Now if one was really looking to be scientific or skeptical rather than merely seeking to affirm membership in a certain social/political group this claim should set off two sets of alarm bells. The first set because it’s such a convenient thing to be true. After all if science has proven their aren’t really races then you don’t have to worry about troubling questions like the relationship between race and intelligence so you can go on thinking of yourself both as a good liberal¹ and a critical thinker. Indeed, as soon as one acknowledges the notion of race then the sheer number of correlations between racial background and various gene sequences makes it downright absurd to insist that there isn’t some statistical difference in genetic predisposition to intelligence between different races². Of course we have good evidence that any such correlation will be small compared to environmental effects and individual differences and (to my knowledge) have no particular reason to suspect that the result won’t be ‘favorable’ for traditionally disadvantaged groups but subtle qualifications like this won’t eliminate the suspicion the admission draws. So like belief in an afterlife, trust in homeopathic remedies, or credence in the Loch Less monster there are obvious reasons people would believe the claim regardless of it’s truth giving us cause to be suspicious.

The other alarm bell is the fact that this claim contradicts what we see so plainly with our eyes. People from difference regions of the world look different. People with an African background have a different skin color than those from a European or Oriental background. Kenyan runners seem to do disproportionately well in marathon races³ and hair color/type highly correlates with what part of the world your family comes from. These differences are too obvious for the people claiming that scientifically race doesn’t exist to simply brush off so they try to explain it by saying that there is indeed a socially constructed notion of race it’s simply the genetic notion that doesn’t exist.

This response can’t possibly fly. The differences in skin, eye and hair color aren’t socially constructed. They are determined (largely) by your genetics. It’s a simple and obvious fact that there are substantial correlations between one’s genetic makeup and where your ancestors come from and these genetic differences are surely not only superficial. A child’s risk of sickle cell anemia is highly dependent on the parent’s racial background and we are slowly discovering that race significantly alters one’s susceptibility to many other afflictions and the probable effectiveness of various drugs. In light of this facially compelling proof of the existence of racial genetic variation what kind of scientific result could possibly be described as showing that there is no such thing as race?

Well the true scientific claim in the background is that the boundaries we draw between various racial groups are arbitrary and purely a matter of social construction. In other words if we analyzed everyone’s genes they wouldn’t group into a small number of tidy piles and certainly not ones that match our (culturally) standard categories like black, white, oriental, Indian, etc.. Instead of black/white/oriental/Indian/Native American it might make just as much sense to have Native American & Oriental/White & Indian/Northern African/South African instead. These racial categories might not be as useful in describing the social and cultural fault lines in American society but they (or some alternative like them) would be no less correlated with various genetic risks and just as useful in medical recommendations.

While it’s important to point out that we draw racial boundaries in (genetically) arbitrary places this no more shows that scientifically speaking race doesn’t exist than the fact that light comes in a continuous spectrum shows that scientifically speaking color doesn’t exist. Indeed, we know that different cultures break apart the visible spectrum in different ways but that doesn’t mean that science disproves the fact that blue and green are distinct colors. To illustrate just how much this claim distorts the truth just imagine someone insisting that scientifically speaking baldness didn’t exist because just how few hairs you need to qualify as bald is culturally determined.

It’s bad enough when scientists advance this claim but I understand that they may be trying to balance accuracy with other concerns such as their career, combating racist distortions of the truth in soundbites, and keeping the trust of various political and social coalitions. I still think that in the long run the failure of scientists to reign in this kind of political pandering risks compromising the public’s trust in their objectivity but at least I have some sympathy with their misrepresentation. However, it particularly galls me when skeptical groups participate in this kind of distortion while claiming to exist primarily to oppose just this kind of wishful thinking.

The article begins inauspisciously by hanging the whole premise of the article on a blatant fallacy. Do women preferentially bully other women? I don’t know but the study quoted in the article sure as hell doesn’t say so. What it actually says is that women report being bullied by women and men about equally often, and at about the same rate as men report being bullied by men but men report being bullied by women much less. Of course, this is exactly what one would expect to see if men were simply reluctant to admit being bullied by women. So the entire effect could be nothing more then men feeling embarrassed to admit being bullied by a woman.

As if to further refute her own hypothesis the author then informs us that women are taught they should be supporting and nurturing to each other so they feel bad treatment from other women particularly disturbing. But, hmm, wouldn’t that suggest that women are holding women up to a higher standard? Of course the author doesn’t seem to realize this would inflate the women on women bullying numbers nor that, this expectation itself might cause women to retaliate against each other for perceived failures to live up to this higher standard.

After pointlessly observing she knows some women who feel they are bullied more by women the author suddenly jumps tracks to ask why women are less likely to be perceived as leaders. Drawing up the dark cloud of discriminatory/unfair treatment she tells us that women are perceived negatively if they behave as aggressively as the men but can’t get promoted if they don’t. That, indeed, is a worthwhile question to ask but instead we get a heartwarming story about a group of female executives getting together to role-play scenarios and help them discover their political blind spots.

I’m sure that plays well to the majority of readers who (as I often am myself) are more interested in the emotional journey than thinking hard about the right answer but it should also set off a giant flashing red “DANGER” sign in anyone who has been paying attention. I mean at least skip a paragraph or two after observing how unfair it is that women can’t display the aggression men do before telling them you expect them to be more supporting and cooperative. I mean she might as well have suggested women get together every month to bake and let each other know if any of the guys aren’t getting enough of their cooking. Besides, if you are worried, as the author is, about women picking on each other because they see themselves as competing for the same female slots in the cooperation you might want to hesitate before encouraging women to see themselves as female employees. Indeed, the results on stereotype threat would seem to suggest that thinking of themselves as women encourages them to behave more like the traditional gender stereotype. So no, it may not be necessary or desirable for women to be “aware of their shared identity as women.”

As if to make sure she hammered home the point that women had better be cooperative and supportive as their gender dictates the author approvingly includes this view before the end of the article.

Televerde reversed that attitude in Perryville, Ms. Cirocco said, by encouraging women to work for a common cause, much like the environment envisioned by the Canadian researchers. “It becomes a very nurturing environment,” Ms. Cirocco said. “You have all these women who become your friends, and you are personally invested in their success. Everyone wants everyone to get out, to go on to have a good healthy life.” If the level of support found at Televerde were found elsewhere, Ms. Klaus said, it would solve a lot of problems.

I mean this stuff is right up there with (actually far worse since it’s more respectable) the worst of the perversions of evolutionary psychology used to assure the author they were inferior. It masquerades as science and analysis despite lacking anything of the kind while using hackneyed emotional ploys to convince the reader that women need to try even harder to play their traditional supportive and nurturing gender role and worst of all do so subtly enough to be reasonably successful. If people aren’t going to get outrage by this sort of piece they should stop pretending they are fighting gender stereotypes and want to move beyond traditional gender roles and just admit it’s just all about group pride. If your really worried about the culture pushing gender stereotypes onto women here you go. Outrage over this kind of article might actually accomplish something. So if you aren’t going to make a big deal about this kind of article just drop the pose. It’s in the New York Times for crying out loud.

