Lawrence Summers is a very intelligent man. He is also one who enjoys a certain amount of controversy. I hope you don't think I am picking on him - it's just that the controversies he creates are such good TOK controversies!
In 2005 (having given up the World Bank and become president of Harvard University), Summers gave a talk concerning the fact that so few women in America occupy the very top positions in academic institutions for science and technology. He gave a number of possible explanations - explanations which he said were supported by some of the social science research which has been done in this area. He gave three:
1) The positions in question require very long working hours, and women with children are generally not prepared to make this commitment.
2) Fewer girls than boys have top scores on science and math tests in late high school years.
3) Women are discriminated against.
Summers emphasized the second explanation and downplayed the third - that was the initial source of the controversy.
Now two questions:
1) Which of these explanations, if any, seem convincing to you? Why, and why not the others?
2) As a TOK student, presumably you are committed to keeping an open mind about matters that have not been established beyond doubt. So what evidence, collected by what methods, would convince you of the truth of each of the hypotheses?
i completely agree with the first point because it is only normal for a woman to put her family first beacause it is one of her primary roles.The third point does not even qualify n my opinion to be a point because determined women are very foceful and will defy all the odds of gender discrimination. the second point however is very debatable, according to philip Rushton a psychlogist at university of western toronto, a man's brain is larger than a woman's by 100gram varying with body size and it is thought that there is a relation between gender and intelligence but hen disproved the fact of males being smarter because according to him about a 1000 more females too the SAT tests than males but a more reliable way was to study a male in comparison to a very similar female. however for scientists it is still an on going debate.u can check it out at this website http://www.livescience.com/health/060908_brainy_men.html
ReplyDeletethis was just to pick on one of the ways of knowing but by way of sense perception, most of the situations i have observe have proved otherwise and there is no evidence by my observation that because fewer girls than boys have top scores in science during their late high school years fewer girls take the top science positions. a more interesting approach may be that more girls may be interested in other fields like banking etc.
I also agree with the first point, I think the role of women in a home with children is mainly to cater for them and ensure that they are as comfortable as possible thus many women who are capable of taking such jobs will not do so because it may hinder their chance as women, to effectively ensure that her home is running smoothly. The second point is a little shaky because the performance of females in science and math tests late in their high school years may be due to many things. High school is a time for students to figure out what they are good at and work towards it, since their interest in subjects will greatly affect their performance. I think many girls in their late years in high school find out what they are really interested in, thus they reduce their attention on science and math subjects and concentrate on other subjects which they are interested in. Also science and math subjects get really stressful and demanding with time. People, who are not seriously involved in it, will find it very difficult to make good grades since it involves a lot of practise and application of principles. This can also lead to the poor performance by females since their lack of interest will prevent them from fully interacting with these subjects. I think the third point was not stressed on by Mr. Summers because the issue of discrimination against women especially in the United States has decreased rapidly to the extent that it is almost invisible thus females cannot use it as a point to justify the reason why they do not hold top positions in institutions for science and math.
ReplyDeleteI'd go with the third reason if I had to chose one of them. Not that the other two are untrue but we should look at discrimination in a broader sense. It doesn't just mean that women are denied science positions if there is a man available for the job, but it also has to do with stereotypes. It is not just the woman who puts her family first, but society puts it first for her. Women are EXPECTED to be the one to take care of the children for the most part and so most women feel like it is their JOB to do so. But how is it their job? Who determines that women are the ones to take care of children and cook etc? Society. So it's a form of discrimination that has led to the situation in the first point. (I acknowledge that some women might generally want to put their children first but I'm just introducing another dimension)
ReplyDeleteIn the same way, education is somewhat stereotyped in to male and female fields. Again, society seems to think that sciences (and within them Physics and Chemistry) are more male subjects than Biology, social sciences and arts, which are female subjects. Though that is not something we might consciously believe in, it is impossible to know the kind of psychological effect this knowledge has on our minds. Many boys may only like science because sub-consciously they know that boys are 'supposed' to like science. And girls might not like it for the same reason. Again this is discrimination at work. Girls might perform less well (if this is true) only because they feel that they are biologically less capable of doing science than boys. This 'feeling' might be sub-conscious, but it's still there.
I, therefore, believe that discrimination is the main factor but most people don't realize it because we think of discrimination as blatant and don't realize that it can be 'subtle.' This is probably why Mr. Summers did not elaborate on it.
About the second question, I wonder how one would be able to convince me that discrimination was not the reason for the phenomenon. It would involve proving that stereotypes have no un- or sub-conscious psychological effect and I'm not sure if that's possible?
In my english HL class, we watched a video entitled "sexism in language." i hope kwame k remembers that the first person to be interviewed made a distinction between sex and gender, stating that sex was biological, and posessed from birth, gender however was acquired as individuals grow, and are conditioned to believe that individuals of a certain sex must display certain attributes. dont worry, im about to make my point. i agree most with kwame k, on the stereotypes of society which coincide with the engendering process in my view. its like this invisible hand situation, in a sense because females are taught to put their families first, and if they dont the invisible hand (society) will do it for them, or at least make fervent attempts to do so. But ,strangely, i agree with lawrence summers. not because females are in any way lacking in academic aptitude, but because in the later years of high school, when females are on the journey to womanhood, the engendering process intensifies, and there crops up the question of "male and female subjects." The female is supposed to be a "woman" and though the definition of being a woman alters over time,some subjects, especially the sciences still maintain their paradigm of being male. i say it has altered because over the years, biology and to some extent chemistry have become "female friendly" however, maths and physics are considered male territories. i think its because maths and physics are automatically associated with engineering , under which falls construction, mechanics etc, all male dominated industries because women are still thought to be too delicate to be involved in them. as a result, the engendering process by some means unknown to me, subconsciously orients women towards less harsh("manly") subject areas, in essence fewer girls score top marks in maths and sciences not due to a lack of aptitude or ability but because they have been conditioned against it, this happens most at the coming of age period (late years of high school) where life changing decisions are made, subconsciously, the girl is "made" to believe that maths and physics especially are not the way to go, and therefore they score lower. dont believe me? count the number of girls studying physics HL, and compare it to the number of girls studying history, a more female science. reason number two, stems from reason number three which also leads to reason number one. the answer to all this in my opinion is the issue of "gender" and how most societies still define it.
ReplyDeletei think i agree with the first hypothesis which says that women with children are generally not prepared to make the commitment. this is because most women prefer to take care of their children than to work to the extent that some of them resign from work to be housewivees for the sake of their children than to remain in work.
