“Why Can’t a Woman be More Like a Man?”

“Why, in fact, are there so few women in the high echelons of academic math and in the physi­cal sciences?”

Christina Hoff Sommers in The American:

Women now earn 57 percent of bachelors degrees and 59 percent of masters degrees. According to the Survey of Earned Doctorates, 2006 was the fifth year in a row in which the majority of research Ph.D.’s awarded to U.S. citizens went to women. Women earn more Ph.D.’s than men in the humanities, social sciences, education, and life sciences. Women now serve as presidents of Harvard, MIT, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, and other leading research universities. But elsewhere, the figures are different. Women comprise just 19 percent of tenure-track professors in math, 11 percent in physics, 10 percent in computer science, and 10 percent in electrical engineering. And the pipeline does not promise statistical parity any time soon: women are now earning 24 percent of the Ph.D.’s in the physical sciences—way up from the 4 percent of the 1960s, but still far behind the rate they are winning doctorates in other fields. “The change is glacial,” says Debra Rolison, a physical chemist at the Naval Research Laboratory.

Rolison, who describes herself as an “uppity woman,” has a solution. A popular anti–gender bias lecturer, she gives talks with titles like “Isn’t a Millennium of Affirmative Action for White Men Sufficient?” She wants to apply Title IX to science education. Title IX, the celebrated gender equity provision of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, has so far mainly been applied to college sports. But the measure is not limited to sports. It provides, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex…be denied the benefits of…any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”

Harvard’s legendary Math 55 class does not look like America. The class roster at semester’s end? ‘45 percent Jewish, 18 percent Asian, 100 percent male.’

While Title IX has been effective in promoting women’s participation in sports, it has also caused serious damage, in part because it has led to the adoption of a quota system. Over the years, judges, Department of Education officials, and college administrators have interpreted Title IX to mean that women are entitled to “statistical proportionality.” That is to say, if a college’s student body is 60 percent female, then 60 percent of the athletes should be female—even if far fewer women than men are interested in playing sports at that college. But many athletic directors have been unable to attract the same proportion of women as men. To avoid government harassment, loss of fund­ing, and lawsuits, they have simply eliminated men’s teams. Although there are many factors affecting the evolution of men’s and women’s college sports, there is no question that Title IX has led to men’s participation being calibrated to the level of women’s interest. That kind of cal­ibration could devastate academic science.

Departments of physics, math, chemis­try, engineering, and computer science have remained traditional, rigorous, competitive, relatively meritocratic, and under the control of no-nonsense professors dedicated to objec­tive standards. All that may be about to change.

[Emphasis mine.]

According to Sommers, the movement seems based on self-serving research performed by aggrieved parties.

Oh, I just love this:

MIT biologist Nancy Hopkins, an effective leader of the science equity campaign (and a prominent accuser of Harvard president Lawrence Summers when he committed the solecism of suggesting that men and women might have different propensities and aptitudes), points to the hidden sexism of the obsessive and competitive work ethic of institutions like MIT.

“It is a system,” Hopkins says, “where winning is everything, and women find it repulsive.”

Women find it repulsive? Isn’t that, in and of itself, a statement that women are indeed different than men?

Via Glenn Reynolds.

One Response to ““Why Can’t a Woman be More Like a Man?””

  1. walker Says:

    This is just silly. Plainly silly. Winning is everything? Huh? Did I sleep through grad school? And have these women EVER met other women? Talk about some nasty mean competitiveness.

    Look, girls are not boys. Sucks really as I’m a more boy-like girl than a girl-like girl. I wanted to believe that in the right environment boys and girls can excel equally in math and science but I have a girl who rocks in sports and reading and handwriting and a boy that would rather contemplate the ways to use the magnetic field to power our electrical addictions.

    Now having said that, I didn’t grok science until I was a junior in college. And even then just the little sliver that I fell in love with. From that love, a larger understanding grew.

    Our schools are WRETCHED at teaching science. And even worse at teaching it to girls. It either clicks internally to go and get the understanding or it doesn’t. IMO

    No, instituting a quota system is INCREDIBLY backwards. Celebrating the women that are in science is what is needed. And I don’t mean things like throwing them a party. I mean just accepting them for what they CAN and DO contribute. And don’t take the time to question if they are gay. Or why they don’t have kids. Or why they leave the field to raise kids. Just let it be. And appreciate them. I’ve never felt unwelcome in a room full of men when we got started talking science. Though I am sure I scared a few of them. Wimps!

Leave a Reply




Bad Behavior has blocked 393 access attempts in the last 7 days.