"Should we conduct studies that examine things like whether boys or girls are "naturally" better at math, or are such things better left unexplored for equality's sake?"

Kind of a loaded question...would seem to cast feminists as enemies of critical thinking. But oh well, I'll throw in $0.02.

I think such studies might be best approached by using a null hypothesis, rather than assuming there is a natural/innate/biological difference that makes women inferior at math and science. I'm not necessarily opposed to the studies, but still, I don't want to see a reversion to natural law (women's skulls are smaller than men's, and their pelvises are more capacious; ergo, men's larger skulls indicate that they're best suited to public life, and women's larger pelvises that they're meant to tend the hearth.).

Yeah, yeah!! I know it's a caricature. What if there are biological differences? I wonder how those results would be received. Would women who showed talent in math, science, and technology and an affinity for the subjects then be encouraged more? Or would such women be treated as Phillis Wheatleys -- "naturally inferior" prodigies -- and face even more hostility in those academic disciplines than they already do? Would those who would want to keep women out take the results (if there are differences) as justification of their sexist assumptions and promote sexist arguments more flagrantly?

CultureCat

reading way back in the dark ages when I was an undergrad, a study of IQ tests which suggested that the standard deviation on intelligence was smaller for women than for men. Who knows how this relates to actual intelligence (especially in a study based on IQ tests with their cultural biases)? But that type of study might lead to this kind of statement by the Harvard pres, without acknowleding the whole conlusion: that there might be more male mathematical geniuses than female ones, but that there would also be more male morons. Which means that the inequality is that there are more useless men. LOL

Still, and I not having heard the entire address, it's difficult to really understand the context, but what I don't get was the necessity of making those statements. I also wonder to what extent his statements were taken out of the context of whatever study he read as wrongful conclusions, or was he merely being a misoqynist. Nevertheless, the Harvard pres obviously likes to think of himself as one of the male geniuses, when he's actually one of the morons in this bit of the intelligence quotient ;)

I still remember all that hulabaloo over the Bell(e?) Curve book. I don't think anybody wants to hear about stuff like that, even though many folks value it highly for very good reasons. If a study comes back suggesting that African American children are performing much lower on tests than their white peers, it's time to examine the social causes of that. Maybe the teachers aren't treating them the same way, or maybe their homes are different, and so on.

I can well undestand Clancy's concern about those "pelvis shape = maternal" nonsense statements. My hackles rise whenever I hear someone make a crack about "Well, he has a penis!" to explain any irrational behavior. Please! As if an organ was the cause instead of the person possessing it!

Exactly. It's the context in which the information/research is used, as well as the context from which it is taken that is important. For instance, there is some evidence now that people might be a little more prone to working with engineering and math because of Asperger's syndrome. In other words, mild autistic like tendancies might make one better at engineering and math. And I have read elsewhere the suggestion that males are more prone to this syndrome than women meaning that men, on average, might be more likely to succeed in engineering and math. Talking about this in context involves discussing the difficulties with social interaction and tendencies toward repetitive behavior that accompany this syndrome; this is not about stating an inequality, although it certainly could be twisted that way taken out of context.

So yes, we need to study biological differences, it nothing other than to understand say the social problems created by ausberger's syndrome or any other social/cultural problems that can arise from biological-based gender differences.

The problem with the argument -- over and beyond the notion of testing men and women -- (and by the way, for those of us who see gender as culturally defined, how do we set up categories of male and female to begin with?) -- is this idea of "better." What makes someone better at math? Do they compute faster? Have more creative ideas? Memorize better? Like Math more?

I guess someone's got to make a rubric as with any other assessment ;)

For those who are interested:

* A hilarious response to the current controversy

* A disagreement with Judith Butler

* A conflict with Cornel West

CultureCat

18 January

19 January
CultureCat

that the Jan 19 NYT article "No Break in the Storm Over Harvard President's Words" has a free IQ test embedded in the middle of it? I wonder what marketing genius decided to insert that ad there?