ReplyDeletei personally know people who have resigned from their duties to take care of their children. this inferred knowledge convinces me to believe the first hypothesis.
with the second hypothesis,i will have to see results from a survey in high schools which suggest that females do not do as well as males in science and math before i believe that.
the third one might be true as well because we've all heard about discrimination due to gender but as to whether it still happens, im not sure so i would stick with HYPOTHESIS 1.
Of all the 3 hypothesis i will certainly have to pick the 3rd one. I think that although discrimination may not be such a strong point i will have to pick that. I agree with Kwame K's point in that most women will pick their family over their jobs. Even though there may be some women who will pick their jobs over their families, society may expect them to pick families over their jobs therefore that will be considered before they are given their jobs. Also we have certain mindsets towards women who think about their careers first, they are often thought of as workaholics,women with no love life and the like. As for the first one I think it is a societal mind set and can be linked to the third one. However the 2nd one can not be proven fully because we would need statistics to prove it. I will therefore pick the third hypothesis although it is expressed in subtle ways.
ReplyDeleteIn looking at the three points being made I will say it will be very hard to say one is more of the truth of the situation than the other...
ReplyDeleteWith the first hypothesis, by some form of inductive reasoning in picking up evidence, it might stand.If in actual fact it is observed by first hand or by third hand that women are committed because of long working hours then it might be a form of truth;understandable and convincing enough.
The second hypothesis would have some truth if it does have some information backing it. In order to believe this, I won't want to see one, but many forms of statistics and other documents that commonly show that few women do but many forms of statistics and other have top scores than men. Then I might believe this thesis.
With the third hypothesis, I am not very sure how this information to be acquired...I thought for a while information could be acquired by maybe observing or maybe experiencing it because discrimination differs to different people, but if not then I am not very sure of a method that would convince me enough.
I'm more likely to believe the 1st and 2nd hypotheses rather than the third one, although I would not completely discard it initially. The reason for this is that, I find the 3rd hypothesis very subjective, hence stands on a premise that is way too generalized for me to completely agree with. The first two, however, are more substantial claims, for me, because Hypothesis 2 can be proven with statistical evidence and as for claim 1, I'm more likely to prove that with perception, personal experience and previous knowledge. Akua(aboutime) makes a good point when she says "sex” and "gender" can be branded as two(2) completely different states of being .Based on her premise, I beg to differ from Kwame K and Akua, in the sense that, as much as they believe society plays a role in "engendering" people, they ought to remember that nature’s “hand” is even more potent; in that, it not only determines the “invisible” but also extends strongly into the “visible”. Nature has already determined the "sex" of the person. The determination of sex, comes with many strings attached (Ok, I have to be very careful about my facts here, because Mr. Kitching is well-versed in this area), with and WITHOUT society’s hand. As biology students, we were taught to understand the power of genetics. Before the “engendering” process began, the determination of “sex” was already complete. Research shows that each sex (male or female) comes with innate qualities and abilities. These may be reinforced, suppressed, or even changed by the environment an individual finds themselves in. But of course there are exceptions to every rule. Therefore, I do not believe that societal discrimination (no matter how subdued) is mainly responsible for men excelling better, AVERAGELY AND COLLECTIVELY, than women, in the fields of science and math. I chose to capitalize the words "averagely and collectively" because we have to look at the bigger picture. Feminine senses of perception no matter how much one tries to avoid them, are innate. Research has proven that women prefer subjects that involve a bit more depth, and don’t just thrive on abstract knowledge (e.g.: calculations and diagrams, etc.). That feminine sense, automatically makes more women inclined towards the social sciences, business and management, biology (reasons for our existence- it’s some deep stuff-), and other fields of knowledge which satisfy their hunger for knowledge intertwined with emotions. Other than that, regardless of my position as a TOK student who strives to be as objective as possible, I can’t help but affirm that in the feminine mind, mathematical and scientific knowledge is a little too abstract and demands a lot of comprehension. Take a look at the high-scorers in Mathematics and Physics in our own school. The statistics say it all. Discrimination has no hand. The branding of these subjects as “male" or “female” ,only stems from the fact that our innate abilities did not aid us(women) in comprehending as easily as men. All in all, why agree with a mere generalization/assumption that society discriminates against females, when there is hard evidence in the 1st and 2nd assumptions that show that men do better than women in the sciences?
ReplyDeleteWow! I am thoroughly impressed by the quality of the responses - not only to this thread but to all in general. Those who haven't got involved - get in there! I wish only to comment on the contributions briefly at this point.
ReplyDeleteSeveral of you seem to be saying that there is a problem in cleanly separating the hypotheses - ie if women are discriminated against, perhaps this contributes to gender-based attitudes to different academic disciplines, and thus perhaps the underperformance of girls in science subjects. This would mean that the prime cause of the disparity arises from societal attitudes rather than any genetic pre-disposition. If this is true, how can an investigation be designed that gets to the root of the cause?
Secondly, is it not the case that the second hypothesis can be investigated through the inspection of "hard" data (test results), whereas the other hypotheses would require more subjective responses (collected by what methods?). Does this mean then that the second hypothesis is easier to investigate? Perhaps, but even if it is clearly shown that test results differ significantly on the basis of gender, does it follow that this is the cause of the job situation? If not, how would one move forward with the research?
Thsi thread is an introduction to the nature of the human sciences, and one of the central issues we will need to address is the choice of methods that are effective in giving us reliable knowledge about ourselves as humans...
Well, this thread is buzzing!
ReplyDeleteTwo further observations. First, the usage of "sex" and "gender" is a good example of lingusitic change. The words are used increasingly interchangably. How should we respond to this? By accepting that the meanings of words change over time and it is not worth fighting about it? Or to insist that, in this case perhaps, an important and useful distinction is being eradicated through sloppy talk?
Secondly, an issue is emerging in this thread about whether, in some sense, men and women have different ways of knowing. While this is certainly a fascinating idea, it is very easy to make unsubstantiated assertions, so think about whether there is real convincing evidence that can be deployed in support.
In response to metty's comment, I went with the third one despite the more 'substantial' (you claim) first and second reasons because the fact that they have more solid evidence DOES NOT necessarily mean that they have MORE TRUTH in them.
