Real Kato Blog: On the Differences Between Men and Women

Lawrence H. Summers, the president of Harvard University, drew some fire recently for suggesting that there are biological differences between the abilities of men and women, especially when it comes to math and science. It's taken some time for me to formulate my thoughts on the subject, but here they are.

Every now and then, someone trots out a new theory on the biological differences between men and women, between blacks and whites, between Jews and Christians, and so on. Conservatives always pounce on these findings as a reason for ending affirmative action programs.

First, let me say this: of course there are differences between various groups of people. I mean, men and women are obviously genetically different, so there's no reason to believe our brains aren't wired differently too. So I have to say, we can't simply dismiss all the studies. Yes, there are correlations between gender and certain types of abilities. That much is clear.

One problem, though, is that people always confuse correlation and causality. For example, people hear about a correlation between cell-phone use and brain cancer, and don't consider that perhaps cell-phone users are also more likely to be computer users and city dwellers, and that maybe there are other factors that might explain the correlation. (Or maybe there's something about BRAIN DAMAGE that makes you want to use your cell phone more, ESPECIALLY WHILE YOU'RE DRIVING.) So: if we find a correlation between gender and math ability, we can't say that genetics are the cause. There are a whole host of other factors involved, like the fact that little girls are encouraged to play dress-up while little boys are given Lego sets.

Another problem is that people tend to take studies involving averages and apply them to individual cases, or to subsets. You can't say that men are always better at math than women just because that's the average case. And you can't say that your thirty male friends are, as a group, better at math than your thirty female friends, because your friends are not a representative sample of the population at large. And in the case of Lawrence Summers, you can't make assumptions about a group of Harvard students and teachers; that's definitely an atypical sample.

And even if genetics are a factor, even if they are a large factor: so what? Does that mean we should just live with the fact that there are fewer women in mathematics and engineering than men? I would say, in fact, that the opposite is true. We should be doing more to counteract the factors that lead to disproportionate levels of representation in various fields. Why? This has nothing to do with "fairness". It has to do with diversity.

The word "diversity" has been thrown around so much that it's almost become meaningless. We heard it all the time back in high school and college and no one ever explained why it was a good thing; it seemed like it just became some sort of untouchable code word for supporting minority programs.

But now I get it. I see why we need diversity, and it's my career in the technology industry that has opened my eyes. In this male-dominated industry, it is rare for engineers to prioritize design elegance at the same level as feature-richness; and, it is rare for managers to prioritize employee satisfaction at the same level as meeting deadlines. The result is that we churn out a lot of ugly designs and we end up with a lot of burnt-out workers. It's not that we haven't been profitable. But I know very few engineers who can genuinely say they want to be in this industry for the rest of their lives. And the scary thing is, no one thinks there's anything wrong with that.

We are missing the alternate viewpoint: the viewpoint that says money isn't the only thing, the viewpoint that says personal happiness means something. I am utterly convinced that having more women in engineering and management positions would help foster that alternate viewpoint. Not only that... it would help us group-thinking engineers understand why that viewpoint is important. What I'm saying is that diversity is beneficial to all of us. It's not about helping women at the expense of men. It's about all of us helping each other.

And how do we achieve diversity? Everyone who argues against affirmative action throws the word "quotas" around, hoping to raise the specter of reverse discrimination. Bah. Affirmative action is not about quotas. It is about being aware of the factors that have led us to have disproportionate numbers of people in certain positions, and using that awareness to make a difference. So when I interview a woman for an engineering job and she doesn't seem as "assertive" as a male applicant, I think to myself: what are the factors that have made her seem more submissive? Are those factors inherent in her personality, or is it just possible that she's never been encouraged to express her viewpoint? What would happen if we empowered her in the same way that we empower her male counterparts? What might she be capable of?

Hopefully Lawrence Summers is on the right track now. He is creating task forces to study the disparities between men and women at Harvard, and to find ways to "cultivate" women faculty members. As long as he's not just throwing around management buzzwords, I have some hope that good things will come from his initiatives.

That is affirmative action. It doesn't mean your friend Bob will lose his cushy engineering job to a waitress at the Golden Corral. It just means we have to fight our preconceptions.

You need not be scared.

Permalink