IWF's friend, Charlotte Allen, wrote a piece in the Washington Post last week that has generated a heated response, to put it mildly.
The latest is from Katha Pollitt in today's Washington Post. Before I comment on the article and the ensuing fervor, I'll correct the record that Charlotte Allen doesn't currently work for IWF (as Katha Pollitt says in her article) although certainly Charlotte worked for IWF and is someone I've personally known for years.
When I read her article the first time, I felt like I knew what Charlotte was trying to do--and did through much of the article--in creating a tongue-in-cheek critique of our gender's excesses. She writes herself half way through the article, "We exaggerate, of course," and on Wednesday she did a Q&A with Washington Post readers, in which she explained that the article was supposed to be humorous.
Yet I agree with the critiques that she took it too far (and lost me on the humor), particularly with the ending: "Then we could shriek and swoon and gossip and read chick lit to our hearts' content and not mind the fact that way down deep, we are . . . kind of dim."
Women aren't dim, even when we indulge in girly things like fashion, romance novels, and friendly gossip. Equating our propensity to engage in this trivia with a lack of intelligence is a mistake, and, although I'm sure it was inadvertent, undermines attempts to shake the taboo from discussions of innate sex differences.
It would hardly matter if women and men had different innate strengths and weaknesses in matters of brain function if it weren't for the push by some to try to eliminate differences in how men and women choose to spend their time and focus their energies. This most frequently comes up today when we look at math and science disciplines. As is regularly discussed in the media, while women have made huge gains in academia, there are still fewer women than men in some science and engineering courses and careers. Some groups claim that this is entirely due to discrimination against women and that therefore the government needs to take action to make sure that there are as many women in men in these disciplines.
Others of us, who don't want government attempting to encourage (or, perhaps more accurately, discourage) people from studying one thing or another, have suggested that we should consider how factors other than discrimination play a role. This includes innate differences in aptitude and in interest. Christina Hoff Sommers has a great piece about this here, which Allison linked to on Friday. It's always important to emphasize anytime we discuss these differences that clearly there are plenty of women who excel in math and science and that these studies on averages don't speak at all to any individual woman's (or man's) abilities. They are, however, an important piece of the puzzle to understanding why there are so many more women in humanities courses and more men in engineering.
I agree with Katha Pollitt that the ability to "mentally rotate three-dimensional objects in space" should not be "the very definition of smarts." The studies that have been done that show that women use different parts of their brains when approaching problems than men do (which make us stronger when it comes to matters of language but less skilled at certain spatial relationship tasks) aren't meant to say which sex is smart and which is "dumb." It just sheds a light on different skill sets and propensities in each gender, which again should not be interpreted to in any way limit our expectations for what any individual man or woman can accomplish.
It's a shame that anyone who acknowledges innate differences between the sexes and speculates on their impact on how we choose to spend our times is almost instantaneously tarred as a sexist (just ask former Harvard President Larry Summers). It's also a shame that Charlotte's piece failed to appreciate the political charged nature of this topic and gave ammunition to those who like to marginalize discussions of sex differences as only the province of misogynists.
14 Comments
crankeepants | March 8, 2008, 9:20pm | #
It's a shame that anyone who acknowledges innate differences between the sexes and speculates on their impact on how we choose to spend our times is almost instantaneously tarred as a sexist
Carrie, while your rebuttal was less emotional and easier to read than Katha's, it's a shame you didn't realise that Charlotte did make the point that how we choose to spend our time as women is determined by innate gender differences in which we fall short of the mark compared to men. That does make her a sexist and it does make it appropriate to view her piece as ignorant and misogynistic.
jay edwards | March 9, 2008, 4:23pm | #
I submitted quite a long response and it was for some reason erased when I pressed Preview.
jessica | March 9, 2008, 4:55pm | #
Carrie, the liberals are stealing our words. They're calling themselves OLD SCHOOL feminists now. Us conservative women are the OLD SCHOOL feminists. Liberals are the RADICAL feminists.
Now everyone who has heard me call myself an OLD SCHOOL feminist is going to think I'm a liberal. It's like some kind of nightmare that I can't wake up from.
I am considered air-heady in certain areas. I am also considered a genius in other areas. Subject strength is a factor in I.Q.
These people who think women should be exactly like men are the real misogynists. They are the real woman haters because they refuse to accept me as I am. They have to turn me into a man in order to love me. That's misogyny, folks.
jessica | March 9, 2008, 5:00pm | #
One more thing. I thank IWF for going on Air America. Thom Hartmann is a closeted conservative who secretly wishes to promote conservative women. We get him all happy and confused. He just won't admit it yet.
Ismone | March 9, 2008, 5:15pm | #
I'm not a radfem, and I'm not old school either. That said, although I disagree with you about why there is a dearth of women in math (and now I can say) some sciences.
But I really appreciate the fact that you made a point of saying that having frivolous (and perhaps stereotypically 'feminine') hobbies doesn't make women dim. I agree. You and I probably disagree on how much choice of hobby is based on 'natural' inclinations vs. social pressure, but thank you for standing up to that old trope, women are different, and therefore inferior.
crankeepants | March 10, 2008, 2:39am | #
I don't like labels so I won't be sticking one on myself but in case there is an unwritten rule here that we all need one, then maybe I can provide one for you by way of example.
If a man and I are working on a spreadsheet and I can't figure out the correct IF statement, and he can, then I would acknowledge he is better than me at IF statements and possibly even maths if for some reason due to the structure of my brain, I just couldn't work out the formula. However, I certainly wouldn't then believe that just because this man is better than me at math, that he is then better than every other women in the world at math, or even, a more superior person because of it. Anyone who thinks to the contrary are simply...dim.
