I don’t normally read NU news and today, I was reminded why. To be honest, I can’t get the second page of that article because it was sent to me by a friend and I haven’t bothered to register but I did hope to share some thoughts:

First, I would have gotten up and left Larry Summer’s talk too. Actually no, I would have probably first stood up, faced the podium, coughed loudly, made a wretched throat noise, spit something gross on the floor and THEN walked out. Of course, as Larry Summers attempted to point out, there are differences between men and women. “Behavioral genetics,” I am sure, can account for some of those differences. However, the fact of the matter is there are “behavioral genetics” differences between people of different ethnic backgrounds, people of different heights, people of different weights, as well as people of different genders. Every single person is a product of a combination of their genetics and their environment and every single person, without exception, will acquire behavioral traits as a result of how their most obvious physicalities are reflected in their given environment. What Larry Summers failed to realize in his short-sighted talk was that statistical evidence coupled with shoddy information on “behavioral genetics” adds up to a big nothing in light of a million other potential influences and factors. Imagine if Mr. Summers had taken that podium to address the “behavioral genetics” that result in intellectual differences between races. I am far from making that argument, but by the same logic and statistical evidence equally as sound, Larry could have taken the fact that a certain race was hardly present in the fields of math and science, accounted for it with “behavioral genetics,” and found himself facing charges for “hate speech.” However, instead he is entirely permitted, if not encouraged, to get up there, offend the intellect of every women in the audience, and people clap when he is finished. It’s sick. Also to shed some light on “behavioral genetics”: There is no proof that one’s entire personality travels in a sequence of genes. The behavioral genetics argument is a favorite of people who believe in sterilizing convicted killers, but has yet to hold much water there either. My opinion: behavioral genetics are 50% genetics, 50% environment. There are all sorts of studies about identical twins separated at birth etc., and OMG, they both bought the SAME color pick-up and BOTH named their dog after famous 70s movies stars, but I think most of those studies are bs. Truth of the matter is, females are amply discouraged from taking on the arguably more prestigious and “less sensitive” fields due to environmental influences and a history of disempowerment. Stereotypes are allowed to perpetuate through marketing, (tide commercials with mom running around cleaning up after her messy crazy active boys) politics, (the president, though he’s never been pregnant, calling the pro life rally to voice his support for God in our lives) speeches of influential people, (Larry) and other things that people only subconsciously notice (Laura Bush sending out emails with cookie recipes to the registered republicans as her effort to support her husband’s campaign) and it’s all backward. What is especially frustrating is the cycle of it all. Speeches like this are given, articles like this are published and little girls that might have thought they were good at math or maybe were enjoying science, are forced by the overwhelming pressure of society to reconsider if they are just secretly denying their mothering and sensitive instincts. And then we all throw our hands up and wonder, why aren’t more girls becoming scientists?? A thought for Larry: instead of chalking up such a troubling statistic to an abstract like “behavioral genetics,” why not do something about it? As any half decent scientist would have told Mr. Summers, you cannot draw conclusions sans experimentation. What has been done to undo the hundreds of years of women filling the “have babies and cook” role to encourage young females to go into the fields of math and science? How different will the statistics be when someone can actually substantively answer that last question?

Lastly, just to toss it out there for credibility’s sake, no, I’m not a crazy feminist and I don’t normally spend this much time writing letters to the editors of a college newspapers. Actually I run around in a half shirt doing bar promotions on the weekends and can tell you all about the “behavioral genetics” that account for the differences between men and women, but I don’t think they have much to do with the fields of math and science. Some of us “naturally math/science inept” females actually scored a perfect on the math section of the SATs and fully intend to work an 80 hour week at some point. And when, or if I do have free time, chances of me spending it on housework are about as likely as the kid who wrote this article losing his virginity before 40. And in 2005, I’m just not that unique. As a special tip for the author, if you continue to make arguments that parallel a woman believing she is as intellectually capable as a man to 13th century Europeans believing the world is flat, you will continue to “always be wrong” when you try to argue with a female.

Some more interesting statistics: 82% of full grown men weighing under 150lbs harbor self esteem issues on account of their stature. Men that are lacking in their own self confidence are 98% more likely to criticize the intellect of females. 76% of men that see themselves as superiors to their wives physically abuse their spouse at some point in their marriage. 61% of men say they grew facial hair so that people would either think they were older or take them more seriously.

Kelly Craven Law, 2006 [email protected]