The panelists were Christina Hoff Sommers, also editor of the volume, a philosopher and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative Washington, DC, think tank publishing the book. She was joined by Rosalind Chait Barnett, a psychologist and researcher at Brandeis University's Women's Studies Research Center. Their discussion was moderated by Hanna Rosin, founding editor of DoubleX, the new magazine for women by Slate. 

Barnett agrees that preference plays a large role, but in her response she reminded Sommers and the audience that preference is a learned characteristic. She referred to a study which recorded audio of children interacting with displays at a museum and with their parents afterwards. Both boys and girls were equally interested in the exhibits but parents gave boys much more feedback when their children asked them questions about what they were seeing. It is this type of socialization that leads to observed toy preferences, she argued, and said that while five-year-olds show clear gender preferences, one- to two-year-olds do not, which shows just how young socialization occurs. 

On the question of sexism, both panelists agreed that sexism existed in the past and that things have gotten better. At issue seemed to be whether we have come far enough. Sommers thinks we have, and that efforts to get more women into the sciences are hurting men and society. She warned that some women want to use the Title IX law to legislate quotas for women in sciences. Barnett said she was unaware of such efforts, which she considered unlikely. 

One topic for heated discussion was a study conducted by two women who had been denied grants by a Swedish research organization. As Barnett told it, they sued for the right to see how they and others were evaluated. The evaluations had been done subjectively, but when the two created an objective formula they found that many women who lost out were equally or more qualified -- in terms of number of publications and other metrics -- than the men who beat them. Sommers said she had reason to believe that the analysis of the data was flawed, and that when she requested the data from the authors they told her they had somehow lost it, which only confirmed her suspicions. Barnett reported she was satisfied with the original work. 

Sommers closed by arguing that it is in fact boys, not girls, who are at risk in our education system, and that feminists should be cognizant of the harm they are doing by continuing to push for equity when women have already achieved it and more. Barnett, on the other hand, argued that we have a long way to go before prejudices against women in science are erased.  

Why do you think there aren't more female scientists? Is it ability, sexism, or interest? How much should we try to legislate our way to fairness and how much should we let evolution of social norms take its course? Share your thoughts in the comments section below or tell your story in the Your Stories section of our site (registration and login required). 

Photo of Sommers (left) courtesy of the American Enterprise institute and Barnett (right) courtesy of Rosalind Chait Barnett. 

To watch the video of the event: http://www.aei.org/video/101182. [Added 11/25/2009] 

TrackBack URI for this entry

0 Comments

Show/Hide comments

Show/Hide comment form