Emma McGrattan, the senior vice-president of engineering for computer-database company Ingres–and one of Silicon Valley’s highest-ranking female programmers–insists that men and women write code differently. Women are more touchy-feely and considerate of those who will use the code later, she says. They’ll intersperse their code–those strings of instructions that result in nifty applications and programs–with helpful comments and directions, explaining why they wrote the lines the way they did and exactly how they did it.

This remark is shortly followed by an equally over broad statement to the effect that men are too interested in showing off how clever they are to write readable code. Now while it’s certainly possible that (of the people who program) women are somewhat more likely to write better code (though I know of no evidence to this effect) this article adopts the sweeping tones of stereotype and bias to suggest that individual hiring decisions should favor women on these grounds. It is exactly this sort of unwarranted assumption that group characteristics make a difference even after individual factors (like say looking at previous code they have written, interviewing them) that distinguishes outright prejudice and discrimination from mere scientific hypothesizing. Well that plus the tendency to offer totally unsupported explanations that play into gender stereotypes (women are more touchy-feely).

If the conclusion had been the other way around and suggested that women were too touchy-feely to program well this vice-presidenty would probably quickly find themselves out of a job. This is why I blame faux feminism for this sort of attitude. It is exactly the confusion of feminism with the idea that we should cheer on women like they were a sports team that creates the impression this kind of harmful remark is reasonable. Despite obviously validating the idea that we should hire people based on unproven stereotyped generalizations about their gender instead of individual accomplishment this remark is seen as ‘ok’ because it favors hiring women. Another good example of this effect is how acceptable it has become to advocate for single sex education when coached in terms of helping women, even when the underlying theory would make Larry Summers cringe.

Now if the only harm these attitudes inflicted was a bit of discrimination against men you might reasonably think it wasn’t a huge deal². However, you simply can’t train people to accept traditional gender stereotypes and discriminate based on those only when it gives a certain kind of result. If you convince people to hire women for coding jobs because they are more touchy-feely you can’t avoid the fact that they are going to turn around and favor men for jobs in math, physics or the military where being touchy-feely is perceived as a negative (perhaps with some justification). Hell, even being good team players and leaving clear directions are going to be negatives for some job.

In fact I think what we are seeing right now is the harm of being touchy-feely about gender equality. The point is that deciding what views/people are good based on who sounds like they are on your side might have been fine when discrimination was primarily overt but when the primary concern is the affect of societal gender roles and semi-conscious stereotypes the greatest danger comes from the people encouraging that type of thinking and behavior, especially if they do so while claiming the `feminist’ moral high ground.

The three fallacies that I’ve noticed are the following.

1. The confusion of small statistical differences with our intuitive notion of a valid generalization.
2. The belief that innate factors are somehow set in stone while cultural or social effects are temporary and thus justify different inferences.
3. Failure to appreciate the power of conditionalization.

The first fallacy is pretty obvious but very hard to correct. Most people don’t have good quantitative skills, much less experience with statistics so tend to translate claims about small statistical differences into simple stereotypes. Even people who should know better often don’t apply their quantitative training to this domain. This is why you see people respond to claims about innate statistical differences as if someone had claimed that women simply couldn’t do math and science. Once you get beyond this point you tend to run into the second fallacy.

Unfortunately both sides in the nature vs. nurture debate encourage the notion that innate differences are simple matters of ability and social effects are easily overcome issues of confidence. This leads to the fallacious conclusion that somehow innate differences call for a policy of denying women positions in math/science while nurture effects simply call for more encouragement. This couldn’t be further from the truth. One of the largest determiners of math/science achievement is interest and any possible innate differences could just as easily be differences in interest as they are differences in ‘ability.’ Moreover, it’s totally unclear to what extent differences in experience and exposure at young ages make. Thus it’s easily possible that the current gender gap could be the result of some innate difference that makes girls less interested in science as currently presented but small tweaks in science education could grab their attention. Alternatively it’s surely possible that the gender gap is the result of deep cultural forces that are nearly impossible to change and can’t be compensated for by our educational system, e.g., the type of behavior that attracts male romantic interest biases girls away from math and science. Quite simply there is no simple moral or effect on our judgment that one answer to the nature/nurture debate should have as opposed to the other.

The third and last fallacy is perhaps the most problematic, particularly in light of the second fallacy. People tend to assume that if women statistically tend to be worse at task X this is reason to lower their estimate of some particular woman’s (perhaps themselves) ability at task X. Counterintuitively this just isn’t the case. Conditionalizing on the standard information we gather about virtually anyone we meet can eliminate or even reverse the effect that gender should have on our estimation of someone’s ability. If you’ve taken any probability courses you’ve probably seen this point made using the example of the famous berkeley discrimination case. If you haven’t let me give you a simple example.

It’s undoubtedly true that statistically men are worse at nursing than women. This isn’t a claim about innate ability just a simple observation following from the fact that more women than men are nurses hence fewer men have received nursing training. Thus if you know nothing about someone other than their gender you should expect men to have a lower nursing ability. However, this doesn’t entail that you should trust male nurses less than female ones. Nor does it entail that men who aren’t nurses are somehow worse at nursing than women who aren’t nurses. It could even be that men who choose to become nurses despite the stereotypes have particular talent for it and thus conditionalizing on profession reverses the effect gender should have on your expectation of someone’s nursing ability.

The same could very well be true for skill at math/science. Even if there is some innate factor that makes women statistically worse at math/science it’s quite possible that those women who do pursue math/science tend to be more skilled than their male counterparts. In other words once you know that someone is interested in pursuing math/science finding out that individual is a woman might increase the expectation of her ability despite the fact that statistically women were worse than men at math/science. Since we tend to gather all sorts of information about someone we meet or consider for a job it’s totally unjustified to use statistical facts about men vs. women in the general population to reach conclusions about a particular individual.

The issue of nature vs. nurture really, really doesn’t matter that much. It’s almost never justified to use weak group characteristics like this to judge an individual and it’s equally unjustified to take mere statistical differences in a profession as proof of discrimination. So aside from pure scientific curiosity we should forget about nature vs. nurture and concentrate on applied questions like: Does science education unnecessarily make girls feel marginalized or less able? Would greater exposure to female role models in science make more women satisfied with their choice of career? Does rote memorization at the middle school level create barriers that discourage more studious individuals from pursuing math and physics?

Now it was bad enough when some random science summaries spun the study in this fashion but it’s even worse to see ars technica running stories saying things like this about the study:

But a new study suggests that, when it comes to math, we can forget biology, as social equality seems to play a dominant role in test scores.

Ughh, what is it about this topic that causes people to check their reasoning ability at the door? I mean I can understand that the general public might think the suggestion of a statistical difference amounted to a claim that women were incapable of doing math/science but people with a science background should know better. There is no serious doubt that the variation inside the genders is vastly larger than any possible difference in averages. Moreover, once you actually have some evidence about a person’s mathematical/scientific ability (like you’ve talked to them) their gender isn’t relevant. That is we should expect conditioning on actual evidence about someone’s ability should screen off any impact of their gender.

