ABC News suggests that Lawrence Summers is justified

<p align="left">On the <a href="">ABC Evening News yesterday (March 1, 2005)</a> Peter Jennings indicated that Lawrence Summers is justified in suggesting that biological differences are a significant reason why women are underrepresented in engineering, mathematics, and science.  </p><p align="left">Historically, science has pointed to various physical differences in women to &quot;explain&quot; their inferiority, especially in the realm of intelligence.  <a href="">According to the NY Times, &quot;A century ago, the French scientist Gustav Le Bon pointed to the smaller brains of women - closer in size to gorillas', he said - and said that explained the &quot;fickleness, inconstancy, absence of thought and logic, and incapacity to reason&quot; in women.</a>&quot;</p><p align="left">There are clear biological differences between men and women, which applies to our brains as well.  I think it begs the question that one brain structure should be superior to the other.  Scientific paradigms tend to favor male (atomistic/positivistic) thinking and discriminate against female (contextual and interconnected) thinking styles.  Shouldn't quality problem solving involve multiple thinking strategies and paradigms?  <a href="">&quot;The Gendered Atom&quot;</a> does a nice job of explaining how science has been biased against women, and does not adequately represent the complex interconnected reality of science.</p><p align="left">Despite the brain research that currently exists, I think it is inexcusable to suggest that women are not cut-out to be scientists or anything else for that matter.  It's time to retire Summers!</p>

Comments are closed.