In January 2005 Larry Summers, then president of Harvard, caused a furore when he said that innate differences in scientific and mathematical abilities between men and women MAY underlie the relative dearth of top ranking female scientists. You can read about the controversy here:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/01/17/summers_remarks_on_women_draw_fire/

The upshot. Summers was forced to resign.

The latest issue of Discover, a respected popular science magazine, contains an article titled "20 Best Brains Under 40." Two qualifications are in order.

--They mean the best scientific brains; and

--The article is confined to scientists working in the US.

With that out of the way, I counted just 4 women among the top 20 "best brains" in science. A simple binomial test shows that the probability of this happening by chance is less than 1 %.

Note that these are scientist born in are after 1969. I doubt they would have experienced much, if any, gender discrimination against top scientific talent.

OK, folks any theories?

What, if anything other than chance, caused the relative dearth of women among Discover Magazine's "20 Best Brains Under 40?"

Sheeeh, I guess alot of women were home minding the kids, cooking,
cleaning and doing laundry. Somebody has to do it :)

I forgot to post a link to the Discover Magazine article. Here it is:

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/20-best-brains-under-40

I subscribe to the "leaky pipeline" theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_science#Statistics

I have known many women who had the brains to perform just as well as any man as a scientist. However, it's not very easy for women to develop a research group if you are even married, let alone have kids. The professional women I have had the fortune to know tend to marry men of the same educational level, with many marrying within the same career. It's unfortunate, but they also tend to subordinate their careers in favour of their husbands career.

It has nothing to do with their brains.

Dear Steven,

Interesting thread.

Historically women were excluded from the
"boy's club" of science, but women
scientists date as far back as ancient Greece.

According to a report on the statistics in
the academic profession (American Assoc. of
university professors webpage), 4 times more
men held faculty positions. Women faced
tremenduous adversity.

There was prejudice in hiring and promotion.
Exclusion from networking opportunities.

Family/career balance - women, especially ones
of child bearing age, were still seen to be a risk
in hiring.

Forty years ago women made up only 3% of
America's scientific and technical work force,
but by 2003 they accounted for nearly one fifth.

In addition women have earned more than half of the
bachelor's degrees awarded in science and engineering
since 2000.

So it is surprising that so many women are still being
devalued in their research work, and not gaining
recognition in their chosen fields.

It is surprising that today the fear still exists
that given equal rights and freedoms
women may overshadow their male counterparts.

FOXY,

You seem to be assuming that women do suffer discrimination in the sciences.

I for one doubt women suffer discrimination in technical fields. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise if you have can produce HARD evidence.

To me the "leaky pipeline theory" (thank you BUGSY) seems more credible.

My theory is this Steven.Men are basically hunters.One half of their brain is connected to their penis,the other half is focused on the hunt.It is this focus that allows them to follow a system of logic to it's ultimate disclosure.

Women on the other hand are gathers,they are gregarious and socially based.They have more connectors between the two cerebal hemispheres.They are good organisers and excellent at multi-tasking but lack focus in persuring problems to their logical conclusions.

Now are there any women who want to pursue this mass debate?

Dear Steven,

Frankly, I am surprised at you.

All you have to do is google the topic
to find the evidence you want.

Anyway, here's a few websites that may help:

1) http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2001/gender.html

2)http://science-professor.blogspot.com/2008/05/sexism-driven-science.html

3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Barres

The New York Times printed an article on July 18, 2006,
entitled, "Dismissing 'sexist opinions' about women's
place in science," by Cornelia Dean.
(A conversation with Ben A. Barres.)

This may also be of interest to you.

Cheers.

FOXY,

I am aware that many female academics CLAIM there is gender discrimination in the sciences. I am also aware the since Larry Summers was literally hounded from office no senior university official has dared disagree with the gender discrimination theory.

At least not in public.

An unfortunate consequence of hounding people like Summers from their jobs for expressing unpopular or contrarian views is that the academic consensus becomes whatever academics who value their jobs, their salaries, their pensions and their research grants are prepared to say in public.