I write about this topic for the same reason I write about other topics. I find fallacious reasoning to be infuriating, especially when it seems to be motivated by a desire to reach certain comforting beliefs. However, it really should be a minor scientific curiosity. It doesn’t matter one jot what the cause of observed differences in gender performance might be. What matters is the effect these differences have on society and what actions we can take to minimize any harms that result from them.

I mean (hypothetically) suppose it turns out that the gender gap in math/science is caused entirely by social conditioning that makes women prefer some disciplines and men others but that those women who do choose to do math/science face no discouragement and those who don’t are made genuinely happy by their choices. In that case there is no compelling reason to force a change to the gender ratio in the sciences, especially if that change could only be brought about by painful social reorganization and reeducation (say by actively punishing women who pursue stereotypical careers to stop them from being role models for next generation).

On the other hand (hypothetically) suppose that the gender gap is the result of some innate difference in cognition but a simple change in the way science is conducted or taught would let many women who want to be scientists contribute productively to the field instead of having their dreams frustrated. Then obviously we should make that change regardless of the fact that the an innate difference was underneath the gender gap.

In short this issue really doesn’t fucking matter but it really really bothers me when I see people, especially scientists, spinning studies so heavily to reach the conclusions they find pleasant to believe. The roots of the gender gap are clearly complicated and almost certainly result from some complex interplay of innate and environmental factors but just think about how differently we would approach this problem if we were studying another species. Instead of prematurely trying to announce the death of either theory we would say the issue was still murky, explain the competing evidence and leave it at that. Why can’t we do that here too?

It’s well known to parents that to raise a child correctly sometimes you must suppress your sympathy for your children and punish them or make them deal with the consequences of their actions. Often if we want children to learn to deal with a situation we have to suppress our instincts for sympathy and let them bear responsibility. While I don’t think the affect of female sympathy is quite like that of the over-indulgent parent it has many similar features. A good example is the issue of crying.

It’s a frequent (and likely valid) complaint that women’s tendency to cry more than men holds them back in the workplace. As primates you can’t avoid the fact that we will parse tears as a sign of weakness while swears or more aggressive seeming behavior send a more threatening message². However, speaking as a guy who cries more than most of my female friends I’m pretty sure that our upbringing has a massive effect on our inclination towards tears³. Indeed if we gave girls the same degree of shit we give boys for crying the crying gap would shrink radically if not disappear all together. Of course I do support being less hard on boys for crying but so long as we are inclined to help crying girls (crying guys on the street are ignored) the intrinsic harms of appearing vulnerable will encourage men to cry less⁴.

Crying is really a minor point in the larger picture. A much more worrying instance of this kind of sympathetic sexism is the way we we tend to treat men and women in arguments. Intellectual arguments are the lifeblood of many disciplines and they are especially important to understanding science and math where challenging your friend who got a different answer is often the best way to learn the material but unfortunately the women who come into my office hours for math are way less likely to be engaged in any sort of argument (by other female or male peers) than the guys. If we wanted a more equitable society we would be teaching girls to give as good as they got in an argument and suck it up if they lose like we do boys. However, instead of sending girls the message that they should hold their own like boys the people who feel strongly about women’s issues today are the most likely to attack any man who upsets a woman by arguing with her.

In short ‘feminism’ has decayed into the same kind of ‘respect for women’ mentality that the Victorians used to put women on a pedestal while keeping them from achieving equality. Intuitively we all understand that if people see someone as needing of protection or requiring special gentle treatment they will also see that person as weaker and less capable. Thus if we truly want girls to succeed in the rough and tumble intellectual world of mathematics and physics we have to stop treating them like they were fragile dolls requiring special protections. If we want true gender equality we need to go a lot further. We need to congratulate girls on being competitive and argumentative like we do with guys but we also need to discourage them from asking for help, breaking down or appearing helpless like we do with guys.

I would like to live in such a world (and to some extent do) but I think it’s quite clear that most of society, including most of those who would identify as feminists have no such desire. What most people desire is an updated version of the Victorian pedestal where we tell women they can do whatever they want and write off any statistical differences to unnamed discrimination while at the same time continuing to treat women as fragile objects to be protected. Most people would rather live in a society where ditching your boyfriend beside the road is less bad than ditching your girlfriend no matter who has the black belt. Most women would rather date men who can help them with their homework when they break down rather than men who sob when they can’t get a math problem. ‘Feminists’ especially seem to prefer a society where men get shit for making a girl cry in an argument and the girl receives sympathy even if the guy did nothing but frustrate her by being stridently correct. Ultimately the problem is that most people, ‘feminists’ included like gender roles a great deal but also want perfect (statistical) professional parity. However, you can’t just take gender roles on and off the way you do with hats. The stereotypes and attitudes people form as young children will follow them into the laboratory as well as the living room and bedroom. People need to make a choice about whether they want gender equality of not and if not stop pretending.

Spelke’s studies found baby boys and girls have similar mathematical ability, an incidental finding that was at the forefront of her mind in January 2005 when the former Harvard president Larry Summers suggested that the relative lack of female engineers and scientists was down to innate gender differences. ‘When it comes to the basic modules we are born with, they are pretty much the same,’ says Spelke, who was in the thick of the verbal fisticuffs that followed (Summers was ‘wrong, point for point’). Summers resigned as controversy raged. Spelke does not deny that there are differences in the way men and women think but most of this, she believes, is learnt over time, and down to prejudice and the expectations of society.

Of course it’s always easier to repudiate someone’s remarks when you simply assume they said whatever you are itching to reject. But besides mischaracterizing Summers this paragraph also buys into widespread but fallacious assumption that basic computational skills (adding, subtracting etc..) are the skills needed by scientists and engineers; calculation is easy it is the ability to reason abstractly and construct proofs that is hard. I would normally have simply dismissed this as another instance of sloppy journalism but a few minutes later I found the same errors being made in a respectable summary of an article published in the current edition of science, errors seemingly encouraged by the paper itself and it’s lead author.

Tipping off their hand early the summary begins with it’s own (IMO unethical) misquotation of Summers¹ but quickly moves on to reading the result they want to see into this recent study. The study basically plotted gender differences on math tests in a country versus that country’s level of gender equity and concluded that the more equitable the country the smaller the advantage boys enjoyed on math tests. The message the summary takes from this, with support from the study’s lead author, is that gender differences in mathematics are largely a result of enviornmental effects. Of course latter we are given the following qualification.

Having linked social structures to the math gender gap from country to country, Sapienza wonders whether this result rules out biological influences entirely. The answer is no. The biological hypothesis suggests that an average boy would score higher in mathematics than in reading, while for girls the reverse is true. This pattern does not change in more gender equal societies hinting that some aspects of academic performance may be innately different between boys and girls.
Sapienza and colleagues found that boys, regardless of the country and social environment in which they live, typically do better in math than in reading. Similarly, girls are usually better in reading than in math, regardless of the degree of gender equality in their society. As a result, in more gender equal societies, girls will gain an absolute advantage relative to boys.

