approved by Vol. I too raised the same question a couple of days ago.
As the president of Harvard, that man was in the position to encourage students to educate themselves, to learn, to work hard to achieve their goals. He was not serving his role by suggesting that women may be less capable than men to be successful at it. As a leader, he would have been wise to keep his sexist, unsubstantiated opinions to himself.
Yea! Vol K - you go girl. I agree. Even if there were some validity to his claims - women are still under represented in the sciences.
As someone who did a science degree, I can say that it was a hard row to hoe - and for part of my time I was desperate for a female role model in my field.
His statements gave excuse to chauvinism and to the unuttered thoughts of some who were also in the position to encourage women in the sciences but might prefer not to.
Hmm. OK, I think I understand. There was a program on radio 4 about "stereotype threat", the idea that people do worse if they think their group is expected to do badly. There seems to be evidence for this - eg east-Asian female students assigned a maths test did well if they were told that the test was to measure the maths ability of their race (because east-Asians do better at maths than most other races) and poorly if they were told the test was to measure the maths ability of their sex (because women are expected to do less well at maths than men, at least in America - I was in the top maths class at my school and there were around 22 girls to 8 boys, so that's not my experience). Ergo Summers' statement would be the equivalent of the old Barbie doll's "Maths is Hard".
My impression is that while there are group differences in average aptitude, ability and behaviour, these differences can be exaggerated or reduced by expectation, so eg if you want more women in the combat infantry you don't want to talk about how women don't like violence as much as men.
I should say as well that my impression is that the USA is a much more patriarchal & sexist culture than Ireland & the UK, and there seems to be more inter-sex animosity in the US. I expect this affects reactions to any statements re sex differences.
I think Summers' biggest mistake was that his comments were not politically smart. He probably wasn't cut out for that part of leading a university. What bothered me about the whole flap was the way his comments were handled. A careful reading of his comments would show that he did not exactly say what he was accused of saying.
BTW, Vol, I do agree that the coverage of his comments may have given cover to chauvinism by others and I hadn't really thought about that aspect. As a "leader" he probably should have considered that.
Of course I will admit that my views might be completely different if I were a woman. I might well have put a Larry picture on my dartboard too.
It's interesting to me that Lawrence Summers, a former Clinton cabinet member, is now turning into a champion of conservatives.
VIL, I responded to your comment on my blog, but here it is again:
"As a former Harvard employee, I can tell you that the university is completely dominated by white men. There are very few female deans or women in positions of power. This is the case at most elitist universities, which is ironic. Most people view these schools as "liberal" but from my experience, they are very conservative places. I don't think Summers was the right person to lead Harvard. He's a bully. And saying women are genetically inferior to men in the field of science is just appalling. He can apologize all he wants but I really think that comment was a window into his true feelings about women."
Also, I *do not* agree with your comment that the US is more sexist than the UK and Ireland! Oh my goodness, NO! The UK does some things better than the US and vice versa. Both cultures have problems. I can't even get anyone here to call me Ms.!!! Until I came here, the last time anyone referred to me as "Miss" was about 20 years ago.
"Ms" is an American idiom and isn't fully accepted as part of the English-English language, colloquial usage it's not commonly used.
My impression is that women are much more readily accepted in positions of power here, certainly since Thatcher. In the personal sphere men here generally do what they're told by their better halves, every British household with a couple I've seen, the woman is preeminent.
I was a bit shocked at my Tennessee wedding that it was mildly controversial that my mother (rather than father) speak for my side of the family. And in US politics it often seems that women can't be taken seriously as leaders, which is not the case with Conservative or 'old Labour' female politicians here (recent positive discrimination in selection has somewhat affected the public's view of female New Labour MPs).
"And saying women are genetically inferior to men in the field of science is just appalling."
Is that what he said? Things I've heard it reported he said:
1. Women tend to deviate less from the mean than men, so you get relatively fewer women at the top of a profession, or in jail.
2. Likewise women favour more of a work-life balance than men and so tend not to get as promoted as fast (this is really a subset of 1, I think).
3. Did he say women have less aptitude for certain subjects (hard sciences)? I can see why it might not be a good idea for him to say this (qv stereptype threat post), even if it's true on a group level. Different groups differ widely in their average aptitudes but it's not a good idea to stereotype an individual based on membership of a group, especially if you're trying to get the best from everyone.
"It's interesting to me that Lawrence Summers, a former Clinton cabinet member, is now turning into a champion of conservatives."
Just in case you meant me & St Caffeine, I must say we are well to the Left of centre by Tennesee standards. >:)
Wow, this got a lot more attention here than my post.
ViL: Thanks for including me in your "left of centre by TN standards" comment. I'm sure there are a lot of (American) liberals that would be surprised to hear me described that way, but I think it probably is true.
As for, "Is that what he said?"... The whole "natural aptitude" thing was really just a very dry discussion of standard deviations (NOT mean levels). Some of his comments were (amazingly) stupid politically, but if you want to read them for yourself:
http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html
If Summers had made his comments about African-Americans, rather than women in general, I wonder if people would still be defending him? We know that racism is not acceptable, yet women are supposed to tolerate sexism, even from the president of a university that has an appalling track record where women (and minorities) are concerned.
Re: UK sexism vs. US sexism:
The usage of “Ms.” was an important political breakthrough in the US and it’s a shame it’s not used here more frequently. Why should women be reduced to their marital status?
The big advantage women in the UK have is that their government is not being overthrown by religious fundamentalists. Women’s reproductive rights are not in jeopardy. And when gay marriage became legal last year, no one even seemed to care. The smoking ban has caused more outrage.