In other words the consensus view on the existence of gender discrimination in the sciences right now is about as meaningful as the mouthings of an Exxon-Mobil spin doctor on the benign nature of of CO2 emissions. There is j no way of deciding whether they're saying what they believe or saying what they feel they have to say.

However my - admittedly limited - personal observation leads me to believe that gender discrimination in the sciences is either non-existent or slight.

I actually do have a theory on why there is a relative dearth of top ranking woman scientists. It is based on an extrapolation from other lines of research. But it's getting late and I need to collect my thoughts before attempting to explain it in 350 words or less.

I'll say this though. It has nothing to do with men being smarter than women. Actually it is a case of testosterone making men, especially young men, somewhat dumber than women.

Steven,I wasn't being entirely jovial.If you study our primordal origins,the basic functions of the hunters and gathers have determined our brain structure.It does not diminish the fuction of the female genda.Without women most businesses would fail,they are the best multi-tasking organisers.They should be paid more but their greatest skill is in raising the next generation.
When people realise that aspirations of being CEO of an organisation are not the ultimate in human existance,then we as a species will have made some progress.

The fact that many brilliant women have contributed, would suggest that they are capable.

If you look at the personal history of these women, it is hardly likely to attract women today into that level of sacrifice. Most scientists work hard family unfriendly hours for low pay. Hardly an attractive career.

When I was at university there were less than 10% of the class as women in spite of the department actively rectruiting, and 20 years later, none of them are using their training.

My mother and god mother were both biologists. My mother dropped out to start a family and ended up teaching. My god mother as a PHD headed up a large research facility. Has never married and has retired alone.

My conclusion is not that they can't, but that they don't want to.

I think Shadow Minister, Arjay and Bugsy have most of the answer. However I would like to add another perspective.

Let's deal with some facts:

(A)

Young men and young women differ in their attitudes towards risk. Young men are more likely to engage in risky behaviour than their female counterparts. For a more in depth analysis of this phenomenon and its evolutionary origins see:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080929144124.htm

(B)

Science is a risky career. Most people who embark on a scientific career fail.

It may be possible to have a satisfactory professional life as an AVERAGE doctor, lawyer, office worker, etc. "Average" scientists have a miserable time of it.

Science is an all or nothing career.

(C)

There are exceptions but if you have not acquired a reputation in the scientific world in your twenties you're probably not going to make it.

I think you can see where this is going. For most women science as a career is too RISKY.

It gets worse. For women the risks are GREATER than for men.

Picture a woman on a research team. She decides to have a baby. Inevitably towards the end of the last trimester of her pregnancy she slows down. She has the baby and returns to work in 6 months. The project has now moved so far ahead that she will never catch up. She has lost her place in the team and will not share in the glory should the team make a great discovery.

Work-life balance may be possible in some other careers. It is not possible for a young scientist. Unless science is your OVERRIDING PASSION, overriding everything else including BABIES and RELATIONSHIPS, you are unlikely to achieve great things. Women find this more difficult than men.

It gets worse. The riskier the research project the more likely it is to fail; but the more likely it is to result in a breakthrough. My observation is that women prefer research project that follow safer, less controversial lines of research. These projects may produce important results but are less likely to result in breakthroughs

Absolutely, I think I would have to agree with you Steven. Science as a career is risky and when trying to balance it with family it is definitely a matter of competing priorities. I have seen many men subordinate family priorities in favour of their research careers, some going through several marriages because of it. They can also have children at an older age, I have sen many academics father children after the age of forty.

I don't think women have the same luxury of time in regard to having families.
To add the element of risk, 'discovery' science is inherently risky and competitive, where researchers are constantly competing for research grant dollars and in many cases their jobs depend on them getting those dollars. which further compounds to the risks involved in maintaining a stable family. No wonder women are less represented than men.

Dear Steven,

I attempted to answer your question,' Where are the
women in science?' - because you did ask.
You in turn said that I was
suggesting discrimination against women in science.
You asked for "hard facts.'

