THE WANDERER, JANUARY 27, 2005

JOSEPH SOBRAN'S
WASHINGTON WATCH

Which Sex Is Smarter?

     A university president has created an uproar with 
some offhand remarks: Lawrence Summers of Harvard 
University wondered aloud, at an off-the-record 
conference on the progress of women in academia, why so 
few top scientists are women. Is it because of "innate" 
differences between the sexes? Summers was soon babbling 
apologies and complaining that his comments had been 
misconstrued.

     Nancy Hopkins, an MIT biologist who was present, 
walked out during Summers's talk. "I felt I was going to 
be sick," she told reporters later. "My heart was 
pounding and my breath was shallow. I was extremely 
upset."

     But Claudia Goldin, a Harvard economist, reacted 
differently: "I left with a sense of elation about his 
ideas. I was proud that the president of my university 
retains the inquisitiveness of an academic."

     The first thought that strikes me is how remarkable 
it is that a man should become president of Harvard 
University without knowing the current taboos against 
free speech. Even the college janitors must know what's 
what by now. As Shakespeare's Enobarbus puts it, "That 
truth should be silent I had almost forgot."

     On standardized tests, as is well known, women 
outscore men in verbal skills, while men outscore women 
in math and science. If these results indicate 
"discrimination," it would seem that both sexes are 
victims. Maybe we should look for another explanation.

     Nearly all the most prominent mathematicians and 
scientists have been men. This must be evidence of 
something, but what? Not long ago, three of the world's 
top chess players were girl prodigies -- sisters, in 
fact. That suggests that women are fully capable of 
abstruse thinking, even under pressure. So do innumerable 
other female achievements.

     Why, then, do men usually outperform women in 
objective achievement? I don't know, and I often wonder. 
Everyday experience doesn't suggest that women are 
mentally inferior to men. So what is the difference 
between the sexes that we all sense, and whose effects 
show up in many ways, but which we have trouble 
identifying?

     Men and women have different interests. They apply 
their intelligence differently from childhood on. Little 
girls play with dolls; they look forward to parenthood, 
fascinated by their own ability to bring new life into 
the world and playing at being the mothers they will 
someday be. They know they will possess the mysterious 
power of motherhood.

     Little boys, on the other hand, don't like dolls and 
don't think of themselves as future fathers. They aren't 
even aware yet that they will be capable of reproduction! 
What excites them is competition: They play at being 
soldiers and athletes. They may even continue their 
childhood dreams in later life as couch potatoes. Or they 
may pursue different, more mature kinds of achievement.

     Even boys who adore their fathers and mothers don't 
imagine themselves as parents. They imagine themselves in 
adult life distinguishing themselves from others by force 
of will. They don't sense any mysterious potential in 
themselves. It's hard to imagine two little boys talking 
about the distant prospect of marriage and parenthood. At 
least I've never heard of such a conversation.

     This doesn't mean there are "innate" differences in 
intelligence, but there may be other differences that 
spring naturally from the innate ones of biology. Given 
these early self-conceptions and the ambitions they 
generate, so profoundly different, is it any wonder that 
the two sexes go on to perform differently when they grow 
up? Women can do, and do well, countless things men can 
do; but no man can do the one thing nearly all women can 
do.

     We've all heard little girls say, "Girls are smarter 
than boys, 'cause they can have babies and boys can't." 
Well, it may not be a matter of being smart, exactly, but 
they have a point, even if they express it childishly. 
They have a potential far more important than merely 
being smart. I can understand a woman's preferring being 
a Harvard professor to being a mother; what I can't 
understand is her taking childish offense at the idea 
that men may be, in some narrow respects, smarter than 
women. Why doesn't she just laugh?

     The whole error of modern feminism lies in the 
notion that men are the measure of women. This assumption 
underlies the "gender-neutral" etiquette that 1) denies 
fundamental differences between the sexes, 2) rests on 
men's conceptions of achievement, 3) demands an 
impossible kind of equality, and 4) produces a lot of 
silly squabbling.

     "Diversity" has become one of the great Ivy League 
shibboleths. But the greatest and most enchanting 
diversification in the world is the difference between 
the sexes. Men don't appreciate it enough. But neither, 
it appears, do some women.


Inaugural Buzz

     As so often happens, Washington is buzzing like a 
vast insect colony over something that will be forgotten 
in a few days -- probably by the time you read this. I 
refer, of course, to President Bush's inauguration.

     There is much grumbling about the lavishness of the 
festivities. Their expense will amount to the budget of a 
standard Hollywood film, or as much as the U.S. Congress 
spends every few seconds.

     Protesters will try to spoil the event, but are apt 
to be frustrated by paralyzing security precautions. 
Sparing the president embarrassing scenes now seems to 
fall under the heading of security, if last fall's 
campaign is any indication.

     Bush is the most hated American president since 
Lincoln. He's hated not only by the opposition party, but 
by much of the rest of the world. Europe despises him; 
the Muslim world loathes him. Nothing seems to help, 
neither conciliatory gestures nor offering relief to 
tsunami victims.

     As one who has often found him irritating and worse, 
I understand this hostility, up to a point. When Bill 
Clinton was president, his opponents not only saw him as 
a brazen evildoer, but were driven nuts by the feeling 
summed up in the words, "And he's getting away with it!" 
It's one thing to have an enemy. But an enemy who goes 
unpunished, remains impenitent, and even finds it amusing 
that he infuriates you -- that's past endurance!


Stressful Jobs

     Bush annoys liberals in another way: He's a 
professed Christian. For liberals, any expression of 
belief in God is insufferable sanctimony and, moreover, a 
threat of intolerance. Bush recently said he didn't see 
how anyone could bear the pressures of the presidency 
without faith in God.

     Well, it would appear that some of our presidents 
have done without much in the way of faith, and I wonder 
if being president is really all that much harder than 
being head of state in other countries; in fact, plenty 
of other jobs must be at least as stressful as the 
presidency (ask school principals, or coaches of losing 
football teams).

     Nevertheless, Bush's remark was just the sort of 
thing that keeps his enemies boiling.

                 +          +          +                  

     Are we headed for a wider war in the Mideast? 
SOBRAN'S warns of the danger. If you have not seen my 
monthly newsletter yet, give my office a call at 
800-513-5053 and request a free sample, or better yet, 
subscribe for two years for just $85. New subscribers 
get two gifts with their subscription. More details can 
be found at the Subscription page of my website, 
www.sobran.com.

     Already a subscriber? Consider a gift subscription 
for a priest, friend, or relative.
                                        --- Joseph Sobran

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Read this column on-line at 
"http://www.sobran.com/wanderer/w2005/w050127.shtml".

This column copyright (c) 2005 by THE WANDERER, 
www.thewandererpress.com. Reprinted with permission.

This column may not be published in print or Internet 
publications without express permission of THE WANDERER. 
You may forward it to interested individuals if you use 
this entire page, including the following disclaimer:

"THE WANDERER is available by subscription. Write
subscription@thewandererpress.com for information.
Subscription price: $50 per year; $30 for six months.
Checks can be sent to The WANDERER, 201 Ohio Street, 
Dept. JS, St. Paul, MN 55107.


"SOBRAN'S and Joe Sobran's syndicated columns are 
available by e-mail subscription. For details and 
samples, see http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml, write 
PR@griffnews.com, or call 800-513-5053."

This page copyright (c) 2005 by THE VERE COMPANY.