Where did all the physics ladies go?

[RonL]

Hey, this PF featured thread is even more *clickable* now due to nice thumbnail pic (I guess)

My faulty brain is trying to tell me I have seen that girl somewhere before and I tend to think it was here on PF ? can anyone reveal the story:)
It's obvious she she has some serious chemistry going on behind her:w or maybe in front.
Thanks

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

There are lots of women in biophysics, as an example. I think the easiest explanation is that pure physics is a relatively anachronistic discipline. Few people in general are pursuing it. If you are interested in science, and there has been an increase in the number of women interested in science, you are likely pursuing biology, biochemistry, materials science, or engineering, since these fields are very scientifically relevant.

Biophysics attracts people with backgrounds in math, computer science, biology, and biochemistry, and it does not have a gender imbalance anywhere near as astounding as in pure physics.

 

[BHL 20]

More men would probably like to have a career in astrophysics than the amount that actually does. But astrophysics is a highly competitive field, and men can't use the gender imbalance card as a free pass in.

 

[BobG]

http://41.media.tumblr.com/919800891c0969561c953476785d39f2/tumblr_nbsgsn2QGg1s71tbxo1_500.jpg

Wow, seriously? I don't think I've ever seen a nurse (of either sex) wear high heels.

In my EE classes, the number of women were very small. In fact, the number of minorities were also very small. The only reason minorities outnumbered the women was because one of the women was black. It was almost all entirely white guys.

My job isn't directly related to my major. I work as an orbital analyst, which is almost all physics. That has a much higher rate of women. It goes in spurts. My current work center used to consist of four women. It currently consists of four men. In fact, there's currently only two women working as orbital analysts on the entire contract, which is the fewest I've ever seen.

One big reason for (usually) having quite a few women is that almost everyone working with military satellites is prior military (they already have security clearances). The military is pretty big on attracting women into the military - especially in career fields that are technically oriented rather than physically oriented.

But, surely, the novelty of working in an all female shop has to have some attraction (they were called Einstein's Angels, after that Lynda Williams song). Or, maybe, thinking there has to be some attraction or giving them nicknames for being an all female shop is kind of sexist.

 

[Danger]

But, surely, the novelty of working in an all female shop has to have some attraction (they were called Einstein's Angels, after that Lynda Williams song). Or, maybe, thinking there has to be some attraction or giving them nicknames for being an all female shop is kind of sexist.

Or it could be hazardous to your health. From personal experience, I can tell you for sure that if one woman happens to get pissed off at you for something, even if you've done nothing wrong, the whole damned herd turns on you like vipers.

 

[Curieuse]

Fair point. I went into astrophysics because of an assignment I did when I was 10 on black holes. I don't remember why I chose black holes (I suspect Stargate SG1), but I remember as I was finding information for the assignment I just thought that nothing in the universe could possibly be more interesting. I loved the idea that we didn't understand what happened within the event horizon, and that our understanding of physics meant that we might never. It caught my imagination and I decided I wanted to be the one to solve the riddle of the black hole. That enthusiasm never died, instead it extended to many other areas of astronomy, cosmology, and high energy astrophysics.

me too. i did that same project in my high school, I'm still in my undergrad though long way from a physicist... My major in high school (yes high school wee have to choose between Bio-Phys-Chem and Math-Phys-Chem) was initially biology but i switched to math and physics just 'cause of that assignment and a LOT of Stephen hawking.
Maybe it's 'cause of the boom at the time about Astrophysics, Theoretical physics, space time fabrics, multi-verses and so on...
BUT Maybe a really big part of choosing it as a career is that in astrophysics we study about indefinite space and its fantastic diversity of inhabitants, the continuum is so diverse that we tend to consider everyone on Earth as a team irrespective of their gender status, or any other...we view ourselves as sitting on a pale blue dot in the middle of everywhere.. while we engage in such a view of nature we forget about differences in gender and so on.. and so we kinda tend to embrace that view and thus the subject.. :p
Reflection is such an interesting thing!

