As these girls grow up, and are told that women are not as good in math and science as men, and observe mostly men in these fields, they are going to feel much more intimidated to enter those fields. Yeah, we have lullabies along that line too. The truth is, if you look at the number of women pursuing degrees in Mathematics, Engineering, IT, and programming; we see men overwhelmingly dominating those classes. And we see women dominate in Home Economics, Child Development and teaching. Now we are supposed to believe that these courses are equally difficult.
Men and women, typically do pursue different areas of study, just as Summers said. Truth may hurt, but it is an observable, quantifiable fact.
Where Summers got into trouble, however, was declaring as if it were a fact that minute physical differences between the brains is unequivocal evidence that men’s excelling in certain areas over women is because of innate differences – not just a result of societal or cultural influences. This woman is an idiot. Summers never said that his musing was "unequivocal," indeed, quite the opposite. Here is what he said:
There are three broad hypotheses about the sources of the very substantial disparities that this conference's papers document and have been documented before with respect to the presence of women in high-end scientific professions. One is what I would call the-I'll explain each of these in a few moments and comment on how important I think they are-the first is what I call the high-powered job hypothesis. The second is what I would call different availability of aptitude at the high end, and the third is what I would call different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search. And in my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the order that I just described. Source
For anyone to write such an extensive article without citing the obvious qualifications in the original quote renders the rest of her commentary not worth the bandwidth.