In short an uncritical reading of either the paper in science or the summary would leave the reader with the impression that we now have even stronger evidence that boys don’t have an innate advantage at mathematics but there are still a few issues that need to be worked out about reading ability. Except the study really shows exactly the opposite. Ignoring for a moment the implicit (but false) assumption that these math tests are good measures of the skills needed to enter math and science professions just try and think about what theory would best explain the fact that cross-culturally boys are better at math than they are at reading while girls are better at reading than they are at math? Seems pretty clear to me that this evidence best supports the idea that their is an innate gender based attraction to math or reading and that in societies with greater gender equity women just perform better in school generally.

Now I don’t actually endorse that theory. It overly simplifies the complex interactions of culture and innate traits and it would be silly to just rely on this evidence while ignoring other evidence supporting larger cultural effects. However, the point remains that the evidence provided actually points in the exact opposite direction of the spin that is provided. Ultimately the point that I take from this is that if you want to have any idea about what’s plausible in this area you really can’t trust anyone’s (except mine of course :-) ) interpretation, even that of the scientists doing the study. You really have to go read the actual papers with a skeptical eye to get something other than spin. In short I worry that their is a bias in the spin given to papers and opinions on this stuff because you get a lot more flak for strident support of one side than the other.

Whether or not US women are blocked or discouraged from achieving high political office is certainly a valid feminist concern. After all the existence of a systemic bias against voting for a woman to be president is a harm to woman as a class. On the other hand strong support of a particular candidate because she is a woman and as such you identify/sympathize with her is not a feminist issue. It’s just another example of the same type of sexism women fought so hard to eliminate in the workplace¹. This isn’t to say there is no acceptable reason to vote for a female candidate because of her gender; you might think this was the only/best way to overcome anti-female bias. However, it’s pretty clear that most of the women trying to suggest Hillary’s loss is the result of rampant gender discrimination² aren’t doing so because they thought out the issue in the abstract and came to the conclusion that this was the most effective way to advance the cause of equality. After all if this was the result of that kind of strategic thinking about the aims of women as a group you would think they would find plenty of reasons not to publicly tie gender equity to Hillary Clinton³ or even decide that the interests of racial equality outweighed those of gender equality here. Rather, these women are driven by their empathetic sympathy for Hillary as another woman (enhanced by the perception of gender based slights in the campaign) and have let that distract them from any interest they may have had in really achieving equity for women as a class.

Another good example is the attitude of women in various graduate programs toward the admission of women and affirmative action for women. Now one might be able to put together some pretty reasonable arguments justifying offering women special incentives to enter math and science programs but I suspect the best such arguments would all direct our resources toward the college years and below where the gender gap gets created. Yet the strongest support is often for programs that offer female graduate students priority in admissions, cash incentives or special mentoring programs despite the fact that the primary effect of these expenditures is probably on the choice of school of female graduate students. If the support for these programs really resulted from a desire to achieve gender equity you would at least expect the question of efficacy to be of supreme interest and any support of these programs to be openly conditioned on empirical support for their efficacy. However, it is quite evident that these programs enjoy strong emotional support prior to any thought or analysis about their larger effects on society’s attitude toward women.

It seems evident that the real psychological motivation behind the support for these programs is simple sympathy and identification. No one sat down and decided to support these programs because they thought they would accomplish some goal. They supported them because they felt emotional empathy towards women so they want to support women. In other words it’s the emotional pull of group allegiance/support that motivates these policies not rational analysis of their likely effect. If you are still skeptical consider the different way we treat the (assumed) subtle social pressure discouraging women from entering certain fields from that pressuring them into entering other fields. In other words why don’t we take measures to counteract the social forces pushing women into a traditional field like teaching or nursing. If our interest was in undoing the sexist stereotypes that society has packed into girls then we should be equally diligent in discouraging women from being nurses, teachers or primary care givers as we are in encouraging them to enter traditionally male fields. On the other hand if people were really just reacting to a vague feeling of sympathy it makes perfect sense why they would only offer women encouragements.

Maybe I’m mistaken but my strong sense is that feminism used to be something much more noble, even if sometimes silly and misguided. People would be genuinely troubled about engaging in traditional feminine roles since they saw that encouragement could perpetuate stereotypes just as much as discouragement. However, women (and men) eventually decided they weren’t really interested in rejecting most of our gender stereotypes and assumptions and the visible aspects of feminism decayed into mere group affinity and sympathy for women. In a future post I will explain why I think this decayed version of feminism does so much harm to the cause of gender equity but enough blogging for today.

Now the video from the women’s media center certainly succeeds in convincing me that Chris Matthews is a sexist jerk but aside from that it’s fallacious confusion of the media’s constant microanalysis of electability and likability with sexism. Asking whether Hillary will succeed in appealing to men is no more sexist than asking if Barack will succeed in winning white votes. Anyone who hasn’t been living in a cave for the past 12 years has seen the stupid discussions on cable news channels of whether candidate X has an appealing enough smile, will suffer for being short or has appropriate choice in ties. Sadly, not subjecting Hillary to this ridiculous microanalyses would be sexist response to her candidate.

Of course if you try hard enough you can read sexism into anything but `likability’ isn’t some minor issues that’s only trotted out as an excuse not to vote for a woman, likability is the essence of electoral politics. As we were endlessly reminded by the pundits the voters in ‘04 would have rather had a beer with Bush than Kerry. If it weren’t for the inconvenient fact that Kerry was a man this would be another perfect example of the sexist media. Of course if you just change the channel you can get an equally compelling account of how the racist media has been biased against Obama.

Listening to the recent complaints about sexism that have flooded the media over the last few days one would think that Hillary’s likability problem was a penalty she was paying for behaving too masculine but that’s a load of crap. Hillary played best with the electorate when she highlighted her strength, resolve and experience (3am phone). She alienated voters in the debates not with her confident aggressive stances but with her passive aggressive whining. If anything Hillary was given more leeway than a man would have been given when she ‘observed’ that she seemed to be getting the harder questions instead of angrily lecturing the questioner or keeping a dignified silence. Some people just come across better than others on TV (supposedly Hillary is much more likable in person).

Now this sort of poor sportsmanship from Clinton supporters is bad enough but trying to claim the moral high ground in the fight against sexism is particularly galling and hypocritical. Most of these women complaining about Clinton’s sexist treatment support her (partially) because of they identify with her over gender. These aren’t the rightful inheritors of the struggle for gender equity but rather (for the most part) a group that is happy to impose different expectations on men and women when it suits their purposes and complain about it when it doesn’t. The noble feminist crusaders of earlier generations understood that gender equity would come with a cost. Now, instead, we see casual complainers who seem to think that gender equity means nothing but indulging their feelings of sympathy for other women.

No one could reasonably deny that our society still holds men and women to different standards. I certainly would prefer a culture that treated men and women more similarly but far from working towards gender equity this sort of feminism as sympathy for/indentification with other women is one of the greatest forces holding back equality. When women reward other women with sympathy and support when they are subject to aggressive verbal/intellectual attacks but tells men to toughen up it sends a message about how it’s appropriate for women to act and men to act towards them. If these women were really interested in equality they should be working to eliminate the double standard that says it’s okay to be aggressive and critical of another man but unacceptable and mean to do so to a woman. So long as society sends the message that women are fragile and need to be treated with special delicacy it will also view men as more strong and capable.