 

[Danger]

My major in high school (yes high school wee have to choose between Bio-Phys-Chem and Math-Phys-Chem)

Still better off than I was. Physics was available only in 9 and 10. Biology and Chemistry were available only in 11 and 12. (I don't know anything about 13 because I quit after 12). You had to choose one or the other in 11, with the condition that you had to switch to the other for 12. I took Bio in 11 because I liked Chem better as a personal interest and wanted a higher level of education in it. Unfortunately, I got a pretty decent teacher in 11 Bio and an idiot fresh out of teachers' college with no chemistry knowledge in 12 Chem. He was actually reading the textbook a couple of days ahead of the lessons to know what to teach.

 

[symbolipoint]

...fresh out of teachers' college with no chemistry knowledge in 12 Chem. He was actually reading the textbook a couple of days ahead of the lessons to know what to teach.

Don't blame the teacher for all of that. He was doing the job assigned to him regardless what he really would want to teach. Reading the textbook before giving the lesson is THE PROPER AND SENSIBLE thing to do. ANY good teacher would do that.

 

[Danger]

ANY good teacher would do that.

That's not how teachers were assigned then. They could choose the subject that they wanted to teach, and were expected to have at least a post-secondary education in it themselves. The other Chem teacher was one of the most respected chemists in the province as well as being a teacher, and took his students to provincial and even national championship contests. The one that I got, as I mentioned in another thread, marked my answer of "rocket fuel" wrong on a test question as to some uses of hydrogen because that answer wasn't in the textbook. He was about 23 at the time; I was 18, and I'd known that since I was 7.
Good teachers read ahead, or skim ahead, in the textbook just to determine what the next lesson will entail, not to learn the subject from the ground up a week before the people that he's supposed to be teaching. What if a student has a question about something not already covered? "I have no idea" is not an acceptable answer.

 

[symbolipoint]

That's not how teachers were assigned then. They could choose the subject that they wanted to teach, and were expected to have at least a post-secondary education in it themselves. The other Chem teacher was one of the most respected chemists in the province as well as being a teacher, and took his students to provincial and even national championship contests. The one that I got, as I mentioned in another thread, marked my answer of "rocket fuel" wrong on a test question as to some uses of hydrogen because that answer wasn't in the textbook. He was about 23 at the time; I was 18, and I'd known that since I was 7.
Good teachers read ahead, or skim ahead, in the textbook just to determine what the next lesson will entail, not to learn the subject from the ground up a week before the people that he's supposed to be teaching. What if a student has a question about something not already covered? "I have no idea" is not an acceptable answer.

That must've been at a different time and different governing region. Age of 23 year is in general too young to be a high school teacher - not absolute - just in general. Some governing territorial authorities specify that a teacher with some given quantity of credits in a subject qualifies the teacher to instruct that subject, which is not always sufficient advantage to the teacher nor to the students who would receive the instruction.

 

[RonL]

That must've been at a different time and different governing region. Age of 23 year is in general too young to be a high school teacher - not absolute - just in general. Some governing territorial authorities specify that a teacher with some given quantity of credits in a subject qualifies the teacher to instruct that subject, which is not always sufficient advantage to the teacher nor to the students who would receive the instruction.

The 1950-1960's were wonder years that very few today can believe really existed, "leave it to beaver", "happy days" and a few others had good foundations to work on:).
I was much like Wally and being such a swell guy got me through the years when I should have been held back, as well as I can remember teachers were not held to the same standards as today:(.
There might be some on the forum that began teaching around that time frame, I really would love to hear some correction.:)

 

[BobG]

That must've been at a different time and different governing region. Age of 23 year is in general too young to be a high school teacher - not absolute - just in general. Some governing territorial authorities specify that a teacher with some given quantity of credits in a subject qualifies the teacher to instruct that subject, which is not always sufficient advantage to the teacher nor to the students who would receive the instruction.

This is similar to my state. There's two ways to qualify as a high school teacher in science/math, etc.

You need a teaching degree (plus certification) to be a teacher. Having a certain number of credits in a given field allows you to teach that subject in high school.

Or, you need a degree in the field you want to teach in, plus have to complete certification (testing to ensure the teacher understands at least the basic fundamentals that would have been taught to a person with a teaching degree).

For a person that majored in education, taking the extra credits to qualify for tough to fill teaching slots in science/math means higher pay.

