Science needs more... Women!

[skakos]

You guessed correctly.

In science, women are less than men. This applies to positions in research centers and in teaching positions at universities. Only the 1/5 of phDs in physics are given to women in the US.

A research in Yale showed that between two candidates with EXACTLY THE SAME qualifications who applied for a job at a research center, the man is much more likely to be hired. And it is quite startling that this preference to men is also shown by women as well! [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magaz ... ience&_r=0]

It seems that unfortunately we need a lot more work to debunk certain prejudices.

I personally believe that women can give science what it currently lacks: A more spiritual and holistic view to the problems of the cosmos. We have treated universe as a machine for too long. It is time to look at things from a different angle...

[Felasco]

I personally believe that women can give science what it currently lacks: A more spiritual and holistic view to the problems of the cosmos. We have treated universe as a machine for too long. It is time to look at things from a different angle...

Could not agree more, well said!

An interesting question here might be...

As women continue to take the reins of power in many fields, which will have more influence on which? Will women influence the direction of these fields, or will the experience of power influence what women are to become?

At least we can perhaps say that it will be a complicated dance, and given the historic nature of this change, the outcome can not be predicted.

[HexHammer]

Unfortunaly due to genetics, less women has the mental aptitude for brainy things. Even in e-sports where physics doesn't matter, such video games as shooting games, women never reach the top 10, why any pro sports has women and men leagues.

[Skip]

such video games as shooting games, women never reach the top 10,

Maybe they have lives instead?

any pro sports has women and men leagues

Yeah, it's hard for poor simple females to reach the dizzying intellectual heights of male professional sport.

On the other hand, that picture if fairly outdated (?1936 ish). There are many women in science now, teaching and writing as well as doing research. Granted, they seem more attracted to the biological side - but then, that's where most of the current action is.
I'm all for breaking down barriers and eliminating prejudice, and agree that it's slower than it should be. But, for the record, science faculties are at least going forward, rather than backward, like many legislators.

Anyway, Physics won't change according to the gender of its researchers. Female physicists will be just as objective in their observation; just as rigorous in their data-collection as the male ones. They will not bring spiritual mumbo-jumbo to science.

[HexHammer]

On the other hand, that picture if fairly outdated (?1936 ish). There are many women in science now, teaching and writing as well as doing research.

That's not the point I'm making, read again.

I say there are no women at the absolute top, sure there ARE women in all categories, but they'r fewer.

Skip, you never read any post closely, instead you ALWAYS jump to conclusions and like to conform with blatant babble and ravings.

[Skip]

Unfortunaly due to genetics, less women has the mental aptitude for brainy things. Even in e-sports where physics doesn't matter, such video games as shooting games, women never reach the top 10, why any pro sports has women and men leagues.

unfortunately - bad luck, something to be regretted but not amenable to change
due to genetics - a large category, inclusive of many facts of which you and I may be ignorant*;
less - fewer; which is to say, some, not zero
women has - one woman has; plural women have
the mental - referring presumably to brain function
aptitude - natural ability, capacity, prerequisite condition
for brainy - ah yes, there it is: brainy: referring to intellectual
things - objects? no, it must mean subject matter, activities, projects, studies

* however, one of us knows this already, and now we both can:

according to Rex Jung, a UNM neuropsychologist and co-author of the study, may help to explain why men tend to excel in tasks requiring more local processing (like mathematics), while women tend to excel at integrating and assimilating information from distributed gray-matter regions in the brain, such as required for language facility. These two very different neurological pathways and activity centers, however, result in equivalent overall performance on broad measures of cognitive ability, such as those found on intelligence tests.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 100142.htm
Note: the math used in Physics today is beyond any human and done by computers.

The video games and professional sports were a non-sequitur that I found humorous.

Tell me I don't read with attention! Phshaw!

[HexHammer]

Tell me I don't read with attention! Phshaw!

Well, understand things like a Google Translator, you read closely without comprehension and rationallity.

When I in the same line say less + has, you should have realized that I meant "have".

Your posts contradict eachother.

[Skip]

When I in the same line say less + has, you should have realized that I meant "have".