I referred you to several websites. One of which
described, and I quote:

"Presidents, chancellors, provosts and 25 women
professors of nine top research universities, met all
day Monday at MIT in an unprecedented dialogue on equitable
treatment of women faculty in science and engineering.

Institutions of higher education have an obligation,
both for themselves and for the nation, to fully
develop and utilize all the creative talent
available," the leaders said in a unanimous statement.

"We recognize that barriers STILL exist for women faculty."

The 184-word statement was approved by university
Presidents from - California Institute of Technology,
MIT, University of Michingan, Princeton University,
Stanford University, Yale University, University of
California at Berkeley, Harvard University, the
University of Pennsylvania...

The problem does exist.

Professor Hopkins, who initiated the study which resulted
in senior women science professors getting greater
recognition, equity increases in compensation and more
lab space, said,

"The fact that this topic was discussed today by these
participants was almost a historic event, not just
another meeting. I thought it was a milestone that
never could happen in my lifetime."

In an interview after the workshop a male professor said
that in years past, "there were those of us
who idealistically thought that if we built the
undergraduate base (of female students), it was
going to define dthe future" in terms of women
moving up the academic ladder to professorships, "But
you can see that is really not happening."

"Data has to go together with individual women
experiences. Sometimes that's not easy for people
to hear, and sometimes that's not believed the
first time around.

At a future meeting we will gather again to report what
further things we have learned and collectively assess
'best practices."

Howard Georgi, the Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics
at Harvard said the problems were similar everywhere.

"Problems at Harvard...are no less severe...the
marginalization is there..."

There is no single reason why there are still far less female than male-scientists, however Foxy, Bugsy, Steven and Shadow-Minister have listed many good reasons.

And what a shame there are not more scientists (male or female) like Fiona Wood:

“Clinical Professor Fiona Wood is a mother of six, Head of Royal Perth Hospital's Burns Unit and Director of the Western Australia Burns Service. She is also co-founder of Clinical Cell Culture, a private company recognised in medical circles for its translational research in the treatment of burns.

In addition, Fiona Wood is also a Clinical Professor with the School of Paediatrics and Child Health at the University of Western Australia and Chair of the McComb Research Foundation.

She has become world renowned for her patented invention of spray on skin cells for burns victims, a treatment which is continually developing. Where previous techniques of skin culturing required 21 days to produce enough cells to cover major burns, Fiona and her team has reduced that period to five days.

Via her research, Fiona found that scarring is greatly reduced if replacement skin could be provided within 10 days. As a burns specialist the holy grail for Fiona Wood is scarless healing'.

A graduate of St Thomas's Hospital Medical School in London, Fiona worked at a major British hospital before marrying Western Australian born surgeon and migrating to Perth with their first two children in 1987. She completed her training in plastic surgery between having four more children. “

http://www.claxtonspeakers.com.au/speakers_profile/750

Fiona must have had fantastic support from her partner – six children AND a scientific genius.

The following link provides a list, by-no-means-complete, of significant Australian-women-scientists.

http://www.asap.unimelb.edu.au/bsparcs/guides/puzzles/women_facts2.htm

Part of our lack of awareness of female scientists has much to do with media simply not paying attention, which is an issue that faces all scientists: the lack of publicity. If you are a sports-star you are guaranteed more publicity than you could reasonably want, but scientists just don't rate the same.

I prefer to remain positive; that eventually work and family life will become a balanced mix giving everyone a fair go.

Certainly the career interruptus syndrome would play a part - the same is the case in teaching where the number of male principals is much higher than women in proportion to male/female rations in the profession (in Australia anyway).

The example cited may not necessarily indicate discrimination but there is no doubt that discrimination occurs on many levels including gender. Who can really say for sure in this particular case.

Out of interest, wha would constitute HARD evidence? Would strong rhetorical or experiential evidence be enough to open a line of discussion with regard to discrimination in this particular case?

Fractelle, Fiona Woods shows that women certainly get plenty
of publicity, when they stand out from the crowd, as with male
scientists.