ReplyDeleteAlso, about nature's hand, I know it might be a factor, but the point about social conditioning is that it has become so much a part of you that you now consider it nature. If what I'm saying is the case, then it's almost impossible to tell what causes certain phenomena - nature or long standing societal values. You say that research has proven that women like more human science subjects than natural science ones. That DOES NOT MEAN THAT RESEARCH HAS PROVEN IT IS BIOLOGICAL FOR THIS TO BE THE CASE. The research has only proven that women like those subjects. It could be a cause of biological make up OR social conditioning. The fact that we've found out that women like certain subjects tells us NOTHING about why this is the case!
An example of social conditioning being so strong it's almost considered natural: In MOST families women are expected to cook. My mum has seminars on gender studies and development and often gives this scenario. If a visitor came to the house one day and saw her reading a newspaper while my dad cooked, he/she would be scandalized. Is it a woman's NATURE to cook? I honestly doubt. It might be but we can't be sure if it's a result of biology or long standing traditions. That's why I chose the third one. I appreciate that there is no concrete evidence and it's hard to prove subjective etc. but that DOES NOT MAKE IT LESS TRUE.
About Mr Kitchings comments about linguistic change, I think we sometimes need to adapt to changes in the meanings of words as time goes on. It might create problems and whatever but if we all know that several people mean gender but say sex, I really don't see any point in insisting that sex have only it's original meaning. But I can understand people who refuse the changes though. I mean, the language might change to frequently and just be confusing
"Clearly we have not yet adequately addressed the factors that contribute to women being less attracted to scientific and technical disciplines, and the obstacles that many face when they move forward in their careers, often juggling family obligations simultaneously. " - Michael A. McRobbie
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lawren Summers, it may be a coincidence but it is still true, most boys do better at science than girls, this doesent mean that women are not smart enough or cannot be bothered to do science related jobs. it it just that most females passions are in other things such as english, i believe that women do better in english than men because women know how to express themselves better. however because of the perception most people have about the world this belief may not change. girls are known to like pink and boys to like red or blue, a boy who likes pink would be seen by his peers as gay. and i wonder why. boys will rather do science related things such as playing video games, riding dirt-bikes etc. while girls will rather do creative things such as drawing, reading etc. As for Mr. summers 3rd point i do not agree with it,this is plainly a normative statement in my opinion. Temitope J
I would agree with the first and second point, but the third is a little bit difficult to prove.
ReplyDeleteAs Mr. Kitching has pointed out, it is possible to obtain hard data for the second claim. Of course this does not make it necessarily true, but reason would suggest it to be true.
I would also agree with one because, women are mainly the people who take care of children in the home. This is a very tasking occupation, and will reduce their ability to focuse completely on the top jobs that Summers is talking about, and to produce the best results in these positions.
The third is quite difficult to prove. It is difficult even to establish premises for this statement. Are women discrfiminated against just becasue they don't occupy a lot of top positions? Is it because society's stereotype is that they are unable to handle these jobs? How do you prove these premises?
If a man an awoman are equally qualified for a top position, and the man is selected ahead of the woman, is this discrimination?
again, with metty's point on the innate characteristics that come with biological sex, in genetics, one may have a gene that indicates that an individual ought to be tall, but as to whether or not the individual adheres to his or her genetic programming is at the mercy of the environment. a person with tall genes who suffers malnourishment during puberty will not display the phenotype of his or her genes. my point is that, the environment in which an individual is located ultimately determines the traits that that individual will manifest. hence, in spite of the bilogical capacities, that humans are born with, the engendering process may altogether alter what ought or ought not to be manifested. in short, whatever the biological facts, i believe society has a stronger say...etc etc back to my first comment's point that social discrimination against women is the root of all these statements.
ReplyDeleteabout linguistic change, as long as the intended meaning of the words is comprehensible, i dont think it should be such a big deal. it is a little sad though, because words loose their meanings over time and communication becomes a little more complex.
i totally disagree with the first two reasons. i will however accept the third reason. as has been stated by a lot of people, women are discriminated against. for example, in a book that the English HL students are reading "CHANGES", there is this career woman who is married. we discussed whether or not the woman was a "wife" or she was just married. although she was married, people in my class claimed that, she was not a wife. this was because she was not performing the "normal duties" as a wife which included taking care of her daughter. however, in my opinion, the fact that she is married automatically makes her a wife.
ReplyDeleteaccording to dictionary.com, a wife is "a woman joined in marriage to a man". thus, the woman is a wife!!!
women are not expected to be working. rather, they are expected to stay at home and do the "feminine" tasks. this is a form of discrimination. why cant the man also stay at home and do the "feminine" tasks. this is for the first reason. it is just an assumption that the woman will not be able to cope with it. however, now that baby-sitters exist, why cant a woman go into a science field?
i find the second reason rather ridiculous because, as Mz.Appiah-Korang already said, unless it is proven that "Fewer girls than boys have top scores on science and math tests in late high school years", this reason does not hold for me at all. i believe its more of a social thing than any biological thing. in the past,women were not expected to have any education. thus they would not be able to handle any difficult subjects i.e. the sciences and maths. thus, it is just an expectation. they are expected not be be smart in the sciences or maths. thus they are discriminated against. in the past, if a woman decided to study engineering or any subject involving the sciences or maths, society will look at her in a certain way. thus, this trend ended up influencing women into thinking that the sciences and Maths were definitely not for women. this explains the reason why boys apparently do better in maths and science in high school and thus, there are too few top women in science.
for discrimination, i think that it is the basis for all the other reasons that was given. if women weren't discriminated against, they wouldn't be expected to be doing all those "feminine" duties, they would be getting higher grades than boys in high school, and they would thus be holding top positions in science and math-related fields.
i think i will settle for the third one as it seems more convincing and appropriate. women have since the dawn of time been discriminated against in all areas especially academics. therefore it is factual and logic that they have not been able to acquire high positions in the academic field. for the second hypothesis i agree with Maame to get statistical proof before i comment because from knowledge obtained so far concerning high school education there is no proof that more boys than girls obtain higher grades. for the first one i think it has to do with the expectation of the world when it comes to the roles of women in society. the roles of women as we all know is a universally accepted testimony that women should perform such roles.
ReplyDeletefrom this reason i think women have no say in society even with those attempted rebellions to to revolt, the world is still the same. haha. whether summers' hypothesis are true or not it is how the world views one as a female or male that determines their capabilities so then if you fall in the prescription of what the world sees to be a female, Know that u can't do do what the other geneder type does. it is the perception of the world and invalid statements of women that force women to reason the way they and thus result in summers' observation.