For a person that majored in a more technical field, choosing to teach, period, usually means lower pay than they could earn elsewhere. Not to mention that they have to somehow complete that teacher certification program. If they really want to teach, they'd be better off getting at least their masters and teaching at a college. It pays more and college instructors aren't required to get teacher certification.

Supply and demand determines which is more common.

I do remember the student teacher we had in our math analysis class. He was a very smart guy. Teaching, though, was a challenge for him. He had a tendency to make these humongous leaps from one step to the next and, when asked to explain how he got from step D to step E, he'd just look at the problem and reply, "How can that not be perfectly clear? It's so self evident that I'm not sure what I could say to make it any more clear!" (Which really meant that I learned this short cut so long ago that I can't even remember the long way anymore.)

 

[StatGuy2000]

Wow, seriously? I don't think I've ever seen a nurse (of either sex) wear high heels.

In my EE classes, the number of women were very small. In fact, the number of minorities were also very small. The only reason minorities outnumbered the women was because one of the women was black. It was almost all entirely white guys.

I don't know where or when you graduated from university, but were there no Asian students in EE? I graduated back from my BS in 2000, and I would say that perhaps >50% of the students in EE (at the very least) were Asian (primarily Chinese or East Indian).

 

[Danger]

That must've been at a different time and different governing region..

Most likely; I have no idea where you are. This was southern Ontario in the early 70's.
I might have been wrong about his age, but I don't think so. At any rate, he was definitely not over 25. (One of the girls' gym teachers was 22 and was often mistaken for a student.)

 

[BiGyElLoWhAt]

Was I the only one that looked at this article? I find it very interesting that, despite the fact that the physical sciences tend to be male dominant, that percentage of women getting a consecutively higher degree (UG->G->PhD) decreases... Non linearly at that (for the ones that decrease UG->G, it seems quadratic). There are 5 listed fields in the chart where the percentage of women increased from UG to G, but the PhD is ALWAYS significantly lower than the UG.
I just thought I would point that out.
http://www.socwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/fact_12-2007-stem.pdf
Should this be written off as such?
In male dominant fields, a decrease in 1 male major and 1 female major causes a percent decrease in female majors?

 

[zoki85]

http://www.socwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/fact_12-2007-stem.pdf

Wow! 14% in EE? I thought the percentage was way below 10%.

 

[jz92wjaz]

I was in EE, and I think it was less than 10% at my school five to ten years ago. There were 1 to 3 girls in my classes, and typical class sizes ranged from 15 to 40.

 

[BobG]

I don't know where or when you graduated from university, but were there no Asian students in EE? I graduated back from my BS in 2000, and I would say that perhaps >50% of the students in EE (at the very least) were Asian (primarily Chinese or East Indian).

Shockingly, no.

I took night classes and most of the students were adults with jobs - in other words, local residents. All of the students were from within 100 miles of the school. No out of state students, no out of country students, etc.

We don't have a huge Asian population, but I'm surprised we had no Asian students at all (at least none that had any classes with me). We did have one Asian professor (she was one of the four best professors I had).

 

[StatGuy2000]

Was I the only one that looked at this article? I find it very interesting that, despite the fact that the physical sciences tend to be male dominant, that percentage of women getting a consecutively higher degree (UG->G->PhD) decreases... Non linearly at that (for the ones that decrease UG->G, it seems quadratic). There are 5 listed fields in the chart where the percentage of women increased from UG to G, but the PhD is ALWAYS significantly lower than the UG.
I just thought I would point that out.
http://www.socwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/fact_12-2007-stem.pdf
Should this be written off as such?
In male dominant fields, a decrease in 1 male major and 1 female major causes a percent decrease in female majors?

What I would be interested in seeing are three things:

(1) Whether the decrease in the percentage of women pursuing graduate degrees decreases at similar rates in other, non-STEM fields (and how does it compare to the percentage of men pursuing graduate degrees in non-STEM fields).

(2) Furthermore, what are the patterns for men pursuing graduate degrees in STEM fields? Do we see similar trend toward decreasing rates of those pursuing PhDs (not the absolute percentage, which we will expect to be higher, but the trends). After all, most undergraduates in whatever field do not go on to pursue a PhD -- what I'm interested in is whether the overall level of decrease is different between the different populations.

