All you Summers lovers, look at his other poor errors of judgement, not just this one pertaining to women. He has shown a consistent, patronizing attitude and we do not need that now, or ever. Also, some NEW blood, please!!
I am not really big fan of Larry Summers outside the whole did he didn't say women are less intrinsically inclined to participate in the maths and sciences. I simply feel the history of his actions as a whole, the Summers memo, the Cornel West feud, the grant stealing and the speech, tell me this is an arrogant man who takes the principles of economics to be reality. I understand that economics is science is math, but we live in a human world, and I don't want a Secretary of State who cannot accept that.
@Cuntlovin: I don't know if I'd say economics is a good science, there's still a large segment of that group that adheres to bullshit fundamental underlying principles (rationality and all of that) without any evidence.
I'm an undergrad at Harvard, and I remember when Larry Summers was getting in big trouble for what he supposedly said about women's aptitude for quantitative disciplilines. The thing is, he DIDN'T say he thought that women are less capable! He gave that possibility in a list of possibilities that might explain why there are fewer women in the sciences; he didn't say that he believes that to be the case.
I am all for ratting out sexist assholes, but Larry Summers is not a sexist asshole.
Come on, Jezzies, don't be reactionary without knowing the facts: [www.thecrimson.com]
@Zeeky: He listed it as a POSSIBILITY ! And why not consider it a possibility ? Is that so insane to CONSIDER that women MIGHT have less aptitude in certain academic arenas ?
Could we consider that women might have greater aptitudes in other academic arenas (verbal)?
Is the first possibility sexist and the second not ???
@Isolationtzar: Your punctuation indicates that you have a great future as a comic book writer! I kid, I kid. I think your second point is a good one. I mean, we know that there are physiological differences between men and women. Still, it's an extremely sensitive issue and he really should have known better.
Missing from the very good reasons Larry Summers should not be allowed to touch the economy:
1. In 1999, Summers & his Wall Street buddy Robert Rubin while advising the Clinton administration on economic affairs supported the odious Phil Gramm's Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The bill removed the barriers between banks, securities firms, mortgage lenders and insurance companies -thus a field day for Summers & Rubin's Wall Street chums to go blood simple on the protections set up by FDR to avoid the economic s&&t storm we're in now.
2. While Larry was chief economist for the Word Bank he advocated dumping toxic waste in the "under populated countries in Africa" because they are "under-polluted." Some of the logic behind this being that poor people don't live that long anyway.
@GregoryPython: Thank you! I was hoping someone else would bring these points up, as I have brought them already on different days. He seems to have a problem with the 'other', whether they are POC or women. If you want to know more, go to the Senate hearings on his confirmaiton when much of this was brought up, even though he DID get the post. Not that interested in someone who has been at the WB, as the WB generally runs roughshod over everyone else in the world. Once you've got a taste of that Imperialism it is hard to give it up.
CT Dems are thinking about kicking Lieberman out of the party (hey vote on it next week). I am not sure it is the best idea because do you really want to say there is no room in our party for people who disagree?
That said, I hate the guy, I voted for Lamont twice and when he lost I finally registered to vote in California, where I live part-time. Better Boxer and Feinstein than Lieberman.
@Rofold: See, I feel that it's not an issue of kicking out Democrats who disagree. Lieberman himself left the party when he ignored the CT democrats' fairly nominated choice of candidate and ran for Senate against him as an Independent. And then all that campaigning for the Republican ticket this presidential election pushed him even further from being any sort of Democrat.
I'm frankly surprised anyone even considers him part of the party anymore.
I cursed out a cabdriver on Friday. After he yelled at me for using a credit card.
Related: I have a lot of unresolved anger.
Joe Lieberman needs to be forced into retirement so that he can spend his days being scorned by his fellow retirees and a good portion of the Connecticut folk.
On the genetic differences front: Summers did *not* say that women were inherently worse at math or science. His argument was that, while their *mean* aptitude is equivalent to men's, their *variance* is lower. Put another way, women's bell curve has a peak in the same location as men's, but it's a sharper peak.
Men are more likely to be found at extreme values of aptitude -- both high and low. So women can be pleased to know that dumb men are dumber than dumb women.