There is another issue here of course, which does in fact come
back to biology. Yes, men in general are perhaps more career
focussed then women, for very good reasons.

It might be more about circumstantial evidence, but in some
of the long, in depth conversations that I have had with women,
many have conceded that when choosing their partner, the fact
that he was a good provider, played an important role in their
choice of a mate to marry.

I have never had a man tell me that, althought plenty have
conceded that they married their partner as she was cute and
turned them on.

The way that I interpret all this is that indeed, biology plays
a role. For men, sexual attraction matters greatly, for women,
having resources to feed the offspring is of vital importance.
Better providers in general will do better in the marriage stakes,
so men have more incentive to have successfull careers, if they
don't want to land up with the ugly duckling so to speak.

Pelican:

"Out of interest, wha would constitute HARD evidence? Would strong rhetorical or experiential evidence be enough to open a line of discussion with regard to discrimination in this particular case?"

Arjay demonstrated that narrow views of what constitutes male and female abilities, aptitudes and characteristics are still held widely, despite evidence to the contrary. Of course that is purely anecdotal, on the larger, more influential, stage we have people like George Pell:

"Abortion is a bigger problem than the molestation of children by priests"

Or Sam Newman?

"Women on AFL boards are just there to placate the bleating majority who are liars and hypocrites"

And sexism against women isn't confined to males either, think of the many women who campaign against reproductive rights for other women.

While we like to believe that the above mentioned are too extreme to be taken seriously, there remains silent segment of the population (male and female) that agrees with the above.

Foxy,

I've explained to you why I discount the statements you quote.

In the current climate what academic who values his job, pension, research grants, promotion prospects and salary would DARE say anything else?

That's not a rhetorical question. Please answer.

Statements made under duress are worthless.

In any case, as Bugsy, Shadow Minister and Arjay's posts show, there are many reasons that may explain why women may not shine in science to the same extent as men. See also my previous post.

Bugsy,

Thanks for that. However please don’t think I'm denigrating risk aversion. In many areas of life from driving to managing investment some risk aversion is a good thing. Young male drivers are many times more likely to kill themselves and others than their female counterparts. The investment practises that have led to the current financial melt down were mostly perpetrated by risk-taking men.

However unless some scientists are willing to take risks with their careers scientific advance will slow to a crawl. In science risk taking is a social good.

Pelican,

I suspect that in the current climate it is impossible to gain hard evidence. Especially in the US, if you can "prove" (so-called) that you have suffered gender discrimination you may get a few $100k in damages. I promise you nothing encourages a sense of grievance so much as the prospect of getting enough to pay off your mortgage in one shot.

Generally these cases do not even come to trial. Weak kneed politically correct university administration can be counted on to offer a settlement.

Yabby,

Absolutely. Women do look for the man to be a provider and biology does play a role.

Incidentally, Larry Summers, the former Harvard President who was hounded from his job for daring to speculate about the reasons for the relative dearth of top ranking women scientists has now been appointed one of Obama's senior economic advisers. Harvard's loss is Obama's gain.

Dear Steven,

If you had bothered to read the website I quoted
earlier in a previous post,
where university Presidents of the nine leading
universities in America all agreed that barriers
for women in science and engineering do exist -
you would have realized that
your question has been answered.

But obviously it's not one you agree with.

That is your perogative.

Mine is to disagree with your views.

Foxy,

No one is debating that there are barriers to women advancing their careers, rather the nature of them.

Having personal experience of several women who have risen rapidly through the ranks based on competence, I would say that the glass ceiling is definitely more fragile than it was in the day of Marie Curie or Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin (whose X-ray diffraction techniques helped unravel the structure of DNA)

I would still contend that most fall to the wayside for personal reasons long before any inherent bigotry plays a part.

“There is no single reason why there are still far less female than male-scientists,”

We all acknowledge the ability of the fairer sex to better multi-task than men.

Maybe the focus, dedication and single mindedness, the opposite of the skills needed for “multitasking”, gives men the ‘edge’ in disciplines which demand long term commitment to seeing through a specific objective?