(3) Among those women who finish a UG in STEM fields and did NOT pursue further graduate studies, what did they end up doing? And how does this compare to men?

 

[Danger]

My faulty brain is trying to tell me I have seen that girl somewhere before and I tend to think it was here on PF ? can anyone reveal the story

Without my glasses, I can't be sure. She bears some similarity to Linda Park from "Star Trek: Enterprise", but the clothing and graphics don't seem to be from that show. She played a Dr. in the "Chemistry" episode of "Legends". Could that be it? (I've never seen the show.)

 

[b.shahvir]

The question is, why don't many women win the Nobel prize?? The fact is gender equality is motivated by gender politics and an increasing media marketing trend. How many female engineers even do pursue engineering in future?!

 

[TheSodesa]

No reaction to this one! Was it a bad thing to say?

There was nothing really bad about your statement, except that I don't really get what you mean by non-physical differences. Don't we all act differently exactly because we are different physically? Aren't out actions the consequence of the chemical reactions going on in our brains?

Personally I'd call those physical phenomenon, but that's just me, and if we start delving too much into this topic, this thread is going to get sidetracked.

 

[Jarfi]

I was in the "Physics I" field in college, lol we were 10 guys and one girl... I kind of felt bad for that girl and sometimes the guys would tease her, a large portion of the guys was socially inept too and many of them were kind of annoying. There were a few good looking guys that were funny and fun to be around, but most were some sort of weird. So I DO understand why most "average" women who are not super nerdy don't go into physics,

The guys in physics tend to be socially inept/annoying, not all, but a large portion in my experience, and this is the stereotype, women are like it or not very social creatures, and women need a healthy nurturing surrounding to enjoy themselves. This is why they don't go into physics I think.. because the COMMUNITY is 90% men and out of these men many are not that great or fun to be around women.

Oh and btw, that girl .. she was into astronomy too hehe, don't ask me why.

(if any of you creeps think I am that girl then the answer is no, so don't message me)

 

[RonL]

Without my glasses, I can't be sure. She bears some similarity to Linda Park from "Star Trek: Enterprise", but the clothing and graphics don't seem to be from that show. She played a Dr. in the "Chemistry" episode of "Legends". Could that be it? (I've never seen the show.)

Thanks Danger, woke up at 3 AM and saw your post, a little research put me close I think, the series was named "Legend" by Richard Dean Anderson of Stargate and MacGuyver fame, he (Richard) had a girlfriend that looked a lot like the picture of this physics girl.
Anyway it's been a little bit of fun, I'm getting sleepy again, going back to bed:)

 

[RonL]

No reaction to this one! Was it a bad thing to say?

IMO, It might be just short of the perfect thing to say, there's a reason for the saying "men are from Mars and women are from Venus". I have lived enough to see changes in how women see themselves in relation to male/female qualities.:)

 

[zoki85]

Women Nobel laurates : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_Nobel_laureates
Really small number. That's bad

 

[BiGyElLoWhAt]

Women Nobel laurates : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_Nobel_laureates
Really small number. That's bad

Eh, when you consider the fact that there arent that many women pursuing careers in those fields (topic of this thread), it makes sense that there would be less women winning Nobel prizes as well.

 

[Monique]

This is the "Science Vision 2025: future choices" report of the Dutch government (cover image), do I detect a gender bias? Their excuse: only Dutch nobel laureates were picked. Well, I would've picked the current top Dutch scientists with the highest national distinction (you could make a cover with only women). A missed chance, imo.

 

[PeroK]

This is the "Science Vision 2025: future choices" report of the Dutch government (cover image), do I detect a gender bias? Their excuse: only Dutch nobel laureates were picked. Well, I would've picked the current top Dutch scientists with the highest national distinction (you could make a cover with only women). A missed chance, imo.

View attachment 76086

I agree with your point, more or less. I was thinking, however, that if these men were the most notorious Dutch criminals, would you request that they find 16 notorious Dutch women to replace them?

 

[Nikitin]

This is the "Science Vision 2025: future choices" report of the Dutch government (cover image), do I detect a gender bias? Their excuse: only Dutch nobel laureates were picked. Well, I would've picked the current top Dutch scientists with the highest national distinction (you could make a cover with only women). A missed chance, imo.