You're right: I did realize that you mean the plural noun, even when you use the singular verb.

You're still wrong about everything else.

[Arising_uk]

Unfortunaly due to genetics, less women has the mental aptitude for brainy things. ...

Your source for this?

Even in e-sports where physics doesn't matter, such video games as shooting games, women never reach the top 10, why any pro sports has women and men leagues.

What has this got to do with anything!!

[HexHammer]

When I in the same line say less + has, you should have realized that I meant "have".

You're right: I did realize that you mean the plural noun, even when you use the singular verb.

You're still wrong about everything else.

Says who? One like you? ..lol?

[HexHammer]

such video games as shooting games, women never reach the top 10,

Maybe they have lives instead?

This is pure nonsens, and even purile babble.

You should know that women dedicated just as much time for their professional sport as men do.

any pro sports has women and men leagues

Yeah, it's hard for poor simple females to reach the dizzying intellectual heights of male professional sport.

What are you babbeling about?

On the other hand, that picture if fairly outdated (?1936 ish). There are many women in science now, teaching and writing as well as doing research. Granted, they seem more attracted to the biological side - but then, that's where most of the current action is.

You are talking besides the point, infact you don't even comprehend the point made.
We are talking about similar sports where women are inferior to men, like chess, pro female chess players can't reach the same metal aptitude as men, or any other sports where they are doing the exact same thing.

I'm all for breaking down barriers and eliminating prejudice, and agree that it's slower than it should be. But, for the record, science faculties are at least going forward, rather than backward, like many legislators.

This is totally off topic.

Anyway, Physics won't change according to the gender of its researchers. Female physicists will be just as objective in their observation; just as rigorous in their data-collection as the male ones. They will not bring spiritual mumbo-jumbo to science.

Scientific facts are not mumbojumbo, you are speaking from a glaringly ignorent standpoint, without any scientific backing.

[uwot]

We are talking about similar sports where women are inferior to men, like chess, pro female chess players can't reach the same metal aptitude as men, or any other sports where they are doing the exact same thing.

You clearly haven't heard of Judit Polgar. Like all exceptional people, she has her place in the same Gaussian bell curve as everyone else. There are many factors to consider and to make sweeping statements is unbecoming of someone with such high standards that they can berate others for

speaking from a glaringly ignorent standpoint, without any scientific backing.

[HexHammer]

We are talking about similar sports where women are inferior to men, like chess, pro female chess players can't reach the same metal aptitude as men, or any other sports where they are doing the exact same thing.

You clearly haven't heard of Judit Polgar. Like all exceptional people, she has her place in the same Gaussian bell curve as everyone else. There are many factors to consider and to make sweeping statements is unbecoming of someone with such high standards that they can berate others for

speaking from a glaringly ignorent standpoint, without any scientific backing.

How many other female champs are there who has beaten #1 ranked champs? 1 lone swallow hardly make a summer.

But I'm actually glad that I for the first time in 6 years has been proved wrong. Many thanks.

[Skip]

Chess, football, Battleship, tennis, poker, Pokemon, speed-skating. What have all of these things have in common? No, they are not all sports, nor are they all board games. They are, however, all contests requiring various skills, vastly different types and amounts of physical prowess and vastly different levels and types of mental aptitude.

What they do all have in common:
1. They have nothing to do with the study of science.
2. The world championship statistics in all of them are unrelated to the number of women accepted into the Academy of Science, or, indeed, the science faculties of universities.
3. These activities, and who does or does not excel in any of them, are irrelevant to the OP.

[HexHammer]

Chess, football, Battleship, tennis, poker, speed-skating. What have all of these things have in common? No, they are not all sports, nor are they all board games. They are, however, all contests requiring various skills, vastly different types and amounts of physical prowess and vastly different levels and types of mental aptitude.

What they do all have in common:
1. They have nothing to do with the study of science.
2. The world championship statistics in all of them are unrelated to the number of women accepted into the Academy of Science, or, indeed, the science faculties of universities.
3. These activities, and who does or does not excel in any of them, are irrelevant to the OP.

Pure babble and raving.