Meta-arguments are interesting (ie whether or not the science is correct or whether or not he was qualified to speak about on the topic). But a claim that, in the aggregate, he called women less skilled at math and science than men is simply wrong.
@MariettaRhesus: Then how was his statement even relevant to the discussion? The entirety of science and engineering professionals is not made up solely of those at the very end of the bell curve. If women are more evenly distributed, then there should be more women skilled at math than men once you move away from the extreme.
On behalf of everyone in Connecticut who did not vote for Joe Lieberman, I assure you, we're even more embarrassed by this fucktard than we are by the fact that we live in The Nutmeg State.
@Sassette: I concur. And hey, don't knock our nutmeg! We CT natives have been hocking fake knock-offs for centuries... which I guess would explain Lieberman.
Also, every time I see, hear, or sense that man's name, a piece of me dies. Enough with the LIE-berman. Fucktard is really the only term for him, other than turn-coat, traitor, and two-faced S.O.B.
also in defense of larry summers, the harvard faculty wanted him out (he isnt great with people, it wasnt the job for him) and were looking for any reason to do it. so they took his comments out of context (they were clearly a mistake but it was one comment, not like, one of his core beliefs) and got him out of there. i would love to see more women on these floated short lists, but summers is a brilliant economist who has actually been very active in women's issues. there are a couple of good articles on huffington post about things he actually DOES, his whole career is not based on one idiotic comment that he apologized for.
@soxer: I've read those. His belief that women should be educated is laudable and all, but he's not going to get a cookie from me for subscribing to the bare minimum level belief that even if women are poorer at, you know, stuff than dudes, they shouldn't be punished for it.
I don't doubt your statements about internal politics at Harvard, but honestly, anyone willing to even include that in his speech, no matter whether it was "a core belief," - which is not a statement I can see how you can make - really matters.
Tim Geithner FTW. Yo, how do you pronounce his last name, "GUYth-ner" or "GAYth-ner" or "GUYt=ner"??
I want Ms. Bair to stay at the FDIC because she is effective. Who would replace her? BTW she claim's the top spot in today's WSJ's "The 50 Women to Watch in 2008" article. (Hoping that Jezebel.com will run that article later today.)
To clarify : Larry Summers NEVER said that women werent innately good at Math and Science.
When asked his thoughts as to why women are underrepresented in science and math (we are) he suggested that there could be an innate cause as well as discrimination in those fields.
That's a far cry from "Women are innately poor at math and science".
As an economist it is perfectly rational to consider genetic differences when looking at economic trends.
His remarks were NOT sexist then and he is NOT a sexist now.
@Isolationtzar: You have mischaracterized his speech. He suggested that the secondmost reason women do not go into math and science (the first being family/life obligations) is that they are innately predisposed against mathematic/scientific thought. He suggested that this "genetic difference" was, in fact, more important than any socialization women might receive.
His views were deemed academically unrigorous by anyone who heard them, for a number of reasons:
First of all, not a single modern-day geneticist/neuroscientist/whatever has ever believed we have enough evidence to make such a sweeping statment.
Second of all, Larry Summers? Not a geneticist/neuroscientist, and thus unqualified to opine on this matter.
Third of all, most neuroscientists now believe that any "predispositions" in the brains are not hardwired.
Fourth of all, whatever Larry Summers may have thought of the issue, he was the leader of a university that should have been striving to turn out more female math/science graduates. Instead he made underminer-y speeches. So even as a function of his job, it was a shitty thing to do.
@PilgrimSoul: You would think a college president would be looking to attract new people, rather than repel, wouldn't you? He shot himself in the foot. That's not the kind of critical reasoning we need in a Treasury secretary.
I'll leave the Jezzie's to make their own individual interpretations.I have just heard him misquoted for so long now, I thought I should set the record straight :
"In the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are, in fact, lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination."
@Isolationtzar: I think a good deal of the population don't have an intrinsic aptitude towards science and engineering, but I think this kind of thinking also discriminates more against women. I can't speak for everyone, though. Math and science have always been super easy and enjoyable for me. (So has art and English, but that's not relevent here.) I never had anyone say I couldn't do these things because I was a girl, but I also never realized how smart I was until I got into college. I didn't know it wasn't that easy for everyone to do math. I know there aren't any other women in most of my engineering classes but I don't know exactly why.