View attachment 76086

Are really all the current top Dutch scientists women? Who are they?

 

[Monique]

I agree with your point, more or less. I was thinking, however, that if these men were the most notorious Dutch criminals, would you request that they find 16 notorious Dutch women to replace them?

That is a strange question? Of course, it should be a reflection of society. I'm not saying all should be female, but at least let a few female scientists represent the science vision of the future. The least one can do is select people who are still alive.

Are really all the current top Dutch scientists women? Who are they?

No they are not, just like not all top Dutch scientists are male. A selection of 3/16 faces would represent the ratio of the "Dutch Nobel prize" (aka Spinozopremie) and that would already satisfy me. If you're really interested: http://www.nwo.nl/onderzoek-en-resultaten/programmas/spinozapremie/spinozalaureaten/alfabetisch+overzicht

 

[Nikitin]

Yeah I got confused when you said "you can make the top Dutch scientist cover made up of women only", but never mind that I see what you meant now. Anyway, really Monique, what's more probable:

a) It just so happens they chose the nobel prize as the best measure of scientific prowess, and, as a side effect there are no women on that cover. They meant nothing by it.

or

b) It's a conspiracy aimed at keeping women oppressed.

?

I don't think calling stuff like this out will help your cause tbh. Hell, IMO the only scandalous thing about that cover is that they count Andre Geim as Dutch.

 

[b.shahvir]

Since this thread has already taken on political color (gender is more of a political issue then human rights) so wonder what keeps one from asking where have all the Blacks, Muslims, Asians, Gays, Lesbians the differently-abled... you name it in physics go? Sorry for being blunt.

 

[lisab]

Since this thread has already taken on political color (gender is more of a political issue then human rights) so wonder what keeps one from asking where have all the Blacks, Muslims, Asians, Gays, Lesbians the differently-abled... you name it in physics go? Sorry for being blunt.

For all we know, one (or more) of those guys on the cover could Muslim, gay, differently-abled, etc.

 

[b.shahvir]

For all we know, one (or more) of those guys on the cover could Muslim, gay, differently-abled, etc.

Thank you!... for now this completes the political spectrum.

 

[Monique]

a) It just so happens they chose the nobel prize as the best measure of scientific prowess, and, as a side effect there are no women on that cover. They meant nothing by it.

The ministry defends itself by saying they were looking for examples of excellent science. Sure, Nobel Prize winners have done excellent science. However, the document is about the future of science. Only portraying men is damaging, especially without explaining why only men are shown. It's an example of how history still limits a positive portrayal of female scientists (who are doing excellent science).

 

[b.shahvir]

Thanks Monique for liking my post. I thought I did be trolled :P

 

[Nikitin]

The ministry defends itself by saying they were looking for examples of excellent science. Sure, Nobel Prize winners have done excellent science. However, the document is about the future of science. Only portraying men is damaging, especially without explaining why only men are shown. It's an example of how history still limits a positive portrayal of female scientists (who are doing excellent science).

You can inspire kids for the future by bringing up examples from the past. Truly, the nobel prize winners were probably the most accomplished scientists in the history of the Netherlands, so it's a fair measurement to use.

If you think that science is presented as a male field by the media, you should start doing observations and make an unbiased (if at all possible) paper on it. Cherrypicking stuff like this, which clearly are not sexist, will just discredit you. In my opinion women are just as welcome into STEM as men here. Indeed, a woman at my university recently won a nobel prize and nobody cared at all about her sex.

 

[jz92wjaz]

Most people are going to cheer for an underrepresented minority in science. There are a few people who are sexist and racist and want to keep those they don't like from succeeding, but most of us think those people are idiots. Some studies suggest that (as a result of bias) scientists of both genders tend to unintentionally and unwittingly perceive an equally qualified man as being better at science than the woman. If these Dutch men are indeed the top scientists, there is nothing wrong with the list. If there are women (or other minorities) who've had their work overlooked or unfairly marginalized (unintentionally or otherwise) who belong on that list, there's a problem. We don't have enough information to say for sure which it is.

