Bias against Female Scientists???

[superluminal]

That is the most chauvinistic thing I have ever heard you say, supe!

I'm really surprised.

I guess its true, men just cannot comprehend the effect of the glass ceiling on women.

Me too. You really can't imagine that women may be fully predisposed to less technical careers? Ones that have a higher degree of human interaction? As has been pointed out, when the big fire trucks go rolling by, the boys are all but falling out the window while the girls are busy with... other things. In independent studies of young people, boys invariably go for the tonka trucks, while girls go for the my-little-ponies. This happens across cultures too. Girls gravitate towards toys that stimulate group interaction and talk. Boys gravitate towards hardware that requires basically no interaction to be entertaining. It's genetic, not chauvinistic. Plus, that's pretty bold of you to say, knowing that I married an independent woman who has a degree in engineering. :bugeye:

 

[superluminal]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00018E9D-879D-1D06-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=9

 

[S.A.M.]

Me too. You really can't imagine that women may be fully predisposed to less technical careers? Ones that have a higher degree of human interaction? As has been pointed out, when the big fire trucks go rolling by, the boys are all but falling out the window while the girls are busy with... other things. In independent studies of young people, boys invariably go for the tonka trucks, while girls go for the my-little-ponies. This happens across cultures too. Girls gravitate towards toys that stimulate group interaction and talk. Boys gravitate towards hardware that requires basically no interaction to be entertaining. It's genetic, not chauvinistic. Plus, that's pretty bold of you to say, knowing that I married an independent woman who has a degree in engineering. :bugeye:

A greater proportion of men go for science careers because women have an unconscious bias working against them, but as many women want to work in science (all the professors but one in my college were women). A lot of women work in aeronautics and there are an increasing number of women who want to be rocket scientists or fly planes; out of 50 graduate students in my department only about 10 are men. More women are going for graduate studies in science and technology, its when they reach the workplace that the trouble begins; I've had it myself and I'm very assertive.

 

[S.A.M.]

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2206/stories/20050325000908300.htm

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.html

 

[superluminal]

A greater proportion of men go for science careers because women have an unconscious bias working against them, but as many women want to work in science (all the professors but one in my college were women). A lot of women work in aeronautics and there are an increasing number of women who want to be rocket scientists or fly planes; out of 50 graduate students in my department only about 10 are men. More women are going for graduate studies in science and technology, its when they reach the workplace that the trouble begins; I've had it myself and I'm very assertive.

Ok. We each have some experience that we choose to interpret in a polar fashion. I claim that far more females in the general population are disinterested in science/engineering related careers as compared to males in the general population. I also claim that while there are certainly gender biases against women in these fields, the overall ratio of women/men is due to genetic predispositions.

You appear to be claiming that, all things being equal, just as many women as men would choose technical careers.

I strongly disagree, if that is indeed your position.

 

[S.A.M.]

Ok. We each have some experience that we choose to interpret in a polar fashion. I claim that far more females in the general population are disinterested in science/engineering related careers as compared to males in the general population. I also claim that while there are certainly gender biases against women in these fields, the overall ratio of women/men is due to genetic predispositions.

You appear to be claiming that, all things being equal, just as many women as men would choose technical careers.

I strongly disagree, if that is indeed your position.

Statistics
Since 1966, the number of women receiving bachelor's degrees in science and engineering has increased almost every year, reaching 202,583 in 2001, approximately half of the total.[10] The number awarded to men has not increased significantly since 1976. The proportion of women graduate students in science and engineering has risen since 1991, reaching 41% in 2001. Substantial differences between subjects are seen, however, with women accounting for almost three-quarters of those enrolled in psychology in 2001, but only 30% in computer science and 20% in engineering.[10] Both the number and the proportion of doctoral degrees in science and engineering awarded to women have increased steadily since 1966, from 8% in 1966 to 37% in 2001. The number of doctoral degrees awarded to men peaked in 1996 and has since fallen.[10] Women with science or engineering doctoral degrees were predominantly employed in the education sector in 2001, with substantially fewer employed in business or industry than men.[10]. A recent book titled "Athena Unbound" provides a life-course analysis (based on interviews and surveys) of women in science from early childhood interest, through university, graduate school and the academic workplace. The thesis of this book is that "Women face a special series of gender related barriers to entry and success in scientific careers that persist, despite recent advances". [11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_science

 

[superluminal]

It seems unlikely that all sex-related differences in occupational choice are due to discrimination; and therefore someone who explores alternative explanations should not be excoriated. Unless perhaps he is a university president!

Ha HA! Gotcha!

This is from your third link that you realized too late actually supports my position.

Do you think the converse? That all sex-related differences in occupational choice really are due to discrimination?

