Repackaging Larry Summers: “Maybe women really ARE dumb”
December 4, 2008
by Sheryl Lee
|
The New Agenda co-founder Gretchen Glasscock has a great post up on her blog entitled, “The Larry Summers Dust Up: Women vs Paleolithic Role Models”, responding to “Was Summers right?” in the Washington Post yesterday, where she says author Ruth Marcus “comes to the conclusion Summers may have been right after all, we really are dumb.”
She takes Marcus to task for blithely dismissing our objections to Summers as “political correctness”, and notes that his presence on the Obama team may be causing contention among various women’s groups:
Sensing an opportunity to distract women’s groups and seeking to focus attention elsewhere, it seems some set out rather cynically to instigate a battle of pro and con quotes from women’s groups or prominent women on the suitability of Summers for such a high profile office. The goal, it seems, was to encourage controversy and a general slug fest among women’s groups on the Summers question.
I think this would be the ultimate magician’s hat trick, to get us to look over there, while Larry Summers is being pulled out of the hat, over here. It is not hard to get women’s groups bickering among themselves. The challenge, I think, is to hang together, to have a “big tent” of women; to try to work united and in the same tent. Those of us who are Democrats did that when we stood up for Sarah Palin. I think the way forward is not to critique each other but to critique and hold accountable Paleolithic men like Larry Summers and call into question the judgment behind appointing him and the ramifications to women and academics of what he stands for which the Obama vetting team clearly doesn’t get.
If you agree, why not fire up your email and let the Obama team know, even if Summers is outstanding in his field, he is a poor choice for high office and as a role model.
Nancy Hopkins, a co-founder at The New Agenda, who was present at the objectionable talk given by Summers in 2005, has also written a rebuttal to the Marcus piece. We’ll post about that tomorrow.
I have already expressed my viewpoint in the blog: How’s the Economy Really Doing? I am indifferent about Larry Summers the person. I am concerned about the public perception of women in the United States. Perhaps The New Agenda should take the exact quote, replace the men versus women sections with white people versus black people similar to what I did in the other blog and send it to the transition team. Ask the following questions, (1) if this is what he had said, would you have chosen him? (2) If so, why?
The problem here is that Larry Summers, Tim Geithner and Paul Volcker received the top financial appointments while Christine Romer received the number crunching job and Shelia Bair is being marginalized.
Women were hosed on this one and should be reasonably upset given than Larry, Tim and Paul all played a role in getting us in the current economic mess.
And oh, Bill Richardson – got the other financial post.
John and Kevin – I agree.
If Summers had said that blacks were genetically inferior in math and science, would Obama elevate Summers to this position?
I think not.
In the US, sexism is acceptable, racism is not.
Unfortunately, even some of the new women’s groups do not see it. I also found it really disappointing that Women Count attirbute Kay Hagen’s win to Obama: Barack Obama’s success in North Carolina likely gave Hagan a boost. Do they not even see it?
Gretchen’s article was awesome…looking forward to Nancy’s tomorrow.
I’ll be sending them around!
I just read the article in the Washington Post. I am a teacher and find that boys are sometimes better at maths on the whole, not because they are more able than the girls, but because they prefer it to english (a subject which they sometimes struggle in).
Articles like this, pointing this stuff out, is sexist. I mean, why arn’t there articles pointing out how much better girls are at reading and writing? Because that would seem silly. Articles like this remind me of those old victorian papers that tried to ‘prove’ black people were not as evolved as whites. Look forward to Nancy’s article.
[...] an animatronic Nativity scene on the lawn.) That means that instead of writing a post today about the infuriating rehabilitation of Larry Summers and the associated acid reflux in my esophagus, I’m going to write about Sinterklaas (which [...]
Taken from an article by Marcella Bombardieri, Globe Staff, January 17, 2005 as forwarded to me by Trish from the Women Vote – Women Count group:
Summers said cutting-edge research has shown that genetics are more important than previously thought, compared with environment or upbringing. As an example, he mentioned autism, once believed to be a result of parenting but now widely seen to have a genetic basis.
In his talk, according to several participants, Summers also used as an example one of his daughters, who as a child was given two trucks in an effort at gender-neutral parenting. Yet she treated them almost like dolls, naming one of them ”daddy truck,” and one ”baby truck.”
Dr. Larry Summers uses a very different definition of science than I do. He also makes very different connections between issues, such as autism being comparable to the innate abilities for math and science by gender.
Also taken from the same article:
The organizer of the conference, Harvard economist Richard B. Freeman, described Summers’ critics as activists whose sensibilities might be at odds with intellectual debate.
Some of the critics he was referring to: Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Denice D. Denton, chancellor designate of the University of California, Santa Cruz,; Anne C. Petersen, former deputy director of the National Science Foundation; Catherine Didion, former executive director of the Association for Women in Science; and Donna J. Nelson, chemistry professor at the University of Oklahoma.
Hopkins walked out in the middle of Summers’ talk, later talking about having emotional symptoms. This is not the scientific attitude.
She, and some other women, are acting out the very stereotypes we are trying to live down.
Why are we focusing on a Summers gaffe years ago, instead of on something current (like telling Obama to fire the groping speechwriter) or something important (like trying to get a qualified Clinton supporter appointed to Hillary’s seat instead of Caroline Kennedy)?
So far, the focus on Summers has given Obama cover to appoint two inexperienced bots — as token women. (Romer and Melody whosis)
[...] any of that in light of this, this, and this? That’s just the beginning; don’t forget Summers, Favreau, the Stimulus Plan. How much evidence does one need to mount to prove that Obama is out of [...]
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
January 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm
January 5, 2012 at 9:31 am
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...