Timah
Interesting cases have been made for all three hypotheses in previous comments, and I must say, I agree with Kwame K. to a large extent and beg to disagree with Metty. Discrimination against women, though now much more subtle and underground, is still an issue, similar to the issue of barely noticeable, yet the very real problem of racism in developed Western nations. On a subconscious level, ingrained stereotypes and perceptions of the abilities, commitments, roles and leadership styles of women influence this trend of an underrepresented female voice in top positions in science and technology. How many times have you heard a comment that that a female in a position such as a research position that requires a unflinching not to give up, nerves of steel, etc,would be too soft, emotional and be more inclined to be less rational or logical and rather more emotional, unrealistic and heavenly minded? It may be a trivial, passing comment but it gives an insight into sub-conscious perceptions of the "weakness" of women. Also, consider the issue of a 'wage gap' between women and men occupying similar positions, performing roles and adding equal value...Women able to make it to the top and of equal worth as male counterparts are consistently underpaid, and this is a pressing issue worldwide. Why??? A high level of education is no safeguard against this. Careful research on this should convince you. I know that for well educated females in this enlightened society, it is more comfortable and convenient conscience-wise to "believe" that they are on equal footing with their male counterparts and pretend that everthing is perfectly allright, when in reality, it is not exactly the case (To Metty in particular). True, conditions have improved, and the era of girls being deprived of education is being phased out. Progress is being made. But face it... Now, the first hypothesis also has in it an element of discrimination because we realise that yes,generally, women will place family over work, so employers looking at females as potential or actual mothers prefer not to hire them since the bottomline of the business comes first. But are these employers not making a gross assumption of all females (may not necessarily be true) and discriminating against them...hmmmmm??? Well, well, well,we should come to this realisation of discrimination against women in a labour force, and after this acceptance, the issue can be rooted out of society by deliberate efforts. But don't lie to yourself whilst nothing is being done about it.
ReplyDeleteThanks
SAM SARP
I came to this blog late and so tried my best to read EVERY COMMENT..and failed..so, i will not make it too long.
ReplyDeleteI will comment on the words I have picked up along the way.."DIFFICULT SUBJECTS", "WOMAN'S DUTY", "INATE".
To Metty, I agree that biologically women are "wired" differently however I do not see how it has anything to with the fact that certain subjects are not "as easily comprehensible for them as men." I think that is a sad statement.
Kwame said that it was impossible to know whether women being "weaker,softer" etc was a biologiical condition or social. But I think that more than anything, it is largely biological.
: If there was a society where girls could be as "hard" and "unfeminine" as they wanted, do you think that they'd remain that way? I strongly believe that whether society has an impact or not, girls will still conform to being "softer" because yes, it IS part of how they are made. This is not to say that society has no part in it but just it is stronger biologically.
Another example:I think girls are better and smarter than boys. I hate the societal "girls must cook, children etc" But sometimes I like being a girl..I WANT to be "softer" and I do not know where it's from ..and I hate the society..I try not to let it have an impact on how I act...so when i act "soft" it is of my will...this proves that it is inate?
One thing we are missing is this: Summers did not say Math and Science were more difficult...but we are.. I read Stella's comment about math and science being "difficult." This is the societal mentality. It is because we first of all think that these subjects are "difficult" that we think they are "masculine" because yes physically, males are stronger. Therefore the argument lies in first HOW we view these subjects before their impact on women.
I do not think science and math are necessarily more difficult (perhaps more time-consuming) but I think we make it look that way. And THEN as women (not because of society) are "softer", they tend to not move towards that area because YES, they do take care of children (not because of society)hence the lack of time. Society dicriminates when it says that science and math are hard SO women shouldn't go there because they are softer..It doesn't SAY that women are softer..that is simply a fact. I agree with point one most.
sorry it was long...:)
ReplyDeleteAnd Kwame about your cooking point: Some girls like to cook but hate the fact that they have to cook for a "man and a family." That is the soceital aspect: "cooking for man and family."
ReplyDeleteSociety's flaw is in not making a man cook for his family as well..not the fact that it MAKES a woman cook..you sound like your argument is based on what society makes women begin to do, when actually they may not mind the act itself until it is combined with other things.
I know they may not mind it I'm just saying that it's become such an 'expectation' that girls would love to cook that I don't think I can tell if it's really innate or just 'innate' because of how the world is.. That goes for everything i said
ReplyDeletehi. this is quite unrelated, but i stumbled on this interesting blog. read and enjoy!
ReplyDeletehttp://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=1425
Erm...first of all I would like to ask a question. Why is it that we (ladies inclusive) tend to be more marveled when a woman lets say becomes president, or wins a Nobel peace prize. Our reactions to these situations almost makes it appear like an abnormal occurrence. All of a sudden most women all over the world are shocked and gain a sense of pride; why? Would we blame this on stereotype and society...or nature itself.
ReplyDeleteOh yh and Deborah said
: If there was a society where girls could be as "hard" and "unfeminine" as they wanted, do you think that they'd remain that way? I strongly believe that whether society has an impact or not, girls will still conform to being "softer" because yes, it IS part of how they are made.
I agree that this is innate but how sure are we that if a girl was born into the mythical (well there is some scanty proof that they existed) Amazon tribe of female warriors she would still have her "soft" feminine side. I definitely think we would see society's effect on her here.
Ok now to Uncle Summers. I agree to some extent with the first assertion because indeed women would have to spend more time taking care of children since they have been naturally "equipped" for this task.
The second statement is quite controversial however from his information received Mr. Summers is left with no choice but to list this as an explanation.It is however not very convincing because there may be many contradictions to his generalization in that there may be cases where girls would actually score higher marks than boys.In this case the accuracy of his statistics may be in question.
The third statement, especially in modern times is would no longer be a justifiable reason; maybe in the times of Marie Curie yes but not now when the idea of inequality between men and women especially with academics more subtly expressed. Though it may still occur we hardly get men being chosen over women if they both equally qualified by virtue of the fact that they are men. For me this is the least convincing explanation.
It really is true! Every grade, I have advanced to, has contained less and less female students in its science classes, and therefore less top female students in sciences. The number of times that this topic has crossed my mind has been only too often. My emotions can now be put at ease knowing that the time that I have spent pondering about this topic can now be done some justice since I can now communicate my thoughts to fellow TOK students!
ReplyDeleteIs it not always some form of prejudice that presents itself as a possible explanation for any form of ranking that we humans establish? I think too many of us like to dwell on these things as explanations for what may seem counter-intuitive (in opposition to the usual 50-50 chance of one of two things happening e.g. woman or man being a top woman/man in science) Women are discriminated against when it comes to science and technology? For this assertion I believe we should allow science and technology to guide our thoughts. I believe science is built upon logic and probabilities –for the most part.
