Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

Not enough women in science?

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 2:30

Are women underrepresented in science?  My philosophy professor was complaining that since half of all B.Sc. grads are females, it doesn't make any sense that there are so few female science professors.  Personally, I don't see what the problem is.  It's not like scientific progress is being impeded by gender inequality.

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 5:11

I'd have to agree with you, OP. There's no real "bias" at work here, anymore, I don't think. I would say it's just that women tend to flock to other positions. No big deal.

Equal rights doesn't mean we HAVE to maintain an even 50/50 distribution. That's just retarded. Sure, you can offer incentives to women for those positions if you like to try and keep a diverse environment, but I don't think we have to make a huge deal out of this stupid PC shit. If relatively few women (or men) want a position, who cares? So long as you aren't actually going out of your way to shut them out, I don't see the problem.

The same logic goes with race, creed, sexual orientation, etc, as well.

Anyway, I'm just an IT guy, where the female population actually IS pretty low, but I have relatives who are archaeologists and biologists. I've been to some dig sites and they're absolutely CRAWLING with women. Almost everyone from the manual labor to the highest levels of oversight was female. Same deal with most of the animal research types of places that I've seen: highly skewed to females.

I mean, I don't want it to seem like I'm an expert or that I have any sort of real experience -- far from it, just occasional visits -- but from what I've seen, there's a pretty healthy female population. Maybe the women who are into science tend to like the hands-on kind of environments or something. Then again, maybe what I saw was a statistical abnormality. I dunno.

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 5:30

>>2
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the equal rights movement, whether you're talking about gender, race, whatever, isn't supposed to be about having every category equally represented in everything. It's about nobody caring whether you're male or female, black or white, gay or straight.

It shouldn't matter to your professor that most of his colleagues are male or female. Just like his superiors shouldn't care if someone they hire is male or female. He needs to see beyond their gender to their qualifications, abilities, and experiences. Otherwise, he's a hypocrite.

If one sector is under-represented by females simply because they don't want the position, it doesn't matter. It only matters if they are being PREVENTED from filling those positions due their gender.

Like I said, IT has a low female population (though it is growing pretty rapidly). That's understandable. For the longest time, it was the realm of the geeks, which were also predominately male. But now science and technology are fashionable again, not to mention it's become a major part of our lives, so it makes sense that it would balance out a bit.

Similarly, I'm sure something like steel workers or lumberjacks are largely skewed to the male side. That makes sense, seeing as men tend to be stronger. Likewise, military pilots and such tend to be mostly female, since their bodies are better suited to the G forces and such. But a strong woman wouldn't be turned away from a steel mill and a man who can take Gs well wouldn't be turned away from pilot school, IF they can both perform as well as their peers, so it isn't a big deal.

Sorry for the rant, there.

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 7:32

Young women want to have kids.  I'm interning with many women who are all 22-24 years old and have a BS.  Believe it or not, the majority of them are already married.  All of them have kids on their minds.  I guarantee that none of them are willing to wait until they turn 30 to have children. 

So there you have it, biological imperative is why women don't want to get PhDs and become professors.  Can you imagine taking a maternal leave while in the middle of a project?  I mean, I'm sure it's done and it has been done, but it's probably very difficult, your projects probably suffer, and any work that had the potential of being published will become delayed.  In the world of publish or perish, I'm sure that's unacceptable.

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 7:44

>>4
That's a good point too. We're still very much hardwired into "traditional" parental roles, as a society and as a biological species. Not that there's really anything wrong with that, though. Neither the pressure from society nor from our hormones is enough to stop anybody from exerting their free will. Nobody is forcing them into marriage and/or raising kids. Not in most of the CIVILIZED world, anyway.

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 7:53

Wow what a wonderful thread, on 4chan too.

I forget the exact statistic, but in physics i believe the proportion is pretty absurd. Somewhere around 90% men to under 10% women. That's an underestimate in terms of the proportion of men though.

I remember hearing something about the brains of men and women tend to be better suited to more subtle things. Like men are better at spatial relations and spatial visualization overall, but women tend to be great multi taskers. Maybe the spatial thing is why most people in physics are men.

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 11:52

Science doesn't need affirmative action.

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 12:37

Spoilers: women have smaller brains and lower IQs than men on average (5 points less in adulthood). That means there are MUCH less women in the typical science prof (135+) range. A science BSc on the other hand only takes an IQ of about 105 and a decent work ethic.

There are 1000 politically correct answers to the OP's question but none of them are as convincing as the paragraph I have just presented.

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 15:20

Because "Lower IQ" is such a detailed scientific explanation

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 17:13

>>8
Disclaimer: I'm male.

IQ is widely regarded as largely meaningless and is notoriously biased besides. It also has a long history of manipulated studies and outright fraud on behalf of various conservative groups.