Admittedly these last comments have limited direct applicability to the Hillary campaign but they are an indictment of the modern conception of feminism as sympathy for other women that underlies this supposed feminist cause for Hillary. Not only are their complaints largely unjustified it is people like them, not Chris Matthews who make sure that men and women continue to be treated differently in our society. Maybe as a society we simply don’t want real gender equity but what we would need to do to achieve it is to stop treating women as if they needed special sympathy and protection.

I don’t doubt that Dmae Roberts has experienced genuine (and horrific) racism in her life². It’s certainly no overreaction to call her grandmother’s expressions of disappointment that Dmae’s mother couldn’t have been white racist. The rejection and poor treatment of her and her brother by other young children on account of her race was also literally racist. However, as Dmae admits herself at the time she never thought it was a huge deal when she would be made fun of by other kids on account of her race. It is only in retrospect that she interprets it as being hugely significant. Obviously it’s awful how cruel children are are to anyone who doesn’t fit in but nothing she describes about their behavior is any worse than the way children treat those who are different on account of being nerds, having a skin condition or whatever other weakness they seize upon. As the victim of this kind of behavior myself I certainly don’t want to trivialize the harm of this behavior but we should avoid the fallacy of treating children’s cruelty as dramatically worse because it falls into a historically recognized category of adult cruelty. It’s not something we’d like to believe but children are incredibly cruel and we shouldn’t implicitly send the message that it’s okay because their cruelty is based on a child’s lisp than on their racial background.

It’s understandable that someone like Dmae would come to see the world through the lens of race, just as kids who grow up poor often come to see the world in terms of social class and smart academic kids can come to see things in terms of popularity and jocks vs. nerds. However, this fact doesn’t make it the case that talking about a “Chinese fire drill” is a racist remark. The etymology of the term is irrelevant since the users of the term don’t reflect on it and unlike terms like “negro” use of the term doesn’t suggest affiliation with any anti-Chinese prejudice. Racial theorists might want this term to be racist but the fact that in actual practice Asian-Americans aren’t offended when their white friends use the term makes it a non-racist term. Similar points can be made about other things Dmae brings up like people imitating the martial arts master from Karate Kid. It isn’t racist now because it doesn’t suggest any prejudice or dislike and the last thing we would ever want to do is widen the class of comments that we decide express prejudice. We want to reduce the potential for accidental offense not increase it.

This brings us to the central hypocripsy of Dmae’s piece, an attitude that puts decades of progress against racism at jeopardy. Most of the complaints Dmae makes about modern events (not her grandmother or being raised in the midwest) ultimately reduce to the fact that people recognize race and view it as a genuine matter of commonality or difference. She complains that people ask what ethnicity she is or inquire about how her parents got together. Dmae gets very upset when a friend of hers comments, in response to Dmae’s claim that she can tell that some other girl is also half-asian not white, that you can tell but we can’t. In other words her complaint is essentially that people identify themselves with their racial group yet the other half of the piece is all about Dmae having pride in being half-asian and making a big deal out of racial identity. Dmae comments several times that she feels particular kinship with other half-asians even expressing how grateful she is that there are now more people like her out there. But if your ethnic background dictates certain common experiences that are justifiable grounds to feel kinship with others surely then being white in America involves certain commonalities (if nothing else the failure to have these experiences) that justify talking about what ‘we’ experience.

What I find so objectionable about this piece is that it threatens to undo much of the progress we have made towards racial equality. Sharon (my fiance) just assumes that she isn’t being the subject of racial discrimination (except the benefit of having more guys who want to date her) and as a result doesn’t suffer racial resentment or anger. However, it’s very easy to make yourself see racial bias around every corner and that perception can cause almost as much pain as true racism. It’s this pain that is why it’s important to eliminate racism in the first place so it’s similarly important to prevent this false perception of racism, not to mention the harm this does to the cause of eliminating true racism. Equating your experience as a half-asian having to hear people comment about “Chinese fire drills” or asking about how your parents met with the sort of things that happened at Jena not only trivializes real racism but creates faux feelings of racial victimization where they don’t need to exist.

Dmae’s family may be racist and growing up in the midwest when she did may have exposed her to some racial prejudices but give me a break. A half-asian woman in the US in this day and age is hardly oppressed. Somehow having more guys who think you are hot doesn’t make me very sympathetic.

Update:

In any case part of what I wanted to point out here was the harmfulness of an attitude that always takes individual accounts of racial difficulty at face value while discouraging others from speaking up to say, “Hey, I don’t have those kinds of problems.” In short it bothers me that I’ve yet to meet a half-asian girl who had any significant problems with discrimination by whites but yet this one woman’s story is broadcast on the radio as if it was totally typical.

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,” she continued. “And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.” Ferraro does not buy the notion of Obama as the great reconciler.

“I was reading an article that said young Republicans are out there campaigning for Obama because they believe he’s going to be able to put an end to partisanship,” Ferraro said, clearly annoyed. “Dear God! Anyone that has worked in the Congress knows that for over 200 years this country has had partisanship – that’s the way our country is.”

I’ve included the second paragraph to make the context clear. Ferraro is obviously a bit irked by the bizarre messianic conception many people have of Obama and the perception that Clinton’s actions are frequently seen as base political gamesmenship while they see the same actions by Obama as grand leadership. Now I actually think that is a compelling argument to vote for Obama. This skill is the essence of political talent and a useful attribute to have in a canidate or leader. However, it suggests that Ferraro is likely speaking out of understandable personal frustration rather than the devious political calculation some of the media are suggesting. But understood as an off the cuff remark what did it mean and should anyone get upset about it?

Well Ferraro obviously means that in some possible scenario where Obama wasn’t black he wouldn’t be competitive in the democratic party. The million dollar question is which scenario did Ferraro have in mind? Now it seems pretty obvious to me what she meant was something like: if everything had been the same at the start of the primaries except that Obama was white he would have quickly lost. Not only is this not a racist remark it’s probably true. Even those who are denouncing Ferraro for racism admit that many blacks are voting for him because he is black and it’s silly to think that at least some of his appeal to liberals comes from their perception of him as a healer of racial discord, a trait that (like it or not) depends on his skin color.

What then of the comment that “he is lucky to be who he is?” Far from meaning that blacks tend to have it better in America than whites as many critiques assume normal english usage suggests it merely means Obama’s race is a proximate cause of this good fortune. I mean assume that your friend went down to the corner store hoping to buy a magazine but because his job pays so little he finds himself a dollar short he instead buys a winning lotto ticket. Now you might reasonably remark, “damn man, your lucky you didn’t get that raise last month.” Obviously you wouldn’t be saying that in general people are better off not getting raises. In other words she is doing nothing more than reiterating the fact that Obama’s race is a net political assest in the democratic primary.

