March 24, 2011
“Why Lawrence Summers was Wrong”
In this article Summers portrays simply portrays women as genetic under dogs, being that he basis his claim off of genetic variances betrwwen men and women, and the “biological differences”. He claims that women shy away from more critical math and science fields because they “naturally” want to nurture a family, leaving them with the lack of desire to want to pursue a high stressed job. He also uses, genetic differences causes more males to have high aptitude for critical thinking. By mentioning scientific reasoning, Summers try to make his claim stronger, thus inarguable, but in this case, he failed. He failed to realize that sometime nurture, and social up-bringing, in some cases, is much stronger than scientific facts. The casual argument suggested in this article is society and how if effects culture and gender roles. Beginning decades ago women were portrayed as being the “damsel in distress”, whereas men were expected to be the family hero and safe-keeper. Media usually objectifies women in a light that enable them to think of their worth as low. Christianson, cleary and strongly opposes Summers claim with a great argument. She states “the societal forces working againt [women] encouragement are still pervasive. The act of women being smart and successful, in the social eye, is considered unattractive. The stereotypes given to women consequently shape the career paths women chose to take. Can you recall any child time book that portrays the man as the home-maker and not the bread winner. This leads to the fact that nurture is what causes expectections of gender roles to be engraved in their minds, not biology, although it does have a minute effect. From birth usually female infants are socialized, by their own mother to be dependent, as in the study that showed “Mothers of daughters tended to ask their daughters more question, encouraging social interaction, whereas...