That said, you should do some fact checking. The difference is actually 3-4 points in the general population, with a study focusing on a 17-18 year old population finding a difference of 3.63 points. However, that number alone doesn't tell the whole story.

First, there is much greater variance in scores among men. Men may average slightly higher, but more of them score lower than higher. Second, men and women do well in different areas of the tests. Men and women perform equally in mathematics (though, again, men account for more of the highest and lowest scores), but while men are better at spatial relations and reaction times, women are better at memory recall and have an advantage in concept and numeric modality (manipulation/critical thinking). With those considerations, all but a very few people consider women to be equal or superior in most situations.

But again, there's a whole shitstorm of controversy over everything and several of the studies have been shown to be flawed and biased, so the whole topic is in the gray area of credibility at best.

Anyway, I'd love to see your sources for your figures, but honestly I think you're probably just an intellectually dishonest sexist, parroting something he read on stormfront or something, who failed to do thirty seconds of research simply because it affirmed his sexism.

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 22:32

Playing devil's advocate here.  Isn't there some inherit bias in male-dominated fields that would lead to gender discrimination in hiring?

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-29 23:59

>>10
>IQ is widely regarded as largely meaningless and is notoriously biased besides.

Holy fucking shit dude, lrn2 science.

IQ

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-30 0:03

>>10

Just because some groups score lower doesn't make the tests biased, dumbass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ#The_view_of_the_American_Psychological_Association

The view of the American Psychological Association

...

The task force concluded that IQ scores do have high predictive validity for individual differences in school achievement. They confirm the predictive validity of IQ for adult occupational status, even when variables such as education and family background have been statistically controlled. They agree that individual differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by genetics and that both genes and environment, in complex interplay, are essential to the development of intellectual competence.

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-30 0:16

>>13
>Just because some groups score lower doesn't make the tests biased, dumbass.

I didn't say that was the reason, dumbass. Stop putting words in my mouth. Besides, if you read the rest of that section, you'll see that that report is likewise under heavy criticism.

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-30 0:57

IQ are just limits.   i have no limits as i approach inf.

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-30 1:09

>>14
So it's biased, but not because certain groups score too low?  So is it biased because some groups score unfairly high?  Or is it biased because everyone scores exactly what they should score.  Maybe that's it!  It treats racial and gender groups more fairly than almost any other type of test out there, and is therefore unfairly biased against the groups that traditionally get higher-than-deserved scores on other tests.

Or maybe you think they're biased because you never managed to crack 110 and you're feelings got hurt and so now you're on a mission to invalidate the scores of everyone who ever scored higher than you, and the minority opinion of a few wacko scientists that, in spite of all scientific data, all men really ARE created equal helps you sleep at night and makes you feel like less of a pathetic loser.  Is that it?

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-30 4:21

>>10
I'm going to filter out all your worthless verbiage here.

a 17-18 year old population finding a difference of 3.63 points

I claimed a 5 point gap in adulthood (or if you want to be a pedant, I'm talking about people in their 20s at least), and was quoting Richard Lynn. (Lynn, R. and Irwing, P. (2004) Sex differences on the Progressive Matrices: a meta-analysis. Intelligence, 32, 481-498.)

Men may average slightly higher, but more of them score lower than higher.

What? Men average higher and score more often at lower AND higher ends.  

Men and women perform equally in mathematics

Looking at math SAT scores, I wouldn't think so.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883611.html
You admit men score more often in the higher range anyway, which is what is important to topic (since the OP asked about professors, not the average person). 

men account for more of the highest and lowest scores

Did you just contradict yourself? 

men are better at spatial relations and reaction times, women are better at memory recall and have an advantage in concept and numeric modality (manipulation/critical thinking)

This might be true (you will have to provide a source), but I'm not familiar with these sub-categories of intelligence (numeric modality?). I do know however that the more g-loaded a test is, the higher men score on it.

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-30 12:04

>>17
Not >>10, but it's painfully obvious you don't know a damn thing about statistics and seem to have problems with basic reading comprehension.

Sad shit is, you're on my side (I think) >_>

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-30 13:05

>>18
I don't side with idiots. Contribute something or gtfo.

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-30 17:14

>>1
they are dumb
but these two women are awasome
GO GUNBUSTER!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPev44-UupU&NR=1

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-31 1:51

Name: mo‮8pE! to‬pui‮ !1uHaijp7IU!n9e4aOufPFUPnvI 2009-01-31 5:33

♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣
♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣
♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣

Please go to http://tinyurl.com/be5l89 and click "Save page."

♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣
♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣
♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣♦♥♠♣

Name: Anonymous 2009-01-31 18:07

i think women have different goals than men. an academic career is taking a paycut in exchange for prestige, something most women would be probably be against.

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List