Because of this belief, is it not logical that scholarly women, coming up with great things, would be accepted and acclaimed in the scientific community? What is the probability of the scientific community deciding to wait for a man to come up with the same idea? I renounce discrimination as a reason for the small number of top women in science and technology. I support Clemi’s point that women can defy the odds of discrimination when I say that I am sure they would be intelligent enough to combat discrimination and if not, they may be incredibly smart but unfortunately incredibly shy too. Geniuses do not need Harvard to become renowned.
I suppose I agree with the second and first explanations and I proceed with the utmost level of caution when I say it is true that fewer girls than boys have top scores on science and math tests in late high school years. In addition to statistics, ponder upon this observation: The relative number of girls, as compared to the number of boys, (or 1/12 the mass of an atom of the isotope carbon-12 :P) in HL mathematics and physics is quite small. There are 4 girls in my physics class and 5 in the other. More girls do biology than physics. Why? Because quite a number of them do not want to be anything scientific anyway (from real estate agents to actuarial -something’s) and they believe that physics is harder (That is only what I have heard). I suppose now is an ideal chance for me to add that one should not be mislead into believing that the girls in science classes do not do well I only say that there is a smaller number of them and hence less top girls. This brings me to Kwame’s comment I too feel that women may be discriminating or more appropriately stereotyping against themselves but subconsciously and thus subconsciously avoiding scientific fields.(and if that is not what you said forgive me, but the comments popped up very quickly and I have only glanced at most of them.)
So yes,”the positions in question require very long working hours and women with children are generally not prepared to make this commitment” …but is it entirely because they are occupied? Maybe most of them just lack interest? Maybe most of them lack motivation? Maybe most of them lack belief in themselves? My train of thought always culminates in two vital questions that pit this current situation against history: Are we men really still discriminating against them? And do they really think we are still powerful enough to stop them from becoming top leaders in science and technology? I really like Kwame’s comment because he poses a good question, I think, how can we be certain that stereotypes have no un-or sub- conscious effect? I know men stereotyping can not exactly deny women their rightful statuses but what about women stereotyping and denying themselves what they truly can attain?
Erudit:Do you really think that women decide to stereotype themselves? I agree that it cannot be known and that yes it could be "subconscious" but really...If some random girl knows now that yes, women may be stereotyped, why would she continue to want to be stereotyped unless she really wasn't interested in the subject matter..be it math or science or whatever?
ReplyDeleteI can't agree that society has completely clouded a girl's own image of herself so much so that when she wants to do something she cannot because she has been stereotyped "subconsciously" and therefore she cannot "get out" of this generalisation.
Well, looking at this issue from my part of the world, Africa, I would agree with the third reason that it is indeed gender discrimination that inhibits women from occupying such positions. From reported knowledge( history) it is evident that women have been belittled in every aspects of their lives. First of all they are not allowed to attend school because society has agreed that a woman’s place is the kitchen!!!
ReplyDeleteI totally disagree with the first point because i believe that if anybody puts his mind on achieving something he will put measures in place to ensure the success. Take Marie Curie for example, she dedicated part of her life to the field of science although she was married with children. iam not just saying this because i am female! it is the truth and we all know it that even apart from science, politics and other top positions are not easily attainable for females. luckily society being more considerate and sensible in advocating for gender equality.
For the second point I beg to differ but ever since i started schooling the girls have always been better in class compared to the numerous boys especially in math and science and i can easily site examples. Maybe this happens only in the area I live in. I however do not ignore the fact this may be the opposite in other parts of the world.
As a result, the third point for me is the most propable reason why there are less women in the science and technology field.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think the whole essence of the subconscious effect is that it feels so unlikely.No, deborah I do not think they decide to stereotype against themselves I believe it is only possible that they do it unintentionally (subconsciously). Their interest in scientific fields may just not be there and subconsciious self-streotyping( or s.s.s yay our very own expression...) is a very possible explanation because as far as I know it can not be disproved.
ReplyDeleteBut for the sake of giving my argument substance here:
http://www.epsychology.us/talking-to-the-subconscious-mind/
in this article we can see the power of the subconscious mind and also how to control the subconscious mind.
"It does not reason. It does not argue. It hangs tenaciously to the thought suggested to it and when you give a positive formula for health, you are giving the most direct command to the subconscious mind to get busy on your blueprint of health. You thus become your own health architect to build strength, life, vitality and health into every cell of your being as you are controlling your subconscious mind."
isn't that interesting?
well if repetitive things are reciprocated by the subconscious mind is it not possible that the wrongs of men in the past have influenced the female subconscious mind and too few top women in science and technology is a manisfestation of women's subconcious minds?
I just think its a valid reason. I actually agree with your reaction.Of course it may sound unlikely but still that is just the nature of subconscious things Deborah. We just do not know.However,consider this scenario: " You girls subconsciously choose not to like maths but you really do and are good at it!" x 10 (like you said if girls know they are stereotyped)
and ten years later their top women in science have doubled.
Wouldn't S.S.S then present itself as a good explanation? of course! But until that happens we can not renounce it.
Funny thought though the subconscious mind has to receive a thought many times before it starts reciprocating it. Girls do not know they are being stereotyped against in fact they may be doing this.
" If I want to do maths and physics I will do it but I just dont"
just dont? why? That is the point why not?? This could very well be S.S.S
It's just so hard to deny for me because of how existant it can be.
I prefer to look at each of these in turn before making a decision as to which of these is the most viable.
ReplyDeleteThe primary reason, at first glance seems to make the most sense to me. In Africa, there a many women that hare housewives, because in Africa the traditional role of the woman is "in the home raising children". Recently though, there are many women that are breaking free of this oppressive way of thinking, and how are they doing it? By getting educated. This new breed of "Superwomen" are free to choose whatever profession they desire and are not limited as to what choice is to be made.
The second point does not seem like a point at all to me, even though it might or might not be true. the fact that girls are not the tops in the science classes does not deter them from pursuing a scientific career at all, if that is what they really want. Also, if they really liked the science subjects they would want strive to understand them better and end up doing better in them.
The third hypothesis seems like a much more sensible idea. If women are discriminated against by men, it would discourage them from entering these areas in order to keep their peace of mind.
