You have a really good point. I think this is an outgrowth of the Angry White Man phenom. I think the reasons for a lot of gender gaps are personal preference and behavioral choices.
Leonardo | Homepage | 10.20.05 - 4:33 pm | #

ahh.. because the lib-brills do the opposite?
If that doesn't sound like a good excuse, its because it isn't, but at least its bipartisan!
anomdebus | 10.20.05 - 6:51 pm | #

The gender gap in college assumes that college is the right choice. I make no such assumption.

On the other hand, it does make a nice statistical refutation of the worn-out feminist dogma that schools underserve girls, despite the fact that being male in school or at college is inching closer every year to being a punishable offense by itself.
Matt | Homepage | 10.21.05 - 6:48 am | #

I don't think what Larry Brown said was specifically sexist in any major way, it was just stupid. Somebody in his position should know better than to make public speculations about controversial subjects like that.
There are gender differences, and some of them are probably biological, but even then they're just trends, and don't mean that a woman can't do what she wants with her life, even if it is something thats typically been male dominated.
Maybe hiring decisions for top science positions need to be examined, but if theres simply not enough women interested in those fields, then maybe feminist writers should encourage women to go into science fields instead of immediatly jumping to the conclusion that any gender difference in achievement is based on male conspiracy.
I'm not accusing Isis of male bashing of course.
And just to excuse myself from sexism, I know lots of women that are better at math and science than me, and also women that can beat me up. Gender differences don't play nearly as big a role as individual differences.
Travis | 10.21.05 - 2:54 pm | #

Not that Isis doesn't make a succinct, if not narrow, point...but, pulling those three issues together into one meta-issue, and to superimpose that concoction onto "conservatives", is just a tad irresponsible and hyperbolic, wouldn't you say?

The book that you linked to may also be a bit overreactionary and trying to capitalize on the overblown idea of the victimization of males as a result of femenism. However, from what the reviews show, it seems that she does make several good points. But you're connecting some pretty distant dots here...

...especially considering that the book was published in 2001, yet, Summers' statements and the USA Today study were both from 2005.

Perhaps Isis was being a tad "tongue-in-cheek" when she tried to connect the dots of those three links...but, if not, well, that's just stupid.


Also, to draw a distinction between what Summers was talking about, and what the USA Today study is talking about, I could delve further into the difference between A) 18-22-year-old kids getting college degrees and 2) post-graduate women, in the prime child-bearing section of their lives (culturally speaking), having the time and/or drive to deny family rearing in favor of chasing a career in science and trying to climb the ladder into higher positions. If Isis can't see the difference, then I dunno what to say. When most middle-to-upper-class women are 18 or so, they're not tied down with a husband or the spectre of children on the horizon. So, in that respect, they're on a more level playing field with men. However, after they graduate, they have some big choices to make. And oftentimes (this is changing, obviously), because of their innate desire to bear children and raise a family, they are less likely to persue higher positions that would require more of their attention. This is only natural. It's not some sort of grand injustice.

Now, to consider that conclusion "sexist" would be rediculous...but it's not too different from what Summers said. And no, he never called women "genetic retards".
Evan | 10.24.05 - 6:46 pm | #