Dear Shadow Minister,

I would like to draw your attention to the following
website:

http://www.uoregon.edu/~wmnmath/Summers/index.html

Dr Summers comments have been refuted by many
researchers and he in fact has issued three
increasingly 'groveling' apologies.

Dr Summers in issuing one of the apologies for his
earlier comments stated that during the course of
this debate he has come to realize, "the very real
barriers faced by women pursuing scientific and other
academic careers. He also commented that "While in
recent years there have been some strides forward
in attracting more women into the front ranks of
science, the progress overall has been frustratingly
uneven and slow. Spurring greater progress is a
critical challenge."

"Of the faculty at colleges and universities offering
four year degrees, only 27 percent of those awarded tenure
are women. A lack of transparency, unclear standards and
biased behaviour and decision-making in the tenure process
contribute to this problem."

Yes, women have made remarkable strides in education during
the past three decades but these gains have yet to translate
into full equity in pay, even for college-educated women who
work full fime.

A typical college-educated woman working full time earns
$44,200 a year compared to $61,800 for college educated
male workers - a difference of $17,600.

More 'hard facts' and further websites are given at:

http://www.aauw.org/about/newsroom//presskits/harvard.cfm

It's important to have all the facts about issues facing
women in education. It's unsatisfactory to simply
present one man's opinion (which he has since retracted).

Well said Foxy.

Fact is gender-stereotyping is alive and well as demonstrated by Yabby, Col, Steven, Arjay - all of whom are males.

Not all women are risk averse, not all men are chest beating hunters. The high point of the bell curve of human characteristics covers the majority of both females and males, with the extreme femme and extreme male at either end. In other words our skills overlap and are not gender specific.

In my own youth I was addicted to the adrenalin rush of fast cars and motorbikes and I was not the first female to enjoy risk taking.

I am surprised that none of the male contingent who place women in narrow definitions haven't uttered the old line: "biology is destiny".

It is precisely this type of stereotyping that does impede female success in many professions.

BTW Yabby, one swallow does not a summer make. The point I was making of Fiona Woods was she is the very rare exception who has received publicity, there are many more wonderful female scientists of whom we hear nothing. As I acknowledged, science receives scant publicity for males, and for females the problem is even further entrenched.

Foxy,

Did you read my post?

At no point did I agree with Dr Summers in any way. Quite the contrary.

All I did was point out that there are many reasons why women do not pursue research, and to attribute the entire difference to bigotry is a little myopic.

You are tilting at the wrong windmill.

I don't have time to wade into this substantively. However I do want to observe that the term "brightest scientists" does not necessarily equate to "brightest people" as the media seem to assume. Women may excel in equally clever endeavours. There is always much discussion about whether ability or discrimination hinders women in gaining scientific prominance. However the issue of whether or not the statistic is of much significance escapes attention. The Saints of Science may be a mere drop in the human intellectual pool.

*Not all women are risk averse, not all men are chest beating hunters.*

Of course not, but we do generalise on many things and many of them
are correct. For instance, in general men are taller then women.
There are many short men and many tall women, but on average it
is still correct.

* haven't uttered the old line: "biology is destiny". *

No, but it cannot be denied that biology influences destiny. The
old tabula razza theory has been thrown out a long time ago now.
Not everything is learned behaviour.

What % is learned and what % is genetic, is open for debate and
is commonly discussed.

Hormones influence behaviour and genetics codes for hormones.

Result being that women commonly (not always of course) have
aptitudes for some things and males for others.

It probably won't be long before we legislate to have at least 10 women included on the list. We have legislated by affirmative action to give women jobs they are not really up to. Private enterprise is a bit more canny. Maybe we should create a few more positions like 'Climate change Minister' where nothing is measurable but it sure sounds good.

Dear runner,

According to Dennis Pryor,

" Under the guise of 'useful experience' woman
are already given every opportunity to
stand for unwinnable seats at elections.