The only way i see out (or rather in) for women in the science world is for them to PROVE THEIR WORTH!.If women are to show the men who oppress them that they were capable, i am sure they would be helped.
im in favour of the first hypothesis which says that women with children are generally not prepared to make the commitment....why is this so? this is because men are not responsible enough to be trusted with the children while the women also take up challenges...society also see women taking up challengtes us something which is soo wrong and unaccepteable.(social misfit) everybody points fingers at you because you go to work early and come back at 5pm, you have a big car which you drive yourself and your own house. when a woman has all these things it is believed that she would not get somebody to marry her...why because she is educated, with her job, home ect...therefore the men are scared of such women because they know they cannot be "controlled and dictated" to. due to some of these reasons, the men try to discourage their wives from futhering their education and take up more challenging courses as soon as they get married..which is very common in our situation..the men do all sort of things just to prevent the women which includes promises, stay and and give the children ect......though i support this idea i think it is due to the insecurity of men that is why women in general cannot take up challenges.
ReplyDeleteSexism is quite a pressing issue that pervades society to the vey core and i believe this is the reason women feel they arebeing discriminated against. From my point of view, and i hope many others too, women are as intelligent as men, tough they may not be as strong. The cause for the apparent scarcity of women in the top spots does not solely originate from the sexist nature of men, but also from the women themselves who, for some reason, have this mentality that they are just not as good as males.
ReplyDeleteaMPEEZy pRODUCTIONs
It interesting that he actually admitted that girls are discriminated upon because they usually seem to think women just like whining, but i think to some extent it is our fault. Yes, in the early ages, women could not 'do' anything but i think in these modern times we have refused to see that we have more opportunities now. Using Ibsen's book a Doll's House as an example. We see how at the end Nora realizes how much society is cheating her off and so decided to leave her domineering husband and find herself. This however is very unlikely in this age because women seem to think men are right. we seem to 'give' ourselves to men and allow them to take charge. Why? I honestly don't know. As for not being as good in science and math?? Well, that can be argued out. i still has to do with women having the mentality that men know best, so we don't even try to do the 'hard stuff which are meant for men'. In Africa, of at least in the Northern part of Ghana, when a man has only girls it is said that he has no children at all, this shows how much women are belittled and i think we grow up with that mentality and so we don't even try to be worth something. What I am trying to say is that to some extent Summers is right and to some extent it's the fault of women.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ampong, women are as smart as men, their decision not to be fully involved in science and math is not due to discrimination or insecurity but due to the lack of interest because the few women who are involved with science and math are as good as men and are credited as such. Women of this age are very assertive and as free as men in many parts in the world including Africa thus they have an equal opportunity to be the heads of such institutions.
ReplyDeleteGood day!!
ReplyDeletei once heard that women are more mentally stabilized than men. Though i cannot prove it myself, but biological science may be able to prove it.
Now that shows the extent at which women can reach up to in terms of knowledge and creativity.
But as Summers had said that " Fewer girls than boys have top scores on science and math tests in late high school years."
Does this really apply to the whole world first of all?? or only America??
AND, thus, I agree with the first hypothesis rather than the second.
From my observations, women are not less smarter than men, i believe it is just the mentality of women that "doing mathematics and physics is just not for women" And of course the other factors such as the role of women as housewives affects greatly in support for hypothesis one.
And in fact, how the world is right now, if women are to think and work and act like men, who will do the role of the "women" ?
Though the rights of women are respected in recent centuries compared to the older centuries, I still think this trend of women not willing to do "men stuff" will continue.
Though some women may have special mentalities( or should i say the "right" mentality) to challenge the technology and science aspect, is that the majority of women??
And i believe that if all women choose to challenge this aspect of life, they will equal men or indeed overpass them.
BUT in this world, reality and theory are two distinct things....
thankyou
I think I would go for the first point because it seems more valid, a logic point than the other two.
ReplyDeleteWomen require jobs which have less hours so that they can also take care of their families (if they are good wives, this is the logical thing to do unless otherwise). The second point does not sound convincing to me personally because I really think that it is not only about academic intelligence that makes one do a very good job, some people may not be very good class but can do very well when given a physical task to perform, Which might be the case with women. Discrimination may play a role to some extent because some jobs are best fitted for men than women for example working in mine areas would not require a woman because there is a lot of heavy work done there. So then if more science and technology jobs suit for men, why not employ men and let them do the job perfect than employing a woman who in turn won’t work up to expectations?
On the whole, I really think each of these issues raised do play a role to hinder women from playing a bigger role in science and technology academic institution.
Thinking about this for for some time now and maybe the second reason might make some sense here. I haven't bee able to think of a good enough reason though. Suggestions are gladly welcome.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the first and last point made by Summers. Women are naturally tuned towards a biological role.That is they will prefer to stay at home with their children rather than work and lose maternal contact with them. With the last point i fervently agree.if a man and a woman were to go for a job the man would be picked first due to reasons like: the woman would go on maternity leave,she will leave her job where necessary for her children,she would have to attend to household duties and so many other excuses so as to justify their reasons for not picking her though her qualifications might be better. As for the second reason it might be because not a lot of women are math or science inclined. also, why are only science and math used how about the humanities and languages. I think the second reason doesn't have a stand. I will be satisfied if statistics are made available to justify Summer's opinions
ReplyDeleteI would personally have to agree with the third hypothesis as the underlining factor to women not being at the top in science and technology. It is socially accepted that the woman’s place is to take care of children and all of that. But just think about a lot of mothers today who have children and still work from 8 till about 7 in the evening. And this may not be because they are in an academic field of work but rather, have other jobs. I think this removes the first point as being an excuse. Besides, if a really determined and ambitious woman wants to go into that field of work, I don’t think having children would entirely stop her, she would just be mindful of how much time she spends at it. Didn’t Marie Curie have children? And a husband? But she was still able to come out with the wonderful discovery in Physics.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, in relation to the second hypothesis, for one- there are no statistics to back it and also, this survey(if ever done) only relates to America. How do we know that this situation is similar everywhere in the world? We therefore shouldn’t base our judgment on a one-sided argument which may be invalid. We can’t just jump into some conclusion that this is true.
I therefore agree that many women are actually afraid to go into that field of work because they would be discriminated against.
I agree with Safo's comment about the new breed of "Superwomen". As far as I've seen, in recent years quite a number of women do NOT trade off their careers for their duties as housewives or mothers. In lower-class society, I believe it is probably hard to do because of low incomes, while in middle- and upper-class society, women have more of an option to solely pursue their careers or to both work and look after their children.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with him that the science and math grades in late high school years would not necessarily deter women from aiming for top positions in academic institutions relating to science and technology.