 

[Monique]

You can inspire kids for the future by bringing up examples from the past. Truly, the nobel prize winners were probably the most accomplished scientists in the history of the Netherlands, so it's a fair measurement to use.

The text nowhere mentions those are Nobel Prize winners, or what their names are. It's a picture of all men in a document about the future of science. That's going to raise some eyebrows. How is it inspiring or bringing up examples, when there is no caption?

If you think that science is presented as a male field by the media, you should start doing observations and make an unbiased (if at all possible) paper on it. Cherrypicking stuff like this, which clearly are not sexist, will just discredit you. In my opinion women are just as welcome into STEM as men here. Indeed, a woman at my university recently won a nobel prize and nobody cared at all about her sex.

I don't have to write a paper, there are people whose expertise are these issues and they have spoken up. Curt Rice (Committee leader on Gender Balance and Diversity in Research in Norway) wrote: "It is true (I guess) that all the men in the pictures are Nobel winners, but that is not stated anywhere in the report, so to the extent that is supposed to be a justification, it's odd that one didn't even feel the need to explicitly make note of that in the report. Why not? Perhaps because those who put it together didn't find anything odd about their little collage. This is actually what they think science (and the future of science) in the Netherlands looks like."

It would discredit me when I point to a discrepancy? Four female Professors have written a newspaper article that the Netherlands should also be proud of female scientists and I admire them for it: they are setting an example.

Women just as welcome to STEM as men? I can tell you about the times I was denied based on prejudices, the sexist comments I receive. I rather not go there. Equal opportunity? No, definitely not.

To go back to the uncaptioned image, at the beginning of the year Elsevier was criticized for a similar image. Their response: Elsevier agrees with criticism about the lack of gender diversity in a recent email campaign. Raising awareness is good.

 

[Nikitin]

The text nowhere mentions those are Nobel Prize winners, or what their names are. It's a picture of all men in a document about the future of science. That's going to raise some eyebrows. How is it inspiring or bringing up examples, when there is no caption?.

Uhm I haven`t seen this document, so fair enough, I don`t know.

I don't have to write a paper, there are people whose expertise are these issues and they have spoken up. Curt Rice (Committee leader on Gender Balance and Diversity in Research in Norway) wrote: "It is true (I guess) that all the men in the pictures are Nobel winners, but that is not stated anywhere in the report, so to the extent that is supposed to be a justification, it's odd that one didn't even feel the need to explicitly make note of that in the report. Why not? Perhaps because those who put it together didn't find anything odd about their little collage. This is actually what they think science (and the future of science) in the Netherlands looks like."

It would discredit me when I point to a discrepancy? Four female Professors have written a newspaper article that the Netherlands should also be proud of female scientists and I admire them for it: they are setting an example.

Women just as welcome to STEM as men? I can tell you about the times I was denied based on prejudices, the sexist comments I receive. I rather not go there. Equal opportunity? No, definitely not.

To go back to the uncaptioned image, at the beginning of the year Elsevier was criticized for a similar image. Their response: Elsevier agrees with criticism about the lack of gender diversity in a recent email campaign. Raising awareness is good.

Gender research in Norway is a joke. They are the force behind highly politicized research on stuff like a person`s brain is a tabul rasa from birth, that parents should raise their children gender-neutral and so on. In addition to to silly research, they are responsible for stuff like Norway`s top technological schools are letting less qualified women enter before more qualified men because "it should be 50-50, otherwise the society is unfair".

Of course the Netherlands should be proud of their female scientists, they should be proud of all their scientists! But overreacting over some picture in some document will just make you look extreme. How important was that document anyway? I would spend my time fighting real sexism. Educate immigrants, create groups that give women a place to come for advice in case of discrimination and so on.

I don`t know what you went through, and I am sorry if it was discrimination, but here in Norway from my POV the opportunities are equal in STEM. At least in my university. I have many female friends, and not once have I heard a complaint about this. Actually, the only hyper-feminist I met was a guy.

 

[Monique]

Gender research in Norway is a joke.

The person is a committee member of Gender Balance and Diversity in Research, that's different from gender research :)

Of course the Netherlands should be proud of their female scientists, they should be proud of all their scientists! But overreacting over some picture in some document will just make you look extreme. How important was that document anyway? I would spend my time fighting real sexism. Educate immigrants, create groups that give women a place to come for advice in case of discrimination and so on.

