Bias against Female Scientists???

But do the cognitive gender differences lead to differences in sciientific potential?

I'm defending my position; I want to remove the social conditioning before measuring the genetics.

So career is determined by genetic predispositions?

So you believe in the Indian caste system then?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And what does the evidence indicate?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just as an anecdotal bit of support for my position:

My wife and I are both EE's. My biological daughter is fascinated by astronomy and science. She was encouraged by teachers and us. My two stepdaughters couldn't care less about science. All of them excelled at math. My biokid is studying theater arts. The stepkids have no interest in technology whatsoever. No hostility or anxiety, just a total lack of interest.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To me? Based on the observed differences in gender mentalities and the observed bias toward women in science, it indicates that for the relatively small percentage of women interested in technology it is indeed difficult for them.

 

See, for me that's not the question. You keep missing the fact that I'm talking about motivation not potential. Great women scientists are great.

Absolutely fair enough.

Just as most things, largely, yes.

Whaaa? Did I not just say a few posts ago that all should be free to pursue whatever they want and be unhindered by bias??? That dosen't mean that they will succeed though, right?

 

My, how equally convenient.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Motivation is determined by gender?

Women are far more motivated to study than men; their motivation at work is affected by social factors, not genetic. Having your ideas ignored or summarily dismissed, not getting tenure even after 8 years of work, having your departmental contributions brushed aside, juggling family and career (since women have to be the primary child care parent in most homes regardless of career aspirations), sexual harassment, under valuing of work and effort. How long do you think a man could work in an environment like that? Women are better than men; they contribute inspite of these challenges.

It doesn't mean that they will not either, AND they have the right to demand the opportunity to prove themselves.

 

Okay what about the Florentine Christians?

Lets hear what you have to say that will contribute to this topic.

 

Once again I have failed. I mean the predisposition to choose a particular career path. Yes. Are you suffering from the typically female cognitive behavior of using personal or limited examples as opposed to the general population, which I am talking about?

Not long.

Ah. I see.

You just want to fight, right?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

"See, for me that's not the question. You keep missing the fact that I'm talking about motivation not potential. Great women scientists are great. "

What does this sentence indicate to your masculine intellect, pray tell?

Are we fighting?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No but I've come across this so often it really frustrates me.

Conditioning is a very pervasive phenomenon for women; education, social status, social acceptance, parental education and perceptions all play a role in determinig a woman's education and career choice. In many Third World countries, boys are educated preferentially and are encouraged to explore their potential while it is considered a waste of time to spend money and time on education for girls. In many of these countries, the government has made education free or subsidised for girls until graduate level and even then parents will not send them to school. The parents truly believe the girls are not interested in study and many girls abandon their studies due to these perceptions. Its a vicious self propagating cycle. And even though at some point it may have been initiaed by men, it has been propagated by women. An off topic example - Female genital mutilation in Africa is a practice that is propagated primarily by mothers who believe that by doing so, they make the girls acceptable for marriage. This is conditioning.


And it makes me mad when I see an otherwise educated enlightened man (married to an EE engineer) make the same assumptions.

 

Uh... I dunno...?

I dunno...?

I can understand that.

Sorry, but this makes me mad. I find the practices you listed above to be heinous. I make no assumptions about any individuals potential. All I do is see - in the US - what appears to be a correlation between the proven cognitive/developmental differences between males and females and their respective representation in technological careers. I think you are biased by the culture you seem most familiar with - India - and the reprehensible practices you've noted. Completely understandable.

 

And I see that education and advancement has not eliminated the glass ceiling just pushed it a little bit higher.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So, no matter what I say at this point, I'm a chauvinistic male who ignores the overwhelming biases against women in the workplace. OoooK then. I've never known a radical feminist. Glad ta meet ya.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And I just love it that men who never have to face the challenges that women do, assume any demand for equal representation as radical.

 

Interesting. Any demand for equal representation in an area that should be based on competence is just self-defeating. If we somehow eliminate gender bias and find that 80% of women just plain don't want techno careers, you and your radical femminazi friends will start forcing women into science for their own good? Just to bring the percentages up to 50-50?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So, what's your plan there sammy? How do we fix this?

 

I believe the logic goes as follows:

"Most citizens of Florence were Christian. Therefore, most Florentine Scientists were Christian. Most scientists today are male. Therefore, most Nobel Prize winners should be male."

Which may or may not be accurate. The problem here is that the Nobel Prize is so case-by-case that you almost have to question the judgment calls of the people giving the awards. How does one intend to do that scientifically?

 

Did I say that?

No what I am against is the assumption that women are not people; there have been women in science since 4000 years, and yet their contributions to the field have started gaining recognition only now.


The assumption that men and women are different in motivations is specious; not all men are interested in science either; its the same kind of mentality in management, politics, business administration, etc. where men are perceived as having the upper hand.

With all its scientific advancement, the US has never had a woman President; do you think a woman is incapable of being President?

Even the so-called Islamist countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh have had women Presidents or Prime Ministers; does that mean all women aspire to become Presidents?

Your "general outlook" overlooks the fact that a general mental conditioning can affect individual aspirations, motivation and goals. It is not a question of 50% of women in science, it may be only 15%, but when educational choice, career choice, upward mobility, professional satisfaction and ultimately personal contribution are based on social conditioning and mistaken perceptions, then those 15% inspite of their contributions are completely invisible.

 

Am I missing something here?

How does this support your position that genetics predispose career motivations?

As an aside,

My father never left his country; he had a nine to five job he's worked at for almost 50 years. My mother never completed high school. Out of four kids, two of us are almost PhDs in the USA and the other two completed a bachelors. Three of us have travelled around the world for work or pleasure.

So what?

 

???

Ok. So this is a good thing, right? Better late than never?

No, it's not. It's proven. Read your own links again.

Clearly.

This is true.

Don't be rediculous. You are once again applying a general rule to individuals. If a qualified woman ran, I'd vote for her, just like I would for a qualified man. God knows we could use one. Qualified that is. I'd vote for a qualified chimp over the bunch we've had in the recent past.

No. See comment above.

I don't disagree. In fact I completely agree. My only argument has ever been that the 15% you use as an example may be close to reality, and that it is probably mediated by genetic predispositions and temperments.

What is your take on the all of the findings of developmental psychology that show unequivocally that females and males differ in fundamental temperments or skills (that affect life choices) such as inherently better abilities with language (females) vs. inherently better abilities with geometry (males)?

 

So Sam: answer your own question. What do you think should be done about it? Bearing in mind that the problem, as you point out, isn't merely about science or career choices but a world where the top people in every profession - from scientists to CEOs, and from doctors to presidents - are overwhelmingly male. You said that women who demand equal treatment are seen as radicals. Well - that's because they are, since the changes that are needed are radical.

You've said yourself that things are improving slowly - more and more women are opting for careers in the military and the 'hard' (ie male) sciences, and it's clear that this is from cultural changes rather than a sudden transformation in female genetics.

But if things aren't changing fast enough - what practical things do you think can be done about it?