This view is supported by Ferraro’s contention that far from being racist her remarks are a positive racial message, i.e., people want to vote for a black man to help heal racial divisions in the country, as well as her remark that she was chosen as a vice presidential nominee because of her gender. Despite the stupendously stupid suggestion by Berkeley professors Edley and Echaveste that Ferraro is demeaning herself with this comment really all she is saying is that had she been in a similar situation but been a man she would not have been chosen. Yet more evidence that Ferraro was never suggesting that Obama owes everything to affirmative action or that blacks are better off than whites as the critiques all presuppose.

Note that this interpretation of Ferraro’s remarks didn’t require any mental gymnastics. It was the obvious meaning that jumped to mind when I heard the words. Now perhaps, because the news had primed you to hear them as racist, the same might not be true of you but really all I need to show is that there is a plausible interpretation that isn’t racist to show that we should give Ferraro the benefit of the doubt based on her past behavior. Now no doubt someone is going to try to argue that even though Ferraro didn’t mean to make a racist remark that her failure to properly guard against unintended racial effects of her words is enough justification for her public flagellation. Yet on these grounds it is the Obama people who have taken it upon themselves to widely publicize these words (even though Obama is reasonably refusing to call them racist) who should be held accountable.

Now in a nation of 300 million obviously this description will describe at least one person but this theory seems more motivated by the desire of Barack voters to feel good about themselves and outraged at those who won’t vote for him than than by serious thought. It would be silly to deny that race cuts both ways in this election (i.e. Barack loses as well as gains votes because of his race) but is it reasonable to think that voters who view themselves as race blind but aren’t would tell pollsters they are voting for Barack? It seems more plausible these voters would simply say they are voting for Hillary and give some other explanation. After all we don’t see online daters telling lies about who they want to date. They just offer non-racial explanations for what can be shown to be strongly race motivated behavior.

A much more plausible explanation for the majority of this effect is the symbolism of voting for Hillary as opposed to Barack. As I’ve observed in conversations around campus and discussions at IDS (debate club) even the Hillary supporters view her as a cynical, conniving politician who is represents the standard wheeling and dealing approach to politics. Now I think it’s rank stupidity to fall into this emotional trap where we assume that campaign donations, realpolitik, experience in washington are bad things just because they are in tension with apple pie and some idealized view of our republic we learned in third grade but given the preconceptions of most Americans this makes a vote for Hillary a cynical pessimistic vote. Many people undoubtedly think that the imperfect real world requires a cynical, well-connected politician like Hillary but feel bad about it. While saying you are voting for Hillary doesn’t project the idea that you are racist it does project the idea that you cynically reject the message of hope and change that Barack seems to stand for in the popular imagination.

Anyway having said this I should add that I’ve started to warm up to Obama a fair bit recently. Some of his campaign proposals encouraged me to go download his audiobook and away from the stupid idealism of his public persona I’m starting to have more confidence he would be an excellent president. Given the tone of his book, his constant anthropological relationship to myths and symbolism and clear understanding of the harsh dog eat dog nature of the world I’m starting to think he is a very smart man who is extremely skilled at projecting a certain mythic status and symbolic role for himself but isn’t the sort of idealistic antidote to realpolitik that his supporters take him to be.

What particularly swayed me towards Obama is the trajectory of his religious belief. More or less it seems (though I haven’t gotten here in the book yet) that for much of his life he was curious about religion but was unwilling to actually believe in it until he was a political figure who really needed a ‘faith’ to connect with the community. As it is I’m now sorta unsure who I prefer (leaning vaguely Obama) but if I knew he had really joined his church for political expediency I would support him in an instant.

Before I begin I want to stress the fact that I fully support the elimination of unnecessary requirements for academics and increased job flexibility. I think academia is being irrational in it’s level of resistance to part-time¹ and reentering researchers. I even agree that we should pay academics with children more (subsidized child care) if it offers a good marginal value for research. None of these things is the point at issue. My thesis is that the widely accepted views voiced by Ms. Mason are incoherent and what other arguments and unknown facts might support the same policies is totally incoherent.

My first point of contention with this article is the unanalyzed assumption that more women in academia is fundamentally a good thing. The number of women in academia is an indicator of our success in eliminating discrimination and the pressure on girls to conform to stereotypes and I think we can all agree that increases resulting from this are a good thing. However, I think we’d all also agree that tricking (or forcing) women who don’t want to be (and won’t like being) academics into the profession would be a bad idea. Thus it simply isn’t enough to observe that having children is one of the biggest leaks of women in the academic pipeline to conclude that it’s an area of concern².

If Ms. Mason had said no more than this I might, in a fit of holiday charity, accept that it was merely a confused way of saying that we should eliminate unnecessary barriers to academia. However, where she clearly steps out beyond where reasonable argument could take her is with the following accusation.

Having no babies at all was the dominant success mode for women. Among tenured professors, we found a much larger percentage of single women without children. There was a higher divorce rate, too, among women faculty at the top tier. So we saw a dramatic shift in family demographics those who continue on are far less likely to have — not only do women with children drop out of the academy, but those who continue on are far less likely to have children or to be married. This presents a double standard in terms of gender and equality.

Does it present a double standard? Does the fact that we see a much larger percentage of men who have never (or rarely) had sex in mathematics graduate school also constitute a double standard? Obviously not (unless we can get a subsidized brothel). Even leaving aside the possibility of pure common cause (which I doubt) this effect proves nothing other than the fact that raising kids takes time. Though to be fair Ms. Mason’s point is really not complete without her other observation.

Overall, only 55 percent of women with early babies — babies born any time up to 5 years post-Ph.D. — became tenured professors. By comparison, 78 percent of men with early babies got tenure. Women dropped out of the track not because they were denied tenure — but because of family issues and wanting to have babies, to start their families.

Alright now it’s starting to look like Ms. Mason might actually have a point. Maybe this drop out rate is the result of some special form of discrimination against women with babies. Indeed Ms. Mason makes a point of observing that men who have children are still regarded as serious while women who have children are more likely to be thought of as less dedicated to their jobs. Finally we have what looks to be like a real issue of gender inequity…except Ms. Mason admits that this is because they really are devoting more time to their children.

Yes. Across the board, men can have children at any time and still be considered serious in their research. Women in academia who do the same are considered less serious, because women have a very significant second shift as caregivers.

So it’s not that women are unfairly treated worse than men in the same situation it’s just that women really are choosing to devote more time to child care. How is the university’s treatment of this women inequitable? Because it holds them to the same gender neutral standard as the men? Unless Ms. Mason is arguing that men simply aren’t able to be caregivers this is just a roundabout way of saying that statistically speaking women place a higher priority on childcare relative to academia than men.

The various data printed along the side of the article do nothing to challenge this interpretation. Sure women with kids might spend more time i childcare than men with kids but at best this shows that the men female academics marry are perpetuating a gender inequity. So why is it the school’s policies that are being blamed? In fact it doesn’t even show that. Their are two very plausible interpretations of such data. First, that male academics are more willing to ‘marry down’ than women or that statistically speaking women are more attracted to childcare than men. Neither of which suggest any inequality. I mean no one would conclude that a study demonstrating that men in bars spend more money on women than vice versa as a prima facia case for unfairness so how is this different?

