Larry Summers Resigns Himself To Arithmetic: Harvard Minus 1

No doubt you've already heard. Harvard University President Lawrence Summers, who has been hammered with criticism from Harvard's Arts and Sciences faculty since his birth, has resigned from his post. God forbid any institution should have atop its administration a controversial, confrontational, free-speaking, free-thinking leader. But I speak from the sidelines, so perhaps I should just mind my own business.

However, as a result of this news, I cannot mind my own business, nor can I resist reprinting an essay originally posted at Contratimes in May, 2005, called "A Fifty-Million Dollar Apology For Simple Math." The original comments posted by a woman stridently supportive of Hillary Clinton's presidency are also included. Suffice it to say that my interlocutor took "umbrage" with my ideas.

Enjoy.

A Fifty-Million Dollar Apology For Simple Math

For those of you formerly riveted by the humble 2004 presidential campaign of Carol Mosley Braun, you'll recall that one of her campaign slogans was "'Take the 'Men Only' sign off the White House door." Women supporters of her hoped-for presidency applauded her vigorous support of promoting women everywhere.

Jump with me to the rather recent remarks of Harvard University President Lawrence H. Summers, who made the rather inglorious suggestion that women might have an intrinsic disadvantage for success in the hard sciences and mathematics. At the moment of his alleged misarticulation, Umbrage replaced Veritas on the Harvard emblem, as truth fell victim to indignation and outrage. For it was suggested - from on high, no less - that men and women might be different; a suggestion that threatens the sacrosanct political dogma of equality between the sexes.

Hence, yesterday, in an apparent gesture of contrition for offending good sense, President Summers announced that Harvard has earmarked $50 million for investing in the futures market of women and minority faculty recruitment, particularly in the sciences. In effect, Summers' announcement is an apology for simple math.

And here is that math:

4, four, 6-2, square root of 16, 2x=8, IV, the number of winning games needed to win a World Series, the number of seasons, the number of legs on a moose -- each of these is equal, one to another. Each are different ways of writing the number 4. Four is equal to 36/9. 2 squared equals 1/2 times 8. You get the picture.

Hence, if men and women are equal, the following MUST be the case:

Bill Clinton equals Hillary Clinton; Carol Mosley Braun equals George W. Bush; (any woman) = (any man); a woman president and a man president comprise a tautology.

See the problem? Surely Carol Mosley Braun does not. For she believes (and she campaigned for the presidency ardently on this belief, with myriad women cheering her on), that the 'Men Only' sign needs to be removed from the White House, which is non-sensical if men and women are equal. For there is nothing to gain having a woman in the White House if she is equal to a man. Why have a woman president, ever, if WOMAN equals MAN? What is gained writing 'Five minus 1' instead of '4', if both values are the same?

So then, when the Harvard president dares depart from the rudiments of simple math, or for merely doing simple math, when discussing male/female differences, it strikes me not as vicious sexism. It's good thinking.

Besides, our lives are replete with examples that contradict Man=Woman. Remember "Men are from Mars; Women are from Venus?" Remember that men are "less in touch with their emotions than women?" Remember that men NEVER ask for directions?

Admittedly, these are anecdotal, but when anecdotes can be heaped as high as mountain peaks, one might begin to suspect such anecdotes amount to a pile of evidence. Men are exactly what compared to women when it comes to using a TV remote? Women are what compared to men when it comes to working in the kitchen? Men are what compared to women in nearly every TV commercial regarding parenting, or going to Circuit City, or buying a Hemi-powered Dodge Durango? Men and women are what when it comes to pornography? Women are what compared to men when depicted in HBO's "Sex and the City"? Oh, that's right. Men and women are different when compared one to another.

What do nearly ALL American women in politics believe about themselves? They believe that they bring an INTRINSICALLY different perspective to the public square than that possessed by men. Does anyone believe that Hillary Clinton believes her sex plays no part in her political views? Does anyone believe that feminists concede their perspectives are the same as those of Jimmy-John and Danny-Don Swampson from Boonstoon-on-Blackwater, Alabama?

Understanding that men and women are intrinsically different requires not one credit hour of study at Harvard University. (An NPR report a few years back featured a study that indicated men intrinsically navigate large spaces better than women, while women navigate smaller spaces better than men; with said differences rooted in evolution, with men as hunters and women as home-keepers. Where's the outrage?! I also recall studies suggesting that men perform the mental operation of viewing abstract 3-D objects [mentally, mind you] better than women.)

But it need not matter what studies show us, because every day we have women, conservative and liberal, reminding us how different they are from men. Conservative women, however, truly believe in those differences, are comfortable with them, and largely hold no animus or jealously that men do some tasks better (and some worse). Liberal women, by contrast, shout about equality, writing essays and tracts about the glass ceiling and corporate identities, and yet constantly remind us in that very act of protest that they see things, feel things, and think things in a different - and (allegedly) better - way than the men whose positions they want. In short, their very cries for equality prove they are not equal.

Really, Mr. Summers is right: Math is a problem for women.

At least some of them.

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved


Jami said...

judging by you, logic is a problem for some men. you say, in essence, that if two things are equal, then this other condition should not be met. that is, there should never be a man in the white house either if men and women are equal.

but this is all silly wanking no self-respecting woman should bother with. i agree that men and women are different, with different strengths and weaknesses. these vary from person to person so much, that we should just judge either a man or a woman on his or her qualifications.

hillary has 'em.


contratimes said...

Jami,

Thanks for your comments, and thanks for dropping by.

I don't know what you are saying: Is there something I've said that is illogical?

You are absolutely right in your assertion that I think there should be no MAN in the White House if women and men are equal: If a woman is a good president, then why ever have a man serve in the White House if he and she are equal? I am completely consistent in my thinking.

I have not in any way spoken illogically. In fact, the only illogicality we can find is in those who insist that men and women are EQUAL, and yet insist that a woman SHOULD BE and/or MUST BE in the White House. But you've already stated that you think that men and women are different, and therefore NOT equal, and thus you validly deduce that it would be great if a woman were president. Having a woman serve in the White House would be DIFFERENT than if a man served, proving that men and women are NOT equal.

The problem lies in the understanding of equality. Equality should mean "equal worth". Instead it means "interchangeable" or even "identical." But men and women are VASTLY different. And each man and woman is VASTLY important and valuable, equally so, but even that falls short. Why? Because "equal value" implies that we can divine "how much" men and women are worth. Moreover, I think men and women are equally immeasureably valuable; infinitely worthy. But I do not think that men and women are physically, mentally, spiritually, or even intellectually identical, interchangeable, OR equal, in the common sense use of that word. In other words, I believe in psycho-sexual diversity between the sexes, and not the bland, insipid, monotonous consciousness which deadens so much of the romance, intrique, mystery, diversity and complexity that exists between men and women these days.

As for Hillary, she is neither smart enough nor kind enough to be president. I am not saying that because she is a woman. I am saying that because it is true.

Now I KNOW you don't agree with me on that, but at least I've been honest with you.

Again, thanks for coming by. It means a lot to me that you would share your thoughts, particularly when you think I have a problem with logic.

But I must say you came right at me with a gross yet popular stereo-type: I am, to you, just another one of those dumb men.

Peace to you, always.

Well, there you go. Good luck to Harvard, though it seems to me the school should be blushing crimson.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.