I was yelling at the TV this a.m. when Joe Scarborough said only radical left-wing feminists opposed Larry Summers. Why are they all trying to get him the job?
11/10/08
11/10/08
11/10/08
11/10/08
I am all for ratting out sexist assholes, but Larry Summers is not a sexist asshole.
Come on, Jezzies, don't be reactionary without knowing the facts: [www.thecrimson.com]
11/10/08
Could we consider that women might have greater aptitudes in other academic arenas (verbal)?
Is the first possibility sexist and the second not ???
11/10/08
11/10/08
1. In 1999, Summers & his Wall Street buddy Robert Rubin while advising the Clinton administration on economic affairs supported the odious Phil Gramm's Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The bill removed the barriers between banks, securities firms, mortgage lenders and insurance companies -thus a field day for Summers & Rubin's Wall Street chums to go blood simple on the protections set up by FDR to avoid the economic s&&t storm we're in now.
2. While Larry was chief economist for the Word Bank he advocated dumping toxic waste in the "under populated countries in Africa" because they are "under-polluted." Some of the logic behind this being that poor people don't live that long anyway.
11/10/08
11/10/08
That said, I hate the guy, I voted for Lamont twice and when he lost I finally registered to vote in California, where I live part-time. Better Boxer and Feinstein than Lieberman.
11/10/08
I'm frankly surprised anyone even considers him part of the party anymore.
11/10/08
Related: I have a lot of unresolved anger.
Joe Lieberman needs to be forced into retirement so that he can spend his days being scorned by his fellow retirees and a good portion of the Connecticut folk.
11/10/08
11/10/08
It just makes the world a funnier place.
11/10/08
11/10/08
Men are more likely to be found at extreme values of aptitude -- both high and low. So women can be pleased to know that dumb men are dumber than dumb women.
Meta-arguments are interesting (ie whether or not the science is correct or whether or not he was qualified to speak about on the topic). But a claim that, in the aggregate, he called women less skilled at math and science than men is simply wrong.
11/10/08
11/10/08
11/10/08
11/10/08
11/10/08
Also, every time I see, hear, or sense that man's name, a piece of me dies. Enough with the LIE-berman. Fucktard is really the only term for him, other than turn-coat, traitor, and two-faced S.O.B.
11/10/08
11/10/08
11/10/08
11/10/08
I don't doubt your statements about internal politics at Harvard, but honestly, anyone willing to even include that in his speech, no matter whether it was "a core belief," - which is not a statement I can see how you can make - really matters.
11/10/08
11/10/08
I want Ms. Bair to stay at the FDIC because she is effective. Who would replace her? BTW she claim's the top spot in today's WSJ's "The 50 Women to Watch in 2008" article. (Hoping that Jezebel.com will run that article later today.)
11/10/08
When asked his thoughts as to why women are underrepresented in science and math (we are) he suggested that there could be an innate cause as well as discrimination in those fields.
That's a far cry from "Women are innately poor at math and science".
As an economist it is perfectly rational to consider genetic differences when looking at economic trends.
His remarks were NOT sexist then and he is NOT a sexist now.
11/10/08
His views were deemed academically unrigorous by anyone who heard them, for a number of reasons:
First of all, not a single modern-day geneticist/neuroscientist/whatever has ever believed we have enough evidence to make such a sweeping statment.
Second of all, Larry Summers? Not a geneticist/neuroscientist, and thus unqualified to opine on this matter.
Third of all, most neuroscientists now believe that any "predispositions" in the brains are not hardwired.
Fourth of all, whatever Larry Summers may have thought of the issue, he was the leader of a university that should have been striving to turn out more female math/science graduates. Instead he made underminer-y speeches. So even as a function of his job, it was a shitty thing to do.
11/10/08
11/10/08
"In the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are, in fact, lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination."
11/10/08
11/10/08
11/10/08
11/10/08
11/10/08
11/10/08