Those who get into Parliament find it difficult
to become Ministers or to get into Cabinet.

In spite of incessant rhetoric about equal opportunity
the mass of male Parliamentarians find it difficult
to equate women with positions of power."

Heven help us, it's all so simple.

Women are mercenary. They don't want to be a low paid junior member of a research team, they would rather teach. [On a good starting salary], They even choose subjects that offer the promotion to head of dept, at a young age,

Women are egotistical. They don't want to be a junior member of that team, they want to be the boss, even if only of 25 kids, so they teach.

Women are lazy. They don't want to work 9 hours a day, for many years. After just a few years, if not married, they want to filt off around the continent, then slide seamlessly back into their well paid career, on return. You can't do that in research, so they teach.

There are a few driven women, as with men, & these nuts do research, & do it well.

For god sake stop counting things that don't matter. They have done that with the health systems, got lots of women in senior positions, & look where that's got us.

Dear Hasbeen,

'got lots of women in senior positions?'

Really? by 'lots'
you mean one or two - right?

And the ones running the Departments
are still men...

Name at least one major hospital which
has a woman as head of Obstetrics...
Or any other major hospital department...

Foxy dear, I'm too damn old to bother with names, but there were two lady health area directors until recently. Is that senior enough?

By the way, have you noticed our efficient Water Commission Director yet? Now she's a flash of female brilliance, if ever there was one.

It was one of them, who with total mismanagement, eliminated obstetrics entirely, from our new hospital. In fact she managed to turn it into a band-aid station on the way to a bl@@dt awful outer suburban hospital, an hours ride away by ambulance.

Some of us have been lucky enough to catch a chopper to the city, it sure dosen't pay to get sent to her suburban joint.

My choice explanation is this:

Women are different from men (withholding exceptions). Period.

It's not hard to see.

1. We ALREADY accept that physically this is the case, because it's hard to deny what you see with your own eyes.

2. There is NO REASON AT ALL to believe the same doesn't apply mentally and psychologically.

Foxy, you've argued well and with links to provide support. Much more 'hard' evidence, then what some of the penis-hunter-logic-singlemindedness posters came up with.

Steve, was your point to get a nice little gender bun fight going by quoting one lonely professor who has, as Foxy pointed out, retracted his statements? It only brings out the unpleasant and irrelevant bleatings of the likes of the Hasbeens of this world.

Boys, wait just a little longer and we will need affirmative action to get more men into positions of power. All the top faculties have a greater percentage of females as students. Women just have to wait a bit until the last of the old boys die off or retire, the glass ceiling will disappear simply because there will be fewer capable men to choose from.

Dear Anansi,

Thank you for your kind words.

It is just a question of time,
as you point out.

Our modern society is becoming
increasingly much more
individualistic and more open
to change and experimentation, and it
is likely that women and men will
explore a wide variety of possible roles.

I only hope that it will happen in
my lifetime - where a person's individual
qualities, rather than her or his
biological sex, will be the primary measure of
that person's worth and achievement.

Anansi,

The "lonely professor" is now President-elect Obama's senior economic adviser. He is a former secretary of the treasury in the Clinton Administration.

Subsequent to resigning as president of Harvard he was invited back as one of Harvard's "Select Professors." Only the brightest and the best receive such an invitation.

I started this thread because I think it is an interesting topic.

Foxy, Anansi,

I have explained why I discount Foxy's links. Neither of you have addressed the issues I raised.

As many posters here have pointed out, there are reasons why women find it hard to make it to the top in science. These reasons have nothing to do with gender discrimination or (non-existent) male superiority. You have both chosen to ignore these issues as well.

The 20 brightest scientists in America - where are the women?

Many of them are here=

http://www.cosmeticsdesign-europe.com/Formulation-Science/Scientist-s-pro-animal-test-comments-court-controversy

Many students drop out after seeing just some of what is done in the name of so called research.

A high degree of those students in the past have been female students.



In Australia right now we have many Scientists? conducting the most unspeakable brutal acts of Animal Cruelty.