 

[superluminal]

Statistics
Since 1966, the number of women receiving bachelor's degrees in science and engineering has increased almost every year, reaching 202,583 in 2001, approximately half of the total.[10] The number awarded to men has not increased significantly since 1976. The proportion of women graduate students in science and engineering has risen since 1991, reaching 41% in 2001. Substantial differences between subjects are seen, however, with women accounting for almost three-quarters of those enrolled in psychology in 2001, but only 30% in computer science and 20% in engineering.[10] Both the number and the proportion of doctoral degrees in science and engineering awarded to women have increased steadily since 1966, from 8% in 1966 to 37% in 2001. The number of doctoral degrees awarded to men peaked in 1996 and has since fallen.[10] Women with science or engineering doctoral degrees were predominantly employed in the education sector in 2001, with substantially fewer employed in business or industry than men.[10]. A recent book titled "Athena Unbound" provides a life-course analysis (based on interviews and surveys) of women in science from early childhood interest, through university, graduate school and the academic workplace. The thesis of this book is that "Women face a special series of gender related barriers to entry and success in scientific careers that persist, despite recent advances". [11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_science

And it is obvious to you that none of this has anything to do with innate gender predispositions?

 

[S.A.M.]

Ha HA! Gotcha!

This is from your third link that you realized too late actually supports my position.

Do you think the converse? That all sex-related differences in occupational choice really are due to discrimination?

What about this?

According to NOW, the number of women faculty recruitment at Harvard had declined over the past four years, after Summers became Harvard President in 2001. Of the last 32 tenure posts, only four had gone to women. "Summers' suggestion that women are inferior to men in their ability to perform at maths and science is more than an example of sexism," said NOW's president Kim Grandy. "It is a clue [as] to why women have not been more fully accepted and integrated into the Harvard faculty since he has been President," she said.


http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-1/531/531_08_ScienceSexism.shtml

 

[Kat9Lives]

"Women face a special series of gender related barriers to entry and success in scientific careers that persist,despite recent advances"
- This will always be the case as far as i'm concerned. Women are too "emotional" to think "scientific". They will try however, but in the end they will most probably regret not putting their energy into raising a family instead.

 

[S.A.M.]

And it is obvious to you that none of this has anything to do with innate gender predispositions?

Criticism against Summers' views also found echo in the new research work presented at the annual AAAS meeting on February 18 by scientists at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. Under the Athena Project of the Royal Society of London, an online survey of more than 6,500 scientists working in 40 universities and various publicly funded institutions found that men still occupied the lion's share of key positions in the academic science in the U.K.

Even though women scientists are more ambitious than their male counterparts, women lacked the support and encouragement needed to progress in their careers, the survey found. A significantly lower percentage of women than men surveyed felt that their departments valued their contributions.

 

[superluminal]

Even though women scientists are more ambitious than their male counterparts,...

I find that statement absurd. An ambitious person of any gender will succeed despite obstacles. That's what men do. Again, I'm not arguing that women in science and engineering have no gender-bias barriers to overcome.

1) Any female that wishes for a career in science and technology should have that opportunity, unhindered by bias.

2) Males are biased toward females in many ways. It is our evolutionary heritage that males must compete for females who choose based on performance. This results in the male-female dynamic you see all around you. You can legislate equal opportunity/treatment laws that go a long way to help with this in support of item 1) above, but the basic male-female dynamic will never go away.

3) Males as a group are dominant and agressive in pursuit of goals. Females as a group are not.

4) Based on these observations...

- Some rare females (as a percent of the general population) want science and technology careers.

- Those that do make it into these careers find typical male patterns of competitive dominance bias in the workplace.

- Some workplaces are better at suppressing this behavior than others.

5) ... it is obvious to me that attempting to "equalize" the numbers of men vs women in science and technology careers is a rediculous pursuit. It is politically correct to claim that women should be "equal" to men in all ways. Should men be "equal" to women in all ways?

Rediculous. What this implies flies in the face of the obvious. Is the only difference between the typical human male and female the fact that I have a pole, and you have a hole? Are there no obvious behavioral and thought mode differences that you can think of?

 

[S.A.M.]

I find that statement absurd. An ambitious person of any gender will succeed despite obstacles. That's what men do. Again, I'm not arguing that women in science and engineering have no gender-bias barriers to overcome.

Scientists and engineers may say they aren't biased. But consider the case of classical musicians: Until blind auditions were held for national orchestras, women were radically underrepresented in field of classical music. Many argued that women had less wind power and were biologically incapable of performance at highest levels on many instruments. Since blind auditions have been held, though, the participation of women has risen precipitously—evidence that it was almost entirely discrimination that was keeping women out.

1) Any female that wishes for a career in science and technology should have that opportunity, unhindered by bias.

