I was surprised to see Kara Hadge write a column so obviously sensible that it basically repeats the statements made by Larry Summers at Harvard that led to his being burned at the stake by some extremists.

" Just because a woman can be an astrophysicist, doesn't mean she ought to be one, and just because female art historians are not venturing into male-only territory doesn't mean they should feel guilty about studying Picasso's cubist paintings or Bernini's sublime sculptures."

True. Many women may steer clear of the sciences because they want to. Because their interests are naturally directed towards other areas. This is the heresey that Summers was fired for and it is so obviously true that I am glad to finally see it in the XX Factor.

Larry Summers suggested that women didn't do well in the sciences because they were incapable of doing so. There's a world of difference between what he said--and got rightfully pilloried for--and what Ms. Hadge is saying.

la.donna.pietra:

Larry Summers suggested that women didn't do well in the sciences because they were incapable of doing so. There's a world of difference between what he said--and got rightfully pilloried for--and what Ms. Hadge is saying.

You might want to better inform yourself about what he in fact said. Slate's own William Saletan has covered it well.

Wrong. Larry Summers was run out of Harvard because the faculty WANTED him out for other reasons. He absolutely did not say that women were not incapable of doing science. What he proposed was a study into why there are not more women in science. He like any other scientist suggested that perhaps in some areas that might be differences in aptitude. This statement ruffled a lot of feathers. It was just a question not a statement of fact. Indeed, differences in aptitude should be included in such a study if only to rule them out in a scientific manner. Personally, I believe girls in general are as good as boys in higher math (PhD level ) but I have no formal proof of that. I would like to have that proof to give to every little girl I know.

Here's a quote when asking aloud why a lot of women don't choose math and science as a career,""The first was the reluctance or inability of women who have children to work 80-hour weeks."

I think the real question he should have asked himself is "Why do we make faculty work 80 hours a week? Wouldn't faculty and their family be better served working hours that balance work and family?"

So are you saying he's sexist because he didn't want to lower standards to make the jobs more appealing to women?

It seems more to me like he was just pointing out a reason for the disparity ... a starting point to the dialogue that may have eventually led to the question you think he "should have asked."

Thanks for pointing out that the comments could of been a starting point. Sadly they were not because of the media hype and thin-skined people cut off the necessary dialogue before it got very far.

No, I don't think Larry Summers is sexist, just a moron. The reason people objected to the comment he made above was because he looked at the problem in a narrow minded way. He wondered why it was that women w/ children were unwilling to work 80 hours work weeks instead of questioning the status quo of needing 80 hour work weeks.

I don't know what professions, other than emergency medical professions, NEED 80 work weeks, but mandating that sort of schedule will definitely deter anyone who is the primary care giver of their family. So I'm not sure what you mean by "lowering the standard for women" by ensuring a flexible and sane work schedule. I think that sort thinking will eventually be considered antiquated as more men and women in the work force demand flexible working schedules and this will eventually lead to more women entering male dominated fields.

Yes, maybe these jobs should require more reasonable hours per week BUT if the hours are adjusted BECAUSE of the concerns of women than that would be lowering the standards just for women and that is a step backwards.

I agree with your last sentence but note that you say 'more men and women' and not just 'women'. That is key here.

Just to clarify here. There are no "hours" at Harvard-Ph.Ds don't punch a time clock. We do this to ourselves. Working like a dog is what you do when you are motivated by scientific curiosity and what you do in service of tenure. Academia has an "up or out" policy. Either you are promoted or fired. Once fired, it is hard to find another career track job in academia. Interestingly, most faculty at Harvard leave before they go up for tenure because the standards are absurdly high.

If you want to make academia more "friendly" to women. A move that would increase the talent pool, it would be necessary to reform tenure policies. I have a 5 year old and was recently tenured. So, I can relax (and waste time posting here). But, the reality is that we lose many exceptionally bright women because the tenure clock tends to fuck with the biological clock.

One could also say 'we lose bright women because they would rather have babies than be dedicated to their careers'.

So you do recommend that policies be changed to be more flexable so women can have babies and not lose ground in the 'rat race'.

Other here have pointed out that fathers in these type of careers have been getting screwed in this regards since time began. For example, I saw my dad only a few hours a week and as his company took off less and less (a few hours a month!). In other words a man at Harvard that has kids has to decide if he wishes to spend time with the kids or go for tenure. Is that fair? What changes in the policies can be made so he doesn't have to make this type of choice?

HEY, I don't have ANY specific viewpoint here. Really. Of course it would be best for the society at large to utilize these bright women. HOW this is done in a way that is 'fair' to everyone? I don't have any answers to that. But the topic is very interesting.

No. It doesn't have to work like that. For instance, many universities now "stop the tenure clock" for childbirth-for both men and women (my university does this). What this means is that you have an extra year before you go up for tenure. This is helpful, but honestly an extra year is barely enough to compensate for the time lost to a new baby. What universities could do is offer an additional 3 years for those faculty who request an extended tenure clock for a variety of family reasons-babies, elderly parents, or more personal reasons (e.g., illness). For this not to be abused, it would need to also be contingent on a history of productivity.

Universities invest thousands of dollars in hiring a faculty member. The gamble is that over the course of the individual's lifetime he or she will make noteworthy contributions to the knowledge base. Failing to tenure someone because early in his/her career he/she took time to parent a child, but who may later make an amazing discover in genetics/mathematics seems quite wasteful to me.