Unusual Attempt: An Opinion

OK, folks, I don't do this often. And when I do, I usually change my mind within the course of about six months, so be prepared for that. I am going to come down on one side of a debate.

The debate is this: Society has a set of values, what it believes makes a person a good and worthwhile person. These values are largely established by the white, straight, protestant, American-born men who make up the ruling cultural class of the country. I don't mean to point them out as oppressors, just as the value-setters. All the minorities (or in the case of women, just others) are, in the ideal situation, judged on the basis of their merits. Merits, as the white, straight, protestant, American-born men define them. Many people say that all the minorities, etc, are just as good at everything as the WSPAMs are, they just haven't been given as much of an opportunity to succeed. Different people seem to generally say that the others could be just as good as the WSPAMs are, but shouldn't have to be because the WSPAM values are not inherently better than the others' values. I'd like to come down on that side of the debate but push it even further. The others very well may NOT be able to be as good at the things the WSPAMs value as the WSPAMs themselves are, AND that's fine, because they shouldn't have to be.

Heaven (aka my workplace) will smite me for this, but let's talk women in science. I see no reason why the idea that the general bell curve for men has a different shape, if the same origin, as the bell curve for women. OK, I don't actually know much about how accepted the bell curve is these days. I'm pretty sure some people contest it heavily, but just the idea that more men than women might be EXTREMELY brilliant and EXTREMELY dumb seems plausible enough. And I think it's somewhat well documented that men have slightly but significantly better spacial visualization skills than women do. Of course all of this doesn't mean that the greatest scientist of all time couldn't be a woman, it just means it's less likely to be. And if women aren't making as large a contribution to science? OK! Science is very valuable (no kidding), but is it benefited by having equal contribution from all groups? Let the talented people do their thing. That's all we can ask.

And Louise Story wrote that (admittedly god-awful) piece that ran on the cover of the New York Times about more highly educated women wanting to stay home and raise kids. Criticism was showered upon her, and while much of it was valid—the survey does sound pretty crappy—it's pretty clear it wouldn't be criticized like it was if people wanted to accept its conclusion. I'd like to propose that it would be FINE for more women to stay home and raise their kids. Why? Because the value that success in a field makes a person successful holds no more weight than the value that a rewarding family life and shaping members of the next generation makes a person successful. So many people seem ingrained with the particular value that strength and money-making and expertise etc, etc are the most important things, that they seem insulted when people suggest that a whole class is less likely to do that. Any woman who really wants to win in a field and make money will do so. But I think it's likely that there is something in women's nature that makes them (us, I suppose) more likely to want to put more effort into raising kids. I think that's fine. I think that's good. I think people should be looking at this story and not see misplaced funding from universities, but rather see people pursuing one of the most honorable careers in existence, and one that will most affect the future world.