Bias against Female Scientists???

Females.

I'm happy for you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Bah!

Read them yourself; these are observations that are gender specific; can you prove that social conditioning does not play a role.

So there are no women in the US qualified to run for President?

And not because women are socially conditioned to consider themselves as poor in math and science?

Prove it.

So all the jobs where language skills are involved have a preponderance of women and not men?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

sam,

Do you think that females are geneticlly predisposed, as a population, to a number of different desires and behaviors from men (and vice-versa of course)?

This is an important question. What do you think?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And you wonder why they have no motivation.

Thank you; I have been lucky in my parents.

 

How can I make an assumption like that?

I have never seen anything that required cognitive abilities that a man could do that, given the same opportunities and support, a woman could not do as well.

 

Ok. So you want reparations for past injustices, like African Americans want for slavery, right?

Observations. Yes they are. Some might even call them experiments with positive predictive outcomes.

When the results are from six-month old infants? Yes.

Oh brother. Or sister. So, there are these politically motivated, highly ambitious, rich, females out there. Why haven't they run? Because they're afwaid of da big bad men? Right. They don't because their parties and they know they wouldn't have a chance in hell of winning given the biases present in the general population. Did I not say repeatedly that I recognise that there is bias?

Some are. Some aren't.

Can't. Just like you can't prove otherwise.

Don't know. Do they?

 

Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick.

You really are defensive about this. It's blinding you to what the question is asking.

I go painfully out of my way to indicate that I'm talking about predispositions in the general population and you immediately jump on the cognitive abilities thing. As if I'm arguing that males are somehow smarter than females.

Look. I'll make it simple. Think about the general population and all of your experience.

- Are females more nurturing than males?
- Are males more agressive than females?
- Do females us 5 to 10 times more words in a day than males?
- Are females more prone to emotional reactions to situations?
- Do female babies tend to give up on frustrating tasks earlier than male babies?

Is any of this genetically related?

 

Why is this limited to "cognitive abilities"? I think , pound for pound the average heathy woman is essentially as strong and skilled as "average man."

Are you old enough (or fan of old movies) to know who Ginger Rogers was? (Frequent dance partner of Fred Astair, I think, but sometimes memory plays tricks.) She had the ultimate pro-feminist comment about their dancing. It went something like:

"I did everything that Fred did, except I did it backwards and in high heels!"

 

No but I do not think it is funny, either.

Like the observations about IQ and race?

Of course, the stage when cognition is determined in humans and concept formation milestones have been achieved.

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Cognitive_development

You also said :

So you mean to say the women lack ambition?

Or that bias prevents them from coming forward?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But if you admit bias, it invalidates your contention of genetic predispositions because you cannot separate the effects of the two. I however can claim it is ALL bias because you cannot prove otherwise.

You tell me. By your logic, since women are predisposed to be more social and better at language skills then they should be "motivated" to excel at these jobs

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_n1-2_v38/ai_20816289

 

Don't get stressed supe.

I'm always assertive. And the question is about bias against female scientists remember?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes, but you seem to imply that these genetic predispositions determine career choices and I'm claiming that conditioning plays a very large part in self-perception of what is acceptable for females.

What does any of this have to do with career choices? Can a woman not have career aspirations and still be nurturing etc; is the possession of language a disqualifier for the possession of cognitive abilities and a temperament suited for science? What does the fact that I like to talk and pet kittens have to do with my interest in molecular biology ? Are they mutually exclusive?

 

It's not but I'm trying to limit the focus to women scientists; I'll expand it if there is a question though.

 

Wrong. There is a significant difference, pound-for-pound, in the strengths of females vs males. Cmon BillyT.

No, wait, I'm mistaken. Females are exactly like males in all respects! It's so obvious now. I can hardly tell a female from a male on the street! This upsets my wife. Or my husband. I'm not sure. We all had the exact same roles during our evolutionary history so there was obviously no divergence in the skills required for survival. Women cry easier than men because of their training by evil societies. Obvoius. Men hunt in far greater numbers than women because of the same early training. Hey! I do remember seeing a group of smelly women (I think, since they're so like men) coming out of a hunting camp with their kills draped over their shoulders. And I thought it was fat men with man-boobs. Silly me.

 

Well hell. I completely agree. If that's the only question here, I completely agree.

 

There is, and we agree that it's a much wider one than women in science.

The answer? And, again, I'm asking for a practical solution, not what you'd like to see happen.

Failing that, any sort of a response would be nice.

 

No. And if there were such a clear link between a predisposition for emotional sensitivity and careers in marriage counseling, this debate wouldn't exist. Everything in your psychological makeup influences your life choices. A liking for kittens and babble(!) may have no direct indication for your career choice (again, talking general population here) but the predispositions underlying these "interests" (nurturance, communicativeness) may.

 

How about we start with equal pay for equal work?

That would be a good place.

 

How do we implement this?

 

Enjoyed your reply. I was not as carful as I should have been in my "pound for pound" bit. Certainly waht i said is false in most western societies, but probably not in those where the bigger stronger men have the women out gathering the wood etc. I.e. I may still be wrong, but do not think there is any difference the chemistry of their mussels etc, but certainly the average man doing manual labor is stronger than the average woman srcubbing the floor and the males certainly have a hormonal system (testerone, etc.) which favors the development of bigge mussles. so I will not argue my possible wrong point more, but only note that either sex can develope a good set of bicepts etc, but women mayneed to work harder to do so.

I may enter the debate later, as in some ways I agree with you both.

 

It would. Much controversy in the UK of late over pay for men and women tennis players. Now the curveball: how do you overcome the cultural bias that deems women's contributions of inferior value to that of their male counterparts?

 

Hi BT,

While there is no significant difference in the biology of the muscles, it's the number and density of muscle fibers that differs. So, in a way, you're right. An equal weight of muscle should be equally strong. But that's like saying that pound-for-pound a sapling is just as strong as a mature tree, right? It's true, but it's kind of meaningless unless your a materials scientist or a bridge designer.