Most are men.

People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming,

Considering this was primarily focused on maths and physics, and only a tiny tiny proportion of scientists work on animals your comment is so inappropriate to be childish.

Dear Steven,

You keep accusing me of not addressing
the issues on this thread.

I thought that I did exactly that.

You chose a man's comments, who's on record
as thinking women dim, especially in the
sciences, and then when I respond
with various websites, and what amongst others,
nine top university Presidents had to say, on the
subject, including a personal account, - you say that
I'm avoiding discussing the issues.

As for Summers past economic record in the last year
of the Clinton Administration, and his
current appointment - well, there are a
variety of opinions on that subject.
According to an article in the
'Financial Times,' Nov. 7, 2008,
one poster summed up Summers in the following
way:

"There is only one reason not to appoint
Mr Summers again as the Secretary of Treasury,
because My Summers was the main architect of the
Asian Financial Crisis together with Allan
Greenspan which was the prelude to the current
World Financial Crisis."

Anyway, for me this thread has now run its
course - and I don't really see the point of
further discussion.

We obviously are talking at cross purposes here.

Reading all of the comments I would have to agree with Foxy.

She posted facts as I did Mr Shadow Minister.

Where are your facts ?.

If you knew much about the topic you would know the background and protests.

Interesting that the bigger majority were or are female.

Sorry guys better luck next time.

Well Foxy, you have not convinced me that women are so badly
discriminated against, for when I see such smart women as
Gail Kelly and Maxine McKew, thriving, clearly some talent
helps.

What I do know is that people easily delude themselves and I
would not be suprised if every second dud female who does not
make it due to lack of talent, finds it easy to blame those
evil men for her failures. Men don't get such an easy
option of rationalising things away.

Finally you girls have one distinct advantage, sleeping
your way to the top is alot easier for women then for men :)

Dear Yabby,

I wasn't trying to convince you of anything.
I was merely presenting information that I
found on various websites to add to the
discussion.

It's always helpful to get more than one
rather biased view in a discussion.

Your reference to women sleeping their
way to promotions - is a most inappropriate
statement - of which you should be ashamed.

It's not one that I would have
expected from someone whose opinion I
respected.

If this was your attempt at 'humour,'
it's out of place.

*Your reference to women sleeping their
way to promotions - is a most inappropriate
statement - of which you should be ashamed.*

Err Foxy, if you believe that its not going on
out there in the real world, then you are far
more naive then I thought.

I call a spade a spade, no point denying reality.

Dear Yabby,

There is a lot going on out there
in the real world but if you have to stoop
to that level to make a point, you've
lost me.

It's a shallow, pointless argument, anyway.
Even if a female was to sleep her way
into a 'promotion,' as you put it.
It's her talent and ability that will
keep her in the job.

So pick up your spade and put it where it belongs!

*So pick up your spade and put it where it belongs!*

Exactly Foxy, digging up the truth!

Hehe Foxy, its ok, you are allowed to be pissed off.

Just when you have put so much effort into making
your argument and were doing well, along comes
me with a point, which if you really know what goes
on out there, you know is true. Sometimes the
truth hurts, fair enough.

You are free to shoot the messenger.

Foxy

Had you been reading the latest thread on animal welfare you would know his weapon of choice isnt the spade its the axe.

He`s just finished informing Nicky he chopped the heads off two puppies with an axe because it was a 'sensible' thing to do.
Perhaps his missed his nitch in life and could have made a scientist.
To be a Scientist you certainly must have a disregard for animal cruelty imo
Just about everything we do from washing our hair to the pills we swallow is tested on animals.



Not always but in general women have a higher morals than men.

Which explains some of the reasons why its mostly always men who rape steal break and enter abuse animals start wars and murder.

PALEIF,

I have known many scientists in my time, absolutely none of which have had anything to do with animals.

You ask me for facts, yet only provide a link to a news article on cosmetic testing.

Maybe you could provide some evidence of the evil that is perpetuated by astronomy, atmospheric physics, nutritional science etc.

