By Linley Erin HallSeal Press
Well-researched and engagingly written, Who's Afraid of Marie Curie? goes beyond pointing out the glaring inequities in what continue to be male-dominated fields (although Hall does an excellent job of that as well.) By merely presenting the evidence, Hall would still have produced a solid book; by digging deeper into the possible root causes of inequality in these fields of work and offering potential solutions, she has presented us with a clarion call for change.
Covering subjects ranging from early education to graduate programs to the experience of women scientists and mathematicians in academia and industry, Hall makes the case that girls and women are treated differently - unequally - from day one.
Drawing from numerous studies and personal interviews with more than 100 women, Hall uses both statistics and real women's stories to take a swipe at the theory that we simply aren't as good at math and science as men. If you think this attitude is a thing of the past, think again; it was proclaimed by none other than the president of Harvard University, Larry Summers, in 2005. (The intellectual superiority apparently didn't reach Summers' brain; he was ousted in 2006 and replaced by Drew Gilpin Faust, Harvard's first female president, in 2007.)
Hall's interviewees, some of whom have left science and math altogether, share experiences that range from the uncomfortable to the horrifying; at times, this book will make you mad (and rightfully so.)
While early female scientists had to "fit in" with the men in order to work in these fields (and they were often told, she points out, simply to leave), Hall acknowledges that "changes are happening" - but not fast enough. This book offers many ideas that educators, employers and universities can - and should - implement to speed things along.
Review by M.L. Madison
Click here to buy:
3 comments:
One minor correction. Summers didn't argue that women simply aren't as good at math and science as men; as Hall explains in the book, he argued that women's ability at math and science is more consistent than men's, with the consequence that a larger proportion of men than women are extremely bad at math and science, and also, a larger proportion are extremely good. Whether this is the case I cannot say, but it is quite different from the position you falsely attribute to Summers in your review.
I thought her explanation of this fairly subtle point was very clear, but maybe it wasn't clear enough? Does this explanation help?
I didn't falsely attribute anything. In his now infamous speech, Summers said that "innate differences" between women and men were the reason why women didn't hold as many top positions in math and science.
Please do some research before suggesting that people make "false" observations - I suggest you read articles about Summers in the Boston Globe and Washington Post archives.
Summers did say that he thought innate differences in ability between men and women were a reason why women didn't hold as many top positions in math and science. He didn't, as you say, claim that this was "the reason" --- it's the second of three or four reasons his speech argues are important --- and, as I explained in my previous comment, he didn't say that women "simply aren't as good at math and science as men."
I had read Summers's infamous speech before writing my first comment. I had also read Hall's book several times. I have also read Roy Baumeister's more recent speech, "Is There Anything Good About Men?", about gender differences in the variabilities of aptitudes. I don't think articles in the popular press are really relevant to the question of what Summers said or didn't say, given that the full text of the speech is readily available, and there don't seem to be any accusations that the transcript is falsified.
The words "innate differences" do not appear in Summers's speech, as the quotes in your comment above falsely imply.
For what it's worth, my own opinion is that Summers dramatically overestimates the importance of these innate differences and dramatically underestimates the importance of gender prejudice.
In summary, you have made two false statements --- that Summers' speech "proclaimed" the attitude that women "simply aren't as good at math and science as men;", and that it said that innate differences were "the reason" for the gender imbalance --- and two false implicit claims --- that Summers' speech used the words "innate differences", and that I did not do any research before writing my previous comment. I assume you made these false claims because you were uninformed and not because of any dishonesty.
I think I have adequately and civilly rebutted all four of these false claims. If my assumption about why you made them is correct, you will now withdraw all four of them and apologize.
Post a Comment