I don't think that's necessarily so...but in any event youth trumps age...and in this case I think deservedly so.

lmpaulsen
 

Oh lmpaulsen. You are such a sweet optimistic woman (and I venture to say just in general) to think that it is not necessarily so, but you are wrong. It's still 'oh so funny' and more socially acceptable to poke at the female intelligence in every race. But calling an entire race stupid is worse because then you are insulting the men in the race as well. I personally think the moderate acceptance of the bashing of female brain power has something to do with........

http://tinyurl.com/ywyqdw

http://tinyurl.com/3ayso7

Of course, there are always exceptions to any rule.

Hope you feel better soon, Richard.

eayny
 

A conservative would say that that's because there is more truth to the one about race than the one on gender.
 

A conservative moron might say that. But we can only hope that that person might keep his mouth shut in general.
 

C'mon folks. Look at the actual words the two of them said -- whatever the bruised feelings of the six sigma women mathematicians, it's pretty clear that Watson's actual insult was so much worse than Summers' that all this has more to do with the degree of insult than to the group that was being insulted. If Summers had said that anyone who has ever hired a woman knows ..., he would also have been gone immediately.
 

To Anon 5:33 - Perhaps you're right. But I'm not entirely convinced because I was personally so offended by the women in science remarks. I don't like the dismissal of that offensiveness. And I also believe that evidence has come out that a large amount of the work that Watson and Crick received the Nobel prize for was done by a Rosalin Franklin. The whole thing just makes me wonder how many times women and other minorities did the work they never got credit for and then as a whole still have to answer to these ridiculous broad derogatory statements. Makes me want to throw them back a bit. It's not fun to be apart of. But I do see your point. Perhaps.

eayny
 

5:33 again, responding to 8:25. What Summers said was factually wrong, prejudiced, and ignorant, in the sense that a professional academic speaking at an academic conference is ignorant if he spouts off about stuff he knows nothing about except what he read in Pinker's book. All that is true. But unlike what Watson said, Summers' ACTUAL WORDS were NOT "ridiculous broad derogatory statements" as you claim. Watson's were. The two statements are just not in the same league. Ordinary people who would instantly be offended by what Watson said would, frankly, have an awfully hard time even understanding what Summers was saying. It was just too damned hard even to parse to be offensive in the same degree as Watson. I repeat: substitute "women" for "blacks" in Watson's statement and put it in Summers' mouth, and he is gone instantly. It may be that race is dicier issue than gender, I think that is true. But the comparison between these two statements proves nothing on that score.
 

5:33 again, responding to 8:25. What Summers said was factually wrong, prejudiced, and ignorant, in the sense that a professional academic speaking at an academic conference is ignorant if he spouts off about stuff he knows nothing about except what he read in Pinker's book. All that is true. But unlike what Watson said, Summers' ACTUAL WORDS were NOT "ridiculous broad derogatory statements" as you claim. Watson's were. The two statements are just not in the same league. Ordinary people who would instantly be offended by what Watson said would, frankly, have an awfully hard time even understanding what Summers was saying. It was just too damned hard even to parse to be offensive in the same degree as Watson. I repeat: substitute "women" for "blacks" in Watson's statement and put it in Summers' mouth, and he is gone instantly. It may be that race is dicier issue than gender, I think that is true. And maybe that is a terrible thing and the world doesn't realize that the prejudices against women are just as bad as those against blacks. All I was saying was that the comparison between these two statements proves nothing on that score.
 

Sorry for the double posting, flaky connection. And what I meant at the end was that the comparison between the REACTIONS TO the two statements proves nothing about whether people are less worried about insulting women than blacks.
 

To Anon 10:40 -
I read Summers' statements about women in science. Verbatim. Every single word. It has been discussed here extensively. On this blog and other places. He wanted to spark a discussion he said. It wasn't that hard to understand. I don't have a Harvard education. I don't even have a college degree. But I can read and my IQ is above average. So yes I'm one of those ordinary people you refer to. And It was blatantly offensive but said in a prettier fashion. So let me, an ordinary person, try to explain why.
One thing I do believe that Summers said is there are inherent differences between men and women. That is a given. We speak differently. Are raised differently. So easy to see. But I just read this quote by Dr Nick Neave, a spokesman for the British Psychological Society and an expert in sex differences at the University of Northumbria,and he sums up my feelings on this matter beautifully when he said this:

"Scientists have been guilty of over-emphasizing sex differences. There are differences. Ignoring them is foolish, and exaggerating them is dangerous. But that doesn't mean that society shouldn't treat the genders equally."