Parliament may have more women in positions of power, but the royal family is a patriarchal structure (much more than in other European countries) and the upper class/aristocracy is all founded upon principles of male privilege. This is my perception. Perhaps I am wrong.
As a writer on feminist and media issues, I am appalled by the sexist attitudes I see in all forms of mass media in the UK. It’s not much different than the American media. For example, we are subjected to non-stop coverage of what I like to call the “baby scare.” In newspapers, magazines, news programs and TV documentaries, the topic of women in their thirties prolonging childbearing seems to be a national obsession. In these stories, the focus is always on the selfish career woman who put off having babies and now it’s too late. These stories, which come in cycles Stateside, are a way for society to hit back at successful career women and attempt to put them in their place. Likewise, the media’s obsession with women’s weight and appearance is just as bad here as in the US. These are just two examples. These media attitudes are important cultural indicators, at least in my opinion.
"If Summers had made his comments about African-Americans, rather than women in general, I wonder if people would still be defending him?"
On the facts I've been given, certainly I would - eg if there were evidence that the variation in African-American aptitude in some academic field had a smaller standard deviation than European-American aptitude, and he said so, I don't think either that he should be fired for saying so or that it would be evidence of any racial hostility characterisable as 'racism' to say so.
Again, there may be reasons of perception why he might not be the best person to discuss it though, even if what he said was scientifically verifiable.
"The usage of “Ms.” was an important political breakthrough in the US and it’s a shame it’s not used here more frequently. Why should women be reduced to their marital status?"
Since the Vol goes by her birth name, I regularly get mail addressed to "Mr Vol Abroad", *sigh*
"the royal family is a patriarchal structure"
Well, I thought we had a Queen...
The monarchy's inheritance rules are sexist though AFAIK, ie a later born boy beats a first-born girl. So you're not wrong there.
"the topic of women in their thirties prolonging childbearing seems to be a national obsession. In these stories, the focus is always on the selfish career woman who put off having babies and now it’s too late. These stories, which come in cycles Stateside, are a way for society to hit back at successful career women and attempt to put them in their place."
On this issue I think that if the nation wants more successful women having babies, the nation need to subsidise them, as happens in contintal European countries. I think carrots work better than sticks. Career women don't have babies because the price is very high. Scolding them won't help.
"Likewise, the media’s obsession with women’s weight and appearance is just as bad here as in the US"
My impression is that in the UK it's usually female commentators who are the worst offenders, along with newspapers and magazines aimed at women. Women seem to care about each others' appearance much more than men do. OTOH in the USA I recall Barbara Bush being criticised by male commentators for not dying her hair, I can't really imagine that happening here. We'd rather criticise politicians who do dye their hair, like Gerhard Schroeder (so sue me, Gerry). >:)
"If Summers had made his comments about African-Americans, rather than women in general, I wonder if people would still be defending him? We know that racism is not acceptable, yet women are supposed to tolerate sexism, even from the president of a university that has an appalling track record where women (and minorities) are concerned."
Thinking about this, I guess for me misogyny and race hatred are not acceptable, but I see discussion of sex and race differences as acceptable. Both individuals and groups vary a lot.
Gee Vol-in-Law, shouldn't you be working?
Vol Abroad, how do you keep this guy in line? Oy vey.
ViL:
Yes, I know you have a Queen. But if Princess Margaret had had a penis, she wouldn’t be Queen! That was my point. And why isn’t Prince Phillip called King? I think we all know the answer to that…
I totally agree that women are often the harshest critics of other women. No argument from me there! But we live in a culture that pits women against other women for male attention, jobs, etc., and this competition is often based on looks. So it’s no surprise that women internalize this and begin to perpetuate it themselves. That kind of behaviour is textbook.
As for Summers, perhaps I have not articulated my point effectively enough. The man was not liked at Harvard well before the women-in-science fiasco. That was the last straw. Upon his arrival he got into a huge fight with Cornel West, who left Harvard for Princeton. Other black professors followed. Summers’ leadership style was not so different from Ken Livingstone’s or even George W. Bush’s. Summers was arrogant, power hungry and bullying. One of his “pets” was the dean of the school where I worked. This dean was universally hated by all the staff and faculty, who left the university in droves. I can tell you from first-hand experience that this was a terrible environment to work in. It was demoralizing and degrading.
" Gee Vol-in-Law, shouldn't you be working?"
Naw, I was waiting for my Office Hour (when I have to be available to my students) to be over so I could go to the gym. I got the work done early today.
Hi Sarai - thanks for points re how Summers was already disliked, that's enlightening. You can't be king unless you're monarch, yup, but you can be Queen-monarch or just Queen-consort.
"we live in a culture that pits women against other women for male attention, jobs, etc"
We do also live in a culture that pits men against other men for female attention, jobs etc. Most men don't seem to particularly mind this though.
"and this competition is often based on looks"
While that's certainly true of mate selection, I'm not sure it's particularly true of most jobs inasmuch as I don't think employers generally select by looks per se, though things like interview clothes certainly matter, and it's probably true at the extremes. Thinking of my own profession, I suspect that extreme good looks might be as much of a handicap as extreme ugliness. Like I said it may be a bit different in the USA which seems more looks-focused, for both sexes.
The Vol keeps me in line through delicious home-baked cooking - I'm looking forward to my shrove-Friday pancakes, *yum*
The Vol has now set me straight - "Shut uo about that Bell Curve shit" - so I'll let this one lie. :)
"up" not "uo" of course. I wish comments could be edited, *sigh*
Post a Comment