2) Males are biased toward females in many ways. It is our evolutionary heritage that males must compete for females who choose based on performance. This results in the male-female dynamic you see all around you. You can legislate equal opportunity/treatment laws that go a long way to help with this in support of item 1) above, but the basic male-female dynamic will never go away

.

whatever the influence of genetics may turn out to be, there is no doubt that the enduring social consensus that women are on average worse than men in math and science plays a major role in shaping women's careers and their career choices. It does so in two ways: through discrimination and through socialization. Contrary to the pie-in-the-sky assumptions of many of Summers' media defenders, studies show that discrimination against women in the academy is alarmingly widespread, if often unconscious. M.A. Paludi and W.D. Bauer conducted a study in which 180 men and 180 women were asked to grade a paper on a five-point scale. When the author was "John T. McKay" rather than "Joan T. McKay," the men on average graded the paper a point higher—and the women scoring the test weren't much more egalitarian. And studies have shown that men writing mathematics papers are less likely to cite women than women are (1.2 percent of the time, compared to 4.8 percent)

3) Males as a group are dominant and agressive in pursuit of goals. Females as a group are not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52344-2005Jan31.html

4) Based on these observations...

- Some rare females (as a percent of the general population) want science and technology careers.

The representation of women among science and engineering doctorate recipients continues to increase--women received 37.5 percent of all doctorates awarded in 2003 versus 30.2 percent in 1994.

- Those that do make it into these careers find typical male patterns of competitive dominance bias in the workplace.

Yes

- Some workplaces are better at suppressing this behavior than others.

a little better, but not much

5) ... it is obvious to me that attempting to "equalize" the numbers of men vs women in science and technology careers is a rediculous pursuit. It is politically correct to claim that women should be "equal" to men in all ways. Should men be "equal" to women in all ways?

Since science shows that black men have lower IQs than white men, do you think blacks are less intelligent and it is ridiculous to assume them as "equal"?

Rediculous. What this implies flies in the face of the obvious. Is the only difference between the typical human male and female the fact that I have a pole, and you have a hole? Are there no obvious behavioral and thought mode differences that you can think of?

Do you understand genetic discrimination? Social conditioning? gender bias through unconscious conditioning?

http://onlineethics.org/div/abstracts/genderdif.html

 

[superluminal]

Scientists and engineers may say they aren't biased. But consider the case of classical musicians: Until blind auditions were held for national orchestras, women were radically underrepresented in field of classical music. Many argued that women had less wind power and were biologically incapable of performance at highest levels on many instruments. Since blind auditions have been held, though, the participation of women has risen precipitously—evidence that it was almost entirely discrimination that was keeping women out.

I never said there weren't biases. I agree with you. There are.

whatever the influence of genetics may turn out to be, there is no doubt that the enduring social consensus that women are on average worse than men in math and science plays a major role in shaping women's careers and their career choices. It does so in two ways: through discrimination and through socialization. Contrary to the pie-in-the-sky assumptions of many of Summers' media defenders, studies show that discrimination against women in the academy is alarmingly widespread, if often unconscious. M.A. Paludi and W.D. Bauer conducted a study in which 180 men and 180 women were asked to grade a paper on a five-point scale. When the author was "John T. McKay" rather than "Joan T. McKay," the men on average graded the paper a point higher—and the women scoring the test weren't much more egalitarian. And studies have shown that men writing mathematics papers are less likely to cite women than women are (1.2 percent of the time, compared to 4.8 percent)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52344-2005Jan31.html

Again I completely agree. That "whatever" is a big "whatever". I happen to think it's very big. See how the links you posted downplay that part, while at the same time acknowledging the differences in genetic perdispositions.

The representation of women among science and engineering doctorate recipients continues to increase--women received 37.5 percent of all doctorates awarded in 2003 versus 30.2 percent in 1994.

That's good. I'm happy for that. Not that it means a hill of beans. Is it our goal to have equality in science or excellence in science? If women are truly interested in science and technology and are excellent, then this trend will continue. Right?

Since science shows that black men have lower IQs than white men, do you think blacks are less intelligent and it is ridiculous to assume them as "equal"?

No. IQ is so difficult to measure, and so influenced by environmental factors, that it is hard to say what's going on. Most scientists feel that this discrepancy is due to environmental factors.

Let's get this straight. There's social equality - which I support 100%. That is, the ability of anyone who wants to to have the opportunity to take their best shot at whatever they choose to try. There's no such thing as biological equality. No scientist will say there is. There are smart people and stupid people. Pretty and plain. Driven and passive.

Do you understand genetic discrimination? Social conditioning? gender bias through unconscious conditioning?

http://onlineethics.org/div/abstracts/genderdif.html

Yes.

It seems our main disagreement here is that you see all discrepancies as due to social conditioning and bias, whereas I see a large portion of it as clearly the genetic predisposition of males vs females rearing its head.