Ultimately I don’t see any plausible argument here at all. I’ll examine some of the reasons for this fallacious line of thinking and give a conceptual overview in the next post.

I recognize the benefit the UC grad student union provides for many grad students in this fashion (thankfully not truly necessary in math) and since I think TA’s here aren’t paid nearly enough I remained in the union despite a certain skepticism of it’s political policies and role in restricting differential grad student pay for different departments. However today I finally sent in an email asking to be removed from the rolls when I saw the most recent bargaining update they released. I provide the full text after the break but the section that really drove me to ask to be taken off the roles was the following:

CHILDCARE: the administration rejected our proposal to subsidize employee childcare costs though they recognized the need for a childcare program. One university spokesperson accurately characterized our proposal as “a subsidy program to enhance an [employee’s] ability to matriculate, be gainfully employed and contribute to the mission of the university.” The next day, another university representative, in rejecting our proposal, said, “The University believes that there are sufficient child care resources provided to most of the individuals that you represent, and those programs are both effective and cost effective . They provide services at a reasonable cost, recognizing the financial needs of the students.” This remark displayed an arrogant disregard for the realities of life for teaching assistants, readers, and tutors with children, who more often than not face lengthy waitlists and programs that absorb at least half of their monthly wages.

I have every reason to believe that grad student pay is a zero sum game. Every dollar the UC spends to increase child care resources is one less dollar that can be used for other sorts of graduate student support. Thus by taking the position they have the union is basically advocating for a transfer of money from my pocket to the pockets of people with families.

Now I don’t have anything against grad students who choose to raise families and I sympathize with the fact that it is very difficult to raise a child on a graduate student’s salary. However, it’s also fucking difficult to try and afford frequent plane flights across the country to maintain a long distance relationship. I’m sure it’s equally difficult to try and visit sick relatives, help with the family business or any other major life choice that requires money. Now I could see an argument that certain sorts of life choices tend to produce more utility so we should subsidize those at the expense of people who would use their money to go skiing in Vale. Yet on such a theory it should be relationships, which have a much stronger correlation with happiness than children, that should be supported and I have no doubt the number of grad students at Berkeley in long distance relationships is of the same order of magnitude as those who have children.

Now someone is undoubtedly going to say something about women running out of time to have children but I would argue that relationships, not reproduction, is the truly time sensitive concern. Very few women in grad school are anywhere near menopause and upon graduation they can still choose to reproduce but once out of grad school your ability to meet worthwhile new people plummets. Sure you could argue that once out of grad school it is very difficult for a woman to have a child without taking damage to her career but it is misleading³ to suggest this is a gender equity issue and uncompelling compared with the unconditional increased difficulty of meeting a significant other outside of school. Now I certainly agree that academia unnecessarily penalizes people with competing interests such as child care while they are young but if anything academia needlessly penalizes relationships with other academics more than it does reproduction. In other words every valid concern about fairness or individual utility that favors subsidizing childcare also favors subsidizing my plane flights to Boston as well as many other life choices.

What then about the argument that affordable childcare is needed for the child’s wellbeing? This might be a compelling argument if we were talking about a group besides grad students but while expensive child care might burden the grad student it is unlikely to cause the child to be neglected or otherwise suffer. Given the various studies suggesting that the difference merely adequate and excellent parenting makes in quantitative measures of a child’s future success is quite small this argument just doesn’t hold water for grad students. Grad students are the one group we can count on to delay having a child or rearrange their lives to make sure the kid isn’t neglected.

What then about the final argument that we need to encourage more grad student types to reproduce. I think this is the only plausible case to be made but I no longer think it is compelling. The idea that we need to encourage smart people to reproduce as some kind of selective breeding program seems to make a subtle mistake about the way natural selection works. In the long run evolution will either manage to put together the little tweaks that make grad students smart with a strong desire to reproduce or it will find a better unrelated path toward intelligence. As far as the near future I don’t see subsidies for grad student families making huge differences in the electorate but I do see social benefits accruing from discouraging academic women to reproduce. Certainly anyone who believes in the role model theory for affirmative action should think that the more we can do to discourage women from opting out of academia for children the better. In fact anyone who believes that women are somehow triked or brainwashed into taking more than their fair share of childrearing should oppose this sort of reproductive support on the grounds that it reduces the unfairness and works to eliminate the stereotypes that caused the problem.

Ultimately I was uncertain about my support for the UAW grad student union in the first place and this message finally convinced me that my membership was doing more harm than good. The university doesn’t even want to go back to the days where biology grad students could be made to work 80 hours a week but my support for the union signals my acceptance of fucked up feel good policies like prioritizing families over the childless and silly demands for equality between the summer session and the school year⁴. Since the union isn’t going to disappear all my continued membership does is help convince the union and the university these stupid policies are what the grad students want. Besides I just feel dirty being affiliated with a organization that not only makes such unjustified policy demands but also alleges “bad faith” on the part of the university for simply believing that the union’s positions aren’t correct.blah⁵

WAGES: the administration’s wage proposal called for a cut in real wages. They are proposing no guaranteed wage increases; instead, they are proposing increases of less than 2%, if the state budget allows, which will not keep up with inflation in California.

Furthermore, the administration’s wage proposal would not begin to address the gap in ASE financial support between the University of California and competing institutions, which the UC administration itself has identified as a key problem (see the update sent on 8/27 for more details). When pressed on this gap, an administration spokesperson suggested that it might be filled through “personal and familial sources of support,” as if readers, tutors, and TAs were independently wealthy.

HEALTH BENEFITS AND FEE REMISSIONS: the administration proposed to abolish 100% fee remissions by capping remission of education and registration fees and health insurance premiums at the 2007-08 dollar amount. Future increases in fees or insurance premiums would not be covered. With fees rising 8-10% per year or more and health insurance costs rising 6-15% per year or more, this represents a substantial cut in real wages.

The administration’s plan to pass these costs on to employees does not begin to address our proposal for a comprehensive healthcare system that includes employees and their dependents and a fee remission program that covers the entire cost of tuition and fees for employees. The administration has also consistently failed to provide vital information we need to bargain over healthcare and other outstanding issues.

CHILDCARE: the administration rejected our proposal to subsidize employee childcare costs though they recognized the need for a childcare program. One university spokesperson accurately characterized our proposal as “a subsidy program to enhance an [employee’s] ability to matriculate, be gainfully employed and contribute to the mission of the university.”

The next day, another university representative, in rejecting our proposal, said, “The University believes that there are sufficient child care resources provided to most of the individuals that you represent, and those programs are both effective and cost effective . They provide services at a reasonable cost, recognizing the financial needs of the students.” This remark displayed an arrogant disregard for the realities of life for teaching assistants, readers, and tutors with children, who more often than not face lengthy waitlists and programs that absorb at least half of their monthly wages.

SUMMER SESSION: the administration also was unresponsive to our proposal for rights and wages during summer session equal to those of the rest of the academic year.