Another note on math is that it is a symbolic language that was devised by men. Men and women have different sex based skills in terms of the processing of different language types, women seem to rely more on words, men, more on symbols. Hence perhaps the reason that women are therefore less women attracted to maths. This has less to do with smarts and more to do with the structure of communication.
And before anyone gets uppity, it is maths, not math.
Marjorie | March 10, 2008, 2:21pm | #
I appreciate this measured response.
There are good reasons that many of us are leery of the notion of innate gender differences (other than the obvious biological differences). That is because: (a) people tend to grossly exaggerate those differences; (b) people tend to make assumptions that these differences apply, or should apply, to all individuals; (c) people tend to arbitrarily view traits more associated with women as inferior (per Charlotte Allen); and (d) often these discussions are colored by political agendas (on both sides).
I think it is ridiculous to deny the possibility of innate gender differences in intellectual functioning. But I think honest people of good should be extremely cautious about leaping to conclusions. Neuroscience is still a developing field, and it's awfully hard to separate innate qualities of the brain from the environmental effects (including socialization that may encourage different uses of the brain by the genders from infancy onward). It really worries me that people are so quick to crow, "See the sexes ARE different! Therefore [women belong in the kitchen, there is no discrimination, etc. etc. etc.]"
People also tend to view any evidence of innate gender differences as somehow relieving us of the issues of discrimination and socialization. While I think overt discrimination is relatively rare these days in the U.S., I also think it would be ridiculously naive to believe that discriminatory attitudes about women would have completely disappeared within a mere three decades. Women and men are still socialized differently AND thought of differently. (Exhibit A is Ms. Allen's op-ed, along with numerous other opinion pieces and press articles constantly published in the mainstream media). These attitudes continue to hurt women in many fields.
Marjorie | March 10, 2008, 2:46pm | #
It's a shame that anyone who acknowledges innate differences between the sexes and speculates on their impact on how we choose to spend our times is almost instantaneously tarred as a sexist (just ask former Harvard President Larry Summers).
I am not sure this is true. After all, Larry Summers did nothing quite so benign.
Larry Summers was the president of one of the most powerful research universties in the world, with presumably substantial power over hiring and tenure. During a public speech in which he was to address the issue of women's underrepresentation at the elite levels of math and science, he ADMITTED that he did not know if innate gender differences are the explanation and YET further ADMITTED that he was inclined to believe so. (He also used ludicrous examples to buttress his belief -- such as the manner in which his little girl plays with trucks, or the behavior of workers on an Israeli kibbutz -- examples which in no way account for the possible effects of innate gender differences versus the possible effects of socialization, as well as having nothing to do with math and science in particular).
In other words, Larry Summers admitted that he was choosing to believe, without evidence, the explanation that relieved him of responsibility for tackling issues of possible discrimination and other social issues effecting hiring and tenure of women at Harvard. His admitted prejudice is compounded by the ugly history of similar unsubstantiated prejudices in excluding women and racial minorities from various fields of endeavor in the past.
I am not asking that we assume that discrimination is the whole story. But I think it is perfectly legitimate for members of the Harvard community to say that they don't want a guy with Summers's ADMITTED prejudices to hold the position that he did.
I don't think getting rid of Summers was at all incompatible with the values of intellectual honesty and intellectual freedom. However, Summers's ouster was quite the PR coup for groups like IWF who repeatedly frame it as such.
Marjorie | March 10, 2008, 3:02pm | #
I am curious about IWF's "old-fashioned" feminism. Let's assume that it is true that feminism's goals have been achieved and that unequal distributions of the sexes in fields such as leadership of the free world, the highest levels of the legal practice, the elite positions in math and science, and low-paid or unpaid jobs such as homemaking, teaching, and nursing are due to innate gender differences.
Assuming this is all true, how then can we ensure that women are not treated as second class citizens both individually and as a class? How does one avoid being a second class citizen in one's marriage if one has no income and compromised earning power? How do we ensure adequate representation as to issues affecting women as a class (reproductive rights is the obvious one) if we are grossly underrepresented in positions of political power?
If Ms. Lukas is right, what are the implications for our interests as women?
crankeepants | March 10, 2008, 5:26pm | #
If Ms. Lukas is right, what are the implications for our interests as women?
Good questions and I am also interested to hear Ms Lukas's or really, the IWF's position on this.
If their view is that women would be liberated, rather than oppressed if women had no earning or political power, being based on a view that all men are saints whose deepest desire is to protect women, then...well..there isn't much that can be said in response that kind of naivety. Other than, watch out, the sky is falling.
Rachel | March 12, 2008, 9:19pm | #
How it works:
http://www.xkcd.com/385/
StingR | March 17, 2008, 10:09am | #
All I know is, I've never gotten one of those idiotic chain e-mails ("Friendship is sooooo wonderful - forward this to five friends right now or something evil will happen to you!") from a man.
Ismone | March 17, 2008, 10:20am | #
Your point? I've never had a woman dare me to shotgun a beer. But there is no way that from there, I would extrapolate anything about men and women's basic intelligence.
h.m.zahid | March 22, 2008, 1:00am | #
i am pakistani my age is 21 years.my hight is 6 futt . i am very poor.please love me.my mobile no:00923444252886
e-mail adress:lucky_taker@hotmailcom
please give me phone number
and friendship
thank you addvanc
your advance friend ZAHID