Where's the feminist outrage?
John Tierney must be incredibly bold or incredibly stupid. The former lover of Maureen Dowd writes that women may be lagging in pay and career advancement because they are simply less competitive than men, To make matters worse, he attributes the discrepancy not to socialization, but to "innate" differences, "a byproduct of evolution and testosterone".
Recall that it was that word - innate - that got Larry Summers in such trouble. But Tierney's claim seems far worse than Summers' alleged crime. Women are where they are not because they might be a little less adept at certain subjects (and by implication, more adept at others), but because overall they're innately less driven tto success.
Unlike Summers, Tierney is not suggesting this as one possibility among many, but claiming that this one factor accounts for the difference. Unlike Summers, he is not making a conjecture, but citing actual empirical research (something those firebrands in Cambridge seem unfamiliar with). Will Tierney inspire the wrath of outraged feminists?
Stay tuned ....
posted by anguswit @ 12:58
2 comments
2 Comments:
Let’s get this straight.
Are there innate differences between men and women? Of course. (thank G-d)
Are there biochemical determinants, such as the “sex hormones” estrogen and testosterone, that effect behaviour? Most likely.
Are these hormones solely responsible for stereotypical gender behaviour? Doubtful.
Both men and women have both estrogen and testosterone. The levels of these hormones differ not just between the genders, but also from person to person. Regardless of a person’s biochemical balance, humans are thoughtful. Reaction in the test situation Tierney described is not based on primordial tendencies, but rather is largely based on previous experience and as Tierney dismisses, socialization. I can think of situations where the competitiveness in the female subjects might be more socially encouraged (how about looking at two women after one man?) and might thereby result in a different conclusion about female competitiveness than the study Tierney describes.
The problem with Summers’ and, yes, with Tierney’s comments is not in their attempt to figure out trends in gender differences. The problem with these comments is that women are being denied an opportunity that they want, by men who simply say that women are not hardwired to handle that opportunity. Both men are advocating an idea that automatically closes off women from a realm in which women want to practice their innate abilities. All we are saying is give us a chance.
--of course, Katz
anonmous is right -women are usually less inclined to strive to succeed in the way that men are- they have loftier goals to reach than the marketplace success. eph
Post a Comment
<< Home