 

[S.A.M.]

Again I completely agree. That "whatever" is a big "whatever". I happen to think it's very big. See how the links you posted downplay that part, while at the same time acknowledging the differences in genetic perdispositions.

Perhaps but it is confounded by social conditioning which is so pervasive that it will affect all "measurements" done for determination of genetic potential.

That's good. I'm happy for that. Not that it means a hill of beans. Is it our goal to have equality in science or excellence in science? If women are truly interested in science and technology and are excellent, then this trend will continue. Right?

It is continuing.

No. IQ is so difficult to measure, and so influenced by environmental factors, that it is hard to say what's going on. Most scientists feel that this discrepancy is due to environmental factors.

There are scientists who feel that way about gender-associated cognitive differences as well

http://www.psychologymatters.org/thinkagain.html

http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/con/2002/con_02-04-04.html

Let's get this straight. There's social equality - which I support 100%. That is, the ability of anyone who wants to to have the opportunity to take their best shot at whatever they choose to try. There's no such thing as biological equality. No scientist will say there is. There are smart people and stupid people. Pretty and plain. Driven and passive.

Do you have enough evidence to make this claim across genders?

It seems our main disagreement here is that you see all discrepancies as due to social conditioning and bias, whereas I see a large portion of it as clearly the genetic predisposition of males vs females rearing its head.

Then I consider it precipitate of you to reach conclusions on the basis of assumptions not amply supported by evidence

 

[S.A.M.]

There are cultural differences associated with scoring

But average scores varied wildly from place to place and from one subcategory of math to the next. Japanese girls, for example, were on par with Japanese boys on every math section save that of "uncertainty," which measures probabilistic skills, and Japanese girls scored higher over all than did the boys of many other nations, including the United States.

In Iceland, girls broke the mold completely and outshone Icelandic boys by a significant margin on all parts of the test, as they habitually do on their national math exams. "We have no idea why this should be so," said Almar Midvik Halldorsson, project manager for the Educational Testing Institute in Iceland.

Interestingly, in Iceland and everywhere else, girls participating in the survey expressed far more negative attitudes toward math.

The modest size and regional variability of the sex differences in math scores, as well as an attitudinal handicap that girls apparently pack into their No. 2 pencil case, convince many researchers that neither sex has a monopoly on basic math ability, and that culture rather than chromosomes explains findings like the gap in math SAT scores.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/24/s...508b&ex=1264309200&pagewanted=print&position=

 

[(Q)]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/12/AR2006071201883.html

The million dollar question?

Why is it that almost all Nobel Prize winners are men today?/

Comments, please.

Did you not see the answer to that question in the article, or did you just conveniently leave out that particular religious comment?

""I think we want to step back and ask, why is it that almost all Nobel Prize winners are men today?" she concluded. "The answer to that question may be the same reason why all the great scientists in Florence were Christian."

 

[S.A.M.]

Did you not see the answer to that question in the article, or did you just conveniently leave out that particular religious comment?

""I think we want to step back and ask, why is it that almost all Nobel Prize winners are men today?" she concluded. "The answer to that question may be the same reason why all the great scientists in Florence were Christian."

Wrong forum (Q)

 

[superluminal]

Do you have enough evidence to make this claim across genders?

Yes. See the articles you've already posted pointing out cognitive gender differences.

Then I consider it precipitate of you to reach conclusions on the basis of assumptions not amply supported by evidence

Right back atcha, kiddo.

There are scientists who feel that way about gender-associated cognitive differences as well

Ha! Here we have a problem. By cognitive differences are you talking about general intelligence, which is measured (as best we can) to be equivalent in men and women? Or are we talking about genetic predispositions that lead one to a certain type of career?

 

[superluminal]

There are cultural differences associated with scoring

But average scores varied wildly from place to place and from one subcategory of math to the next. Japanese girls, for example, were on par with Japanese boys on every math section save that of "uncertainty," which measures probabilistic skills, and Japanese girls scored higher over all than did the boys of many other nations, including the United States.

In Iceland, girls broke the mold completely and outshone Icelandic boys by a significant margin on all parts of the test, as they habitually do on their national math exams. "We have no idea why this should be so," said Almar Midvik Halldorsson, project manager for the Educational Testing Institute in Iceland.

Interestingly, in Iceland and everywhere else, girls participating in the survey expressed far more negative attitudes toward math.

The modest size and regional variability of the sex differences in math scores, as well as an attitudinal handicap that girls apparently pack into their No. 2 pencil case, convince many researchers that neither sex has a monopoly on basic math ability, and that culture rather than chromosomes explains findings like the gap in math SAT scores.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/24/s...508b&ex=1264309200&pagewanted=print&position=

"The debate is sure to go on"

Yes.