Personally, I am also more inclined towards the third hypothesis. To me, it actually doesn't seem like such a strong point, but then discrimination towards women does happen. Sometimes, in society we assume that a male would fill a better position than a female, a lot of times due to our apparent fragility or due to ideas that we are (more like 'should be') more interested in certain areas which have already been mentioned in other comments. I don't find it as such a strong point because over the years, I believe women have adapted to the discrimination that we've faced in previous years. As such, many, should I say, better educated females do not let opportunities they can use effectively pass them by so easily.
Looking at evidence for the 3 hypotheses, I would need statistics from several countries to be more convinced about the second one. Personally, the other two do not need much evidence for me because from life experiences I have seen that they are true to some extent.
The second and third explanations seem to be convincing to me. This is because for the second explanation, I have observed it from a real life situation that a few girls will get high scores in science and math exams. I have experienced it and so I am convinced by the second explanation. As for the third explanation, I am convinced because yes it is something that is happening in the present time. There is a discrimination against women. The portrayal of women is what is causing the occurrence of the discrimination. I have knowledge about this through my observations.
ReplyDeleteThe first explanation is not convincing to me because i believe it is just a conclusion that has been made from based a certain number of women and it has been generalized to all women. some women with children are still committed and are prepared to working long hours. So this makes the statement not convincing to me. I know this because i have had an experience of it in my family. paul c bwalya
1) The positions in question require very long working hours, and women with children are generally not prepared to make this commitment. I agree to this because in geography HL class we studied gender inequalities and I realized that women perform certain biological responsibilities that men do not nor cannot as such they cannot stay in positions that require long working hours and women with children are not prepared to make this commitment because as I said they have biological roles to play. Also, reflect on the issue of a 'wage gap' involving women and men occupying similar positions, performing roles and adding equal value. Women able to make it to the top and of equal worth as male counterparts are consistently underpaid, and this is a pressing issue worldwide. Why??? A high level of education is no safeguard against this. Careful research on this should convince you. I know that for well educated females in this open-minded society, it is more comfortable and convenient conscience-wise to "believe" that they are on equal footing with their male counterparts and pretend that everything is perfectly all right, when in reality, it is not exactly the case.
ReplyDelete2) The second statement will be discussed and argued upon later.
ReplyDelete3) Women are discriminated against. I do not think women are discriminated against that much because although it is a fact that women contribute a lot towards the socio-economic development of a country and even though more and more women are managing to perform both 'reproductive' and 'productive' roles, no serious efforts have been made to date, to ensure that men also take on some reproductive roles. It is understandable since this is a traditional issue and traditions die-hard. For instance, it is traditionally understood that when a man marries a woman, he buys a slave and therefore a slave has no right to expect assistance in whatever form from her master. Again, the extended family system which used to be a common practice in Ghana but is dying out, ensured that there was always someone to assist the woman in her household chores. Now, the nucleus family is becoming more and more preferable due to economic reasons and therefore there is no guarantee of assistance for the woman in her household chores. Since women are generally not in a position to pressure men to fulfill part of the household obligations, women are at a disadvantage right from the home situation and therefore "merely allowing women to schedule paid work demands to accommodate household responsibilities is likely to be an inadequate solution to our problem, since it reinforces the sexual segregation between men and women". Society is dynamic and therefore changes with the times. Women's traditional roles are changing and more and more out of necessity, women are adding on "productive" roles to their "reproductive" roles. It therefore behooves on all in the society, especially men to accept to take on some reproductive roles to leave women time to be able to contribute effectively to the economy, more so, when the traditional systems which supported women's reproductive roles are dying out e.g. the extended family system and communal living.
After reading the article I thought that the first point was the main reason. But after reading Kwame k’s comment I realized that discrimination plays the major role in this case. As for the second point I think it existed five years ago because if we take our own school for example, in the class of 2009 there were only few girls doing math HL and Physics HL but looking at our class more girls are into the field of science and so to me this point is invalid.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the first two reasons, as for the third I think it is somewhat connected to the first one. Many women put away certain goals they aim for because they put their families, their children above everything, but it is definitely not because they can’t get there. But men too have families and children they look after, so why is it not a deterrent for men but women in particular. This is where these stereotypes about the woman's place and all that come into play. This discriminates on the height to which women can reach on the academic ladder, because as you go up more is demanded and they are faced with the problem of juggling both situations. At the end most of them drop their lifelong dreams for family, but just a few forgo family for their goals and attain such high positions.
ReplyDeleteHowever with regard to the second point, women have been made to believe that math and science fields are for the male, so just a few who have the drive for it and are 'fearless' forge ahead and consequently end up on top, but some women would not even venture (again stereotypes) because they are made to believe that they can't excel in such a field because it is dominated by men. Or maybe the female brain was not made for 'mechanical' things, which by the way I totally disagree with. For example even here in hgic, when you hear that a girl is doing Math HL or Physics HL the first reaction is "eiiiiii", "u forcee oooo", "r u serious?" What do you mean by am i serious? If i am not serious why would i tell you in the first place!!!
From what i have pointed out so far, discrimination in this sense is not direct, because i believe if a woman well- qualified and learned and a man , equally learned but not as impressive, are being considered for a high academic position in one of these 'mechanical' fields, the position will definitely not go to the man but the woman!!
I think the 3rd point is one worth talking about. It is true that women are discriminated against but this shouldn’t be so. In greater parts of the world, women are expected to stay at home and take care of the children, cook and do house cleaning, chores etc. This doesn’t give them any extra time at all to have a time consuming job because house-keeping and baby-sitting are to whole time consuming jobs on their own! Many women have passed through this world with these life-long duties and it has become generally accepted that it is a job for the woman. But why are THEY EXPECTED TO DO THIS? In my opinion any man can also do the exact thing. It has gotten to the point in the world where if a woman does not assume the role of a house-wife in the family, she is seen differently or insulted. This is discrimination and the society in general should see to it that something is done concerning discrimination against women.
ReplyDeleteUnto the 2nd point (funny im going from down to up). Wow, i really have nothing ‘solid’ to say about this one. I think that men do better in science than women due to some biological difference in a male or female. This we may not know but at least the evidence of men doing better than women in science and mathematics can be true due to the physical records that have been taken over the years. The reason why more men do better than women may also be an effect of the way the society acts towards women in general. Women as i said earlier are expected to stay home do chores, washing, sewing, knitting etc. They end up doing the more creative stuff. Men back in days go to work to earn money doing all sorts of technical stuff. All this has generally evolved to women being more creative and less technical and ‘rigid’ whiles men became less creative and more technical. This is seen everywhere because you hardly see men proudly and openly sewing with thimbles on their fingers because they will be seen to be soft or gay. To conclude, i think all this is our doing. Our society has lead all this to happen.