That is how I feel. So I'm still just not sure I believe you that "people are less worried about insulting women than blacks." because of the prevalence of the over-emphasizing of those differences lately and to what I have felt was a rush and almost a glee to prove Summers' theories to vindicate him. Here's a question that I'll leave with you and other elevated minds - Besides a discussion, what sort of end result did he want?

But I do understand your point and I hope you are right. Thank you for reading my opinion and the time you took to respond. You have definitely given me some things to think and read about.

eayny
 

He'll be 80 next spring, and 80-yr. olds should be able to think and say what they are thinking, within reason. He is presumably on some level pre-demential (ain't we all?), or unguarded for other reasons, so was probably right to have retired, but should not be demonized too much either.
 

That was a kind remark........I just reread Summers statements. Can't sleep. I'm sorry but it IS just as infuriating and just as sloppy as Watson's. Of course, I wasn't there. But it sounded like he was complaining about having to diversify the university, that it wasn't convenient, and that if you were objective instead of subjective about it, you wouldn't because the slew of reasons he threw out. But life isn't completely objective; it's mostly subjective. I'm not so sure he wanted to be proven wrong. I think he wanted to make his life a little easier, and he wanted to complain in a round about way about affirmative action, etc. But what do I know? Anyway, it's over and done with. I'm not going to comment any more on this. (Feel free to breathe a collective sigh of relief.)

eayny
 

eayny...thank you but I'm not really all that sweet and optimistic, although I try to be. Richard was referring to Summers' remarks and Watson's remarks...and in that context I would agree with him that insulting race trumps insulting female intelligence. And I guess when you're talking about the petty remarks of a Professor Summers about the intelligence of the privileged/educated women of North America and Watson is, with the stubborn and out of touch arrogance of old age, discussing the intelligence, or what he perceives as the lack thereof, of African Americans...I'm also thinking of a world other than our self-centred existence here in North America. This is small stuff. What about the women and young girls of Darfur, for instance...how is their intelligence and their bodies not infinitely more insulted by their own race while the rest of us stand by and watch...or rather, ignore. That's why I say, "not necessarily so". How can what happens to them not be worse than anything anyone can say or think about their race or any punishment we might mete out if we chose to which we don't.

Now I've explained myself and my statement. Nothing sweet and optimistic about that. But thanks anyway.

lmpaulsen
 

It is equally sad that two Harvard Professors, highly educated and privileged individuals, would show us that prejudice is not too deep under the skin. A humbling reminder of how much we still have to go to make Harvard a more humane place.

Should the thought and issues raised in this conversation inform the discussion about the next Radcliffe Dean? Is the search committee open minded about what kind of person might best advance RIAS mission, and Harvard's? Does it have to be a white woman?
 

eayny, you're misunderstanding Summers's talk, which is directed at a certain audience. I think even the most offended in that audience understood that on some level Summers really wanted there to be more outstanding female scientists (albeit perhaps only because that would make diversification easier), and wanted to brainstorm about ways society could help make that happen. He's policy-oriented and even an awareness of (hypothetical) 'intrinsic differences' could lead to certain policies that would foster better parity, somehow, in the long run, between the genders in the field.

I'm only posting though really in response to 5:33, because this --

"whatever the bruised feelings of the six sigma women mathematicians, it's pretty clear that Watson's actual insult was so much worse than Summers' "

is very well said.

Nice post(s), 5:33.

SE
 

One's a hawk, the other's a handsaw, no sense in comparing the two.

And I actually tend to agree with 1:49am, perhaps better not to scrutinize the remarks of any 80-year-old.
 

Guess the wind isn't southerly then.
 

"I am mad north/northwest, when the wind is southerly, I know a hawk from a handsaw'. - Hamlet

Just in case someone doesn't get it. I think Shakespeare's handsaw was actually referring to a hernshaw. So some sort of pun about birds of a feather might be applicable here. (That doesn't count as a comment!)

eayny
 

"I am *but* mad north-north-west; when the wind is southerly, I can tell a hawk from a handsaw."

Whoops forgot the *but*....

eayny