The document is highly important: it's the scientific agenda for the next 10 years and should be read by every policy maker and scientist.

It's hard to change gender imbalance. Even if it is up-in-your-face, there is nothing that can be done. Unless you have suggestions? How about a job application with the following oral rejection: "you can't apply, we're not considering females".

Or how about of a pool of postdocs, of whom >50% are female. Ask group leaders to nominate excellent postdocs and end up with <10% females. Excellent females were even 'randomly' kicked out, because there was a surplus of candidates. When you ask "how is that possible", the reply is "we're also surprised that so few females were nominated".

The only thing to do is point to discrepancies and hope people will change their way.

 

[Nikitin]

Do you know the exact circumstances behind that post-doc thing? How do you know it's not a unique case outside of the norm? But indeed it is true that women are less loud and aggressive than males in general, so the probability of a woman to be less noticed in group-work settings would be higher I expect.

 

[jz92wjaz]

A female with a Physics GRE score of 700 is more likely to be successful in college than a male with a GRE of 700. A black student with a GRE of 700 is much more likely to be successful than a white student with a GRE of 700. For whatever reason, women and black students tend look worse on paper than they actually are, so if you're looking for the students who are most likely to succeed in your program, it makes sense to loosen the standards for certain minorities.

 

[Monique]

Do you know the exact circumstances behind that post-doc thing? How do you know it's not a unique case outside of the norm? But indeed it is true that women are less loud and aggressive than males in general, so the probability of a woman to be less noticed in group-work settings would be higher I expect.

The norm is that the number of females decreases the higher you get up the academic ladder, that's clearly documented. Not only for historic reasons, but also when you follow the current generation. I'm not sure what you mean with the exact circumstances.

 

[Monique]

About picking your battles, I've managed to keep my mouth shut about this commercial, where the little girl gets a vacuum cleaner and the little boy a science set. The commercial was create with racial sensitivity in mind (no Black Pete, St Nicholas gets a face of soot). Whether it is gender neutral... I'll look the other way ;)

 

[b.shahvir]

[QUOTE="Gender research in Norway is a joke. They are the force behind highly politicized research on stuff like a person`s brain is a tabul rasa from birth, that parents should raise their children gender-neutral and so on. In addition to to silly research, they are responsible for stuff like Norway`s top technological schools are letting less qualified women enter before more qualified men because "it should be 50-50, otherwise the society is unfair".[/QUOTE]

I would have to agree with Nikitin. In Nordic countries there is 30% reservation for women in every sector due to political pressure...equal opportunity for both genders?? IMO, both genders would be equal when man becomes pregnant! Until that time we should acknowledge the difference & leave it to nature.

[QUOTE="How about a job application with the following oral rejection: "you can't apply, we're not considering females".[/QUOTE]

This is not entirely true. It would come as a surprise to many on this forum but I have read several job classifieds in our local newspapers stating the following;
"Required Female only Marketing Engineers/Managers for a reputed company..."
"Required Female only Production Engineer for a reputed company..."
"Required young, dynamic, Female candidates of not more than 25 years of age for the post of Admin assistant and Secretary to CEO of reputed company", etc.

Above are just few examples of such job adverts which I happen to encounter frequently. Unfortunately (or fortunately for women) nobody has objected to such adverts despite their sexist nature. I feel gender diversity & equality issues are only appealing till the time it retains political hue else it would never gain prominence in society, the same goes for minorities. I don't see any black scientist in the list, guess why nobody is objecting to that!

 

[jz92wjaz]

The CEO of said reputed company in the last one sounds like a predatory creep. I think women would be wise to be wary of any job description that asks for a female applicant, especially a young one.

 

[b.shahvir]

On face value to say men & women are equal is like saying electrons = protons, negative charge = positive charge, North pole = South pole, gravitational force = centrifugal force...

 

[b.shahvir]

The CEO of said reputed company in the last one sounds like a predatory creep. I pity any woman who has to work with him. I think women would be wise to be wary of any job description that asks for a female applicant, especially a young one.

True, but I wonder why you have refrained from commenting on the first two adverts!