Why should science and math be used to judge the intelligence of individuals?….the fact that boys are doing better than girls in their math and [science class does not mean they are better than the girls…….let us take this example, my combinations are English HL history HL and social studies HL. I make a total of 20 points out of 21 points. Obrimpong reads physics HL, chemist HL and biology HL and he makes 20 points. Are you going to say that he is better than me because my combinations are easier than his therefore he is better than me….? Why is it only boys who you think? Absolutely not, he chose that combination because he likes it and therefore will learn for it not that because he is intelligent.
ReplyDeleteWhy should science and math be used to judge the intelligence of individuals?….the fact that boys are doing better than girls in their math and [science class does not mean they are better than the girls…….let us take this example, my combinations are English HL history HL and social studies HL. I make a total of 20 points out of 21 points. Obrimpong reads physics HL, chemist HL and biology HL and he makes 20 points. Are you going to say that he is better than me because my combinations are easier than his therefore he is better than me….? Why is it only boys who you think? Absolutely not, he chose that combination because he likes it and therefore will learn for it not that because he is intelligent.
ReplyDeleteBasically, the third point is more convincing to me because I believe that women are discriminated against should be the primary reason why they are unable to achieve high positions in science… well at least I believe that for Africa…. I think that discrimination encompasses stereotyping…. A woman’s assumed role is to be a homemaker no matter her job. In a sense it is more or less generally agreed that that is her place by certain conventions that were in place before she was born. This assumption therefore makes it more likely that a woman will stay at home and take care of her children rather than pursue her career to the fullest. With regard to discrimination again I would like to believe that women have not been encouraged to succeed in terms of sciences. The fact that science is a male dominated with no problems with regards to it world could account for this fact.
ReplyDeleteI wasnt really able to read the long list of somewhat intellectual comments. However, i will go with option number three. For option no. 1 , why is it only the womans role to look after the children? The man is the head of the family and he takes full responsibility of the household, thus, if there should be full commitment that one cannot engage in the rigorous demands of science then i think the man should fall victim to this. For the second option, i would say inductive reasoning is being applied here , and we should remember that this is not a reliable method of gaining information. Perhaps 5 countries in the world have recorded that boys are doing better than girls in this area, but so what? That does not mean , all girls are not capable and must not be given the opportunity. I think in a more general perspective, option 3 dominates the rest, because in the first option,there are unmarried women or women who dont necessarily care about their children , however, they fall victim to this stereotypical assumption. I believe due to factors like language and culture, women are being discriminated upon. Consider the different languages in the world, how many of these do not use feminine articles for words with "supposed" feminine characteristics. This affects society's perception on women. Also, many cultures portray women as useless and ones that should be working at home doing all the house chores. The last thing i want to point out is that, if a woman can balance any other type of work and her home, what then stops everyone from thinking that because of family demands, she cannot meet the demands of science?
ReplyDeleteAfter reading each explanation I have come to the conclusion that all have their valid pints but it is explanation 3 that interests me the most .It has always been noted that women are discriminated against but I have never come across this topic in the field of science and technology. Although it is typical of a woman to look after the household and bare children, it is not all women who follow this typical example.25% of women worldwide are heads of their households whether they are in the science and technology fields they still hold top positions especially in parliaments and prestigious law firms. Although, this is a minor percentage it cannot be assumed that women have less time than men to do these vigorous jobs. The discrimination rate against women is high however slowly but surely these issues are being addressed. I do not believe that women have lower scores than men in science and technology, even if Summers is correct I am sure it is by a minute percentage. Women are still finding their way in the world and step by step they will overtake the men in the science and technology field.
ReplyDeleteIt is very subjective to think as such,but i believe women's place is in a house,taking care of her children and being at her husband's entire disposal.Something is however sure,many women nowadays to change the world even a scientifically.let's take an example like Marie Curie who was a great scientist.She had a great impact on the wold of Physics,but not in her domestic world.This simply means that women have all the skills necessary to have as great impacts on the scientific world as men do,but would find it hard to balance this life with their main purpose,which is "family support".This is however observed,with the percentage of women who are medical doctors and professsors in the world,which has been said to be greater than the percentage of male doctors
ReplyDeleteClaire d.
i totally agree with the third point.but i think my reasons are rather different from the rest.i tried to reason this out and see how we can look at the point and i came up with two ways.one of them is that women are just not worth it to be given such positions as that is not their nature.some women even in this century do not believe that they can actually do this kind of work.they prefer staying at home and concentrating on their marriages than to go out and work.the second one is where they are not given an opportunity to express their intelligence as it has been impacted in the minds of men in the society that a woman is responsible for household chores only!
ReplyDeletehere, we can see a relation between the mind and the world.where men are forced to think in a directed way about women and thus the whole society thinks the same as.in this case, men.
emotion plays part here 2 because no man would want his wife to have a better earning or to head the house.but generally, women are more hard working than men.but looking at point 1,I'm forced to use Kenyan women as an example,where having many children is considered as a sign of virility! so this can be considered right.women with children cannot.
the second point is true as well because for instance, the government of a country wants to support female education,the government universities always lower the standards from e.g 10 points to 14 here in Ghana.
THANX...
The hypothesis that seems covincing to me is the fact that women are being discriminated against. As we all know in the past few centuries women have had little say in matters of importance and the traces of this mentality can still be noticed today. We see this even when Summers downplays the hypothesis that women are being dicriminated against. This indicates to us that he doesn't want to consider this reason because it might not speak well of him considering the fact that he is a man himself. It might bring some amount of embarassement so he simply downplays it to avoid any such occurence. The other hypothesis can also be very subjective as not all women have children and a claim such as women don't do as well as men academically is very debatable.
ReplyDeleteFor the first hypothesis it is possible that a survey can be conducted to investigate on whether women with children are willinging to make such a commitment or not. Howerver this method might not proove very reliable as it would be very difficult for it to be done on a large scale. This will also be the case for the second hypothesis although the collection of data would most probably be easier the scale on which it can be done might also be very limited as a result a concrete conclusion would not be able to be drawn. The last hypothesis on discrimination is very debatable and there would be no efficient method of collectiong information on this apart from historical records of such discrimination. Most people might have their own opinions on such matters due to their own personal experiencse so there might not be any efficient way of determining the truth of this hypothesis. The truth of the first two,however, can be determined provided all necessary data has been collected and anlysed properly.