Undoubtedly the Administration’s subsequent proposals will reflect some improvements; however, their current proposals have a long, long way to go, and they start off in the wrong direction.

The administration appears to be bargaining in bad faith. Nevertheless, despite their stalling tactics and continual failure to provide meaningful information, we are working hard to get a strong contract by the expiration date of the current agreement, September 30.

In short I think that Mearsheimer and Walt certainly ought to be blamed for foolishly adopting some silly beliefs and presenting them poorly I think just as much blame lies with their opponents for encouraging people to take this crap seriously. The fact that we tend to blame only one side not the other regardless of the causal impact of their choices is yet another deep seated human irrationality that always seems to bite us in the ass. I argue for this views at far too much length below.

Mearsheimer and Walt’s book builds on their controversial 2006 article in the London Review of Books where they criticize the influence of the “Israel Lobby” on US politics and accuse it of distorting our foreign policy to the detriment of both the US and Israel. Just as in the interview the article made a point of saying that the “Israel Lobby” included a great many non-Jews while many Jews weren’t part of it and disapproved of it’s tactics. Still, I think the article could have been worded more carefully since on a subject like this the following sentence just invites confusion.

And because Jewish voters have high turn-out rates and are concentrated in key states like California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania, presidential candidates go to great lengths not to antagonise them.

And this one is just as problematic.

The Lobby doesn’t want an open debate, of course, because that might lead Americans to question the level of support they provide. Accordingly, pro-Israel organisations work hard to influence the institutions that do most to shape popular opinion.

Now my overall perception from the article is that M&W are merely making (potentially false) claims about political influence. Claims that would be unremarkable if he had explained say the tendency of government aid to flow to the middle class rather than the most needy by a reference to the disproportionate political power of white suburbanites and suggesting that your opponents don’t want an open debate appears to be de rigueur in American political discourse. However, when discussing a subject like this with obvious potential for misinterpretation it is negligent not to word this more carefully. Still, poor wording is hardly a capital offense and in the interview Walt went out of his way to clarify these sorts of misconceptions, e.g., emphasizing that he didn’t view it as disloyal or even wrong to support Israel only that the policies the “Israel Lobby” supported were horribly misguided.

Now merely from a rhetorical point of view it would be bad tactics to respond to the calm reasonable sounding academic with an outraged lecture about the role of disloyalty accusations in the Soviet and Nazi genocides but when the individual your criticizing credibly denies making any such allegation at all it just plays to the (mostly false²) idea that accusations of antisemitism are being used to stop any discussion. As if this tactic wasn’t foolish enough Foxman responds to the idea of a hard right “Israel Lobby” by snapping, “Why is it their business how the American Jewish community works?” Not only is this a terrible argument (voting patterns are everyone’s business) but there is no more surefire way to convince people your covering up a dark secret than to tell them something is none of their business. Why do you think the UFO buffs simply won’t accept the fact that Area 51 is just a boring aircraft research facility?

I understand why Foxman has the reaction to M&W that he does. Obviously talking about the “Israel Lobby” and their ’sinister’ goals is a way to disparage the people who disagree with you. If you are primed to respond to the standard antisemitic slurs about Jewish disloyalty or conspiratorial power when you hear someone blaming the “Israel Lobby” using dubious evidence you are going to hear exactly what you expected to hear. Human psychology just works like that, especially about particularly emotional issues.

Unfortunately, the sort of underhanded argumentative move that M&W pull of dehumanizing the people who disagree with you by giving them an intimidating name, whether it is “Israel Lobby,” “big business,” “military industrial complex,” “agribusiness,” “the religious right,” or “liberal” is all to common. People think their ideas are obviously right and need an explanation for why other people disagree with them. Lacking my arrogance most people feel a tension between how obvious the conclusion feels to them and the idea there are a bunch of other folk like them who think the exact opposite so they resolve it by dehumanizing their opponents with a big scary name which lets them conceptualize themselves as the underdog nobly fighting the good fight. I think this is a much more plausible explanation of M&W’s motivations than any sort of antisemitic agenda.

Yes, the arguments made in M&W’s paper and presumably the ones in the book as well are extremely poor. In addition to the dubious factual claims they barely touch the substantive issue: what policy should the US take towards Israel. However, while I respect them less as a result and I wish academics would do better I’m hardly surprised. This is the same kinda of emotionally loaded but irrelevant crap one always sees in political discourse, especially when it involves Israel and Palestine. Even otherwise rational people start citing dubious historical events and making totally irrelevant arguments about who is at ‘fault’ for the current situation instead of asking what would be most likely to fix the problem. It is no more antisemitic when the anti-Israel side does it than it is anti-Muslim when hard line pro-Israeli partisans do.

Is it the case that M&W’s article and book provides aid and comfort for antisemitic elements? Well I’m sure some of them will get a kick out of reading it but it isn’t neo-Nazis feeling smug that we want to avoid it’s increased membership and I’m skeptical M&W’s work is going to aid in recruitment. It people like David Irving who let the neo-Nazi types feel that the truth is on their side but it is being suppressed by conspiracy. Moreover, by Foxman’s own theory he is just as culpable as M&W. He blames M&W for mainstreaming the concern about the “Jewish Lobby” to the point where it is being discussed on NPR but that never would have happened with the accusations of antisemitism and the like from people like him. Had the ADL and other Jewish groups reacted with a shrug and merely debunked M&W’s arguments instead of becoming outraged M&W’s article would have died the obscure death it deserved.

Even if their work was likely to encourage neo-Nazis this doesn’t mean it is any more morally culpable for them to publish it. After all we don’t think that scientists are blameworthy for not suppressing experimental results suggesting that certain gender differences have biological causes even if we later find them to have made a mistake. Yes, I think one can make the case that subjects like this require greater care and thus M&W are to be blamed for not exercising greater thought and care in both forming and presenting their views. However, any theory that holds people to a higher standard about racially sensitive subjects because of the greater risk of harm cuts both ways. If M&W are to be blamed for not questioning their emotionally laden beliefs about US policy towards Israel or not taking more care to avoid encouraging antisemitism than so too should Abraham Foxman for not questioning his assumptions about the nature and motivation of M&W’s view and especially for responding in a way that, under his own theory, aids genuine antisemites.

I think we should blame both of them but they are venial sins not reasons to shun them.

Don’t get me wrong. I think M&W’s arguments are a pile of crap. I just don’t think the responses to it have been much better nor do I think that it’s much worse than what I’ve come to expect from political dialog in this country. Mostly I agree with this post about the matter except I’m far more cynical about political discourse in general. The reason I care about the issues is that I’m bothered by the hypocritical standard about when we blame people for encouraging antisemitism. If we are really interested in what matters (stamping out antisemitism) then any behavior that can reasonably be seen to encourage antisemitism should be equally blameworthy but in practice we don’t judge blame based on actual impact but by sorting them out into sides. Of course this is hardly unique to antisemitism, it is the same reason that people are more interested in what you believe about affirmative action than why, but this was what made me think about it this morning.