AS I understand this---and recall that I have been dead for over a century, and therefore did not keep abreast with every new trend in modern society---there is a current news item that the winners of some kind of national mathematics and science prizes were all girls. That is, three girls won these three top prizes. And this is news because this is the first time it ever happened… at least since pre-history (which was before history was recorded, because, obviously, it had not yet been invented by historians… as a means of employment without gainful production for anyone). I do not know for how many years these prizes have been awarded (or rewarded). I safely presume, and presume that my presumption is safe, that this has been going on for decades. America became science conscious and committed to its teaching in the 1960’s.
Allow me to introduce some rational analysis to this area, and probably be the first who dares to do so. Apparently rationality is usually excluded by the new fashion- setting class, but then so am I. And where the logic sequence may tread upon the socially prohibited, then few risk such disapproval. I dare risk it as I am immortal… once again. The fact that girls won, and that this is celebrated as unusual, must mean only a few possibilities. It could mean that the girls are now studying such subjects, while before they were prevented from doing so. Of course, this is not true, as girls have been over-encouraged by educational cliques and societal pressures to study math and science. So this possibility must be rejected.
It could mean that, after decades of almost(?) forcing girls into these fields, the desired results have finally been achieved---once! But this would then mean that, even with full social pressure creating the incentive, it still is highly unusual to reveal girls who do what boys normally do. In other words, girls still do not do well in these fields. The exception does not prove the rule. The exception simply shows what else is not exceptional. And what is not exceptional shows what is natural, and, literally, normal.
In fact this being a news item is a tacit, but effective, admission of the inferiority of the female gender’s capacity in such matters. Let me explain this by giving an example, which, if not true, need not be true to demonstrate my true point. Mount Everest is the tallest mountain. It is dangerous and difficult to climb it. Yet hundreds of men have done so. Such accomplishments are seldom any longer presented on the news. It is too routine… for males. Only when a man dies is the expedition reported upon. Yet if or when women climb this mountain, or if an all woman expedition managed to make it to the top, the news agencies would find this as a mandatory thing to present to the public. You should be able to see the reason why.
The same is true in sports. The first woman to play against men in golf, or to race cars against men, is automatically celebrity. The fact that these women fail, and fail, and fail again, is not the news. The novelty is that the woman is physically present. If a man were to fail in golf, or racing, over and over and over, then he would be called a failure, and induced to abandon the sport. When a woman produces the same absence of success, i.e. achieving only being present at the contest (as if effectively transporting herself from one place to the location of the contest were, in itself, a notable accomplishment for all women!), this is considered to be advancing the “cause for her gender.” To put it differently: it is considered praiseworthy when a woman is essentially a spectator at a male athletic event (or even at golf or auto racing). No high ranking woman can defeat even a middle rank tennis player. No one even, or ever, suggests that one could. This means that women are simply not able to achieve the male standards in certain fields.
If one or two did, then rather than show equality, this would show only how rarely such events occur. The rare “medical miracle”---which truly may occur---does not vitiate the normal and successful means of treating disease and injuries. Doctors who rely upon miracles to cure their patients are not doctors as all, but saints. And saints do not need to study science. And women may be saints as easily as men may be, perhaps even easier. But this is not the subject here. We are analyzing science and not sanctity.
I am forced to conclude that the “cause for women” is a movement whose goal is to demonstrate the incapacities of women in many fields. What is ordinary for the male is exceptional for the female. Can this be understood as anything but an admission of general inferiority? Should an adult, of either gender, alert the fire department when he sees a fire, we would judge this to be ordinary. Should a young child do it, we would be impressed. Should a dog do it, we would be truly amazed. However, we would be very foolish then to conclude that dogs should be expected to behave this way as an ordinary thing. If women were equal, even if only roughly, in matters of science, then at least one half of these awards would have been awarded to them.
So, to return to the accomplishments of the girl students, after decades of hope, and expectation, we have a situation where over half of the population of the nation has finally won something. Once again, this has been presented as a celebration. The celebration can be pronounced, and perhaps understood, as a vigorous act of “sell-ing.” One needs to sell an idea only when its truth is not self-evident.
Again, this is something about which to rave? We may applaud the individual achievements of the individual girls, but beyond this it is chivalrous to remain silent… that is, it would have been.
Allow me to conclude with a postscript from my “Notes from Purgatory, Vol 1.”
# 31. These days, in direct contrast to my time, in college, even the co-eds are taught advanced mathematics, including calculus and trigonometry. I suppose that this is only a co-sine of the times.
Comments