The fact that you are so anti men is probably due to personal issues.

Were you spurned? Do men find you unattractive? are you gay? what is it?

Ok. I'm out of here.

This thread has deteriorated into
something I'd rather not be a part of.

It's not a question of naivity on my
part.

It's a question of appropriate behaviour,
fairness, and being judged as an individual
regardless of gender.

I thought that sexist remarks about women
was a thing of the past.
Usually made by older men - who believed that
the female sex is inferior to the male,
and that therefore unequal treatment is
justified.

But aparently I was wrong.

I'm not 'pissed off' as you put it Yabby.

Merely disappointed.

Enjoy your day.

Shadow Minister,


Our organisations job and the soul reason we entered this thread is the highlight animal welfare.


The real fact remains that scientists and the profession itself are heavily involved in tests on animals.

I would suggest any personal contacts you have may have could possibly be be through voluntary experiment labs perhaps.

There are many clinics working with the mentally impaired and aggression disorders.

There is I am informed a much higher attendance of men than women there as well.

Perhaps you have strayed from one of these.

If this is the case good luck with your treatment because you sound like you need some help.

I would however encourage you to enquire if the medication is first tested on animals.

*It's a question of appropriate behaviour,
fairness, and being judged as an individual
regardless of gender. *

Foxy, people with true talent will make it,
regardless of gender. Note the comments made
by the new female managing director of McDonalds,
that gender has never been a problem for her.

What I refuse to accept is this new apparent
PC correctness, where women seemingly feel free
to sling mud at men, but when men point out some
realities of life, some women get huffy and puffy
and feel upset. Reality does not go away, when
you close your eyes and wish it would.

*I thought that sexist remarks about women
was a thing of the past.*

Biological realities are not sexism, they are
simply facts as we know them.

*Usually made by older men - who believed that
the female sex is inferior to the male,
and that therefore unequal treatment is
justified*

Who claimed that females are inferior? The claim
is that females are equal but different, based on
our biological differences. Again not all females,
but on average.

The fact that women can in fact sleep their way to
the top, more then anything shows a weakness in
men, because reality prevails, men sometimes let
sex affect their better judgement. Fair enough,
I accept that.

Lets face it, many a woman has landed up owning
half the company, because she initially slept
with the boss. Marriage these days can be a very
lucrative business for a calculating female.

Just for the record:

Animal experimentation is necessary to advance our understanding of biology. All the ingenuous arguments of "animal rights" activists will not alter that fact. I've heard them all and they are male bovine excrement.

As it happens I do know women who experiment on animals. In fact, so far as I can see, women in the life sciences are as likely to experiment on animals as men.

PALEIF

Your inability to spell or write and your complete incomprehension of what a scientist is or does would indicate that your mental age is about 7.

Go play with people your own age I will leave before I am accused of child abuse.

I don't like seeing animals mistreated but PALEIF is reactionary and hateful in many ways. I don't know where this type of bigotry comes from but she(?) has said in a prior discussion on the pointless and expensive drug war, that the death penalty should be applied in Australia to Australians who sell drugs to each other...that they should be executed.

*As it happens I do know women who experiment on animals. In fact, so far as I can see, women in the life sciences are as likely to experiment on animals as men.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Thursday, 27 November 2008 2:33:15 PM*
Oh I am sure you do. I am also sure you support the cruel labs conducting brutal tests on the innocent animals.
I just hate people who think like you. You THINK your on some higher moral grounds- when in fact they have no morals at all.

The last three posters should hang their heads in Shame. You might make a few typo errors if working 14 16 hour days 7 day a week .
Despite your claims that you dont like seeing animals mistreated we have not seen you making any effort to stop it.

Stevenlmeyer You opended this thread claiming 'Where are the woman Scientists.'

We made an informed post given we have attended meetings at the request of students and others involved within this area.

Now suddenly you have found all those women Scientists you claim didnt could not be found and of course they are all involved in the cruel test on animals.

One does not have to look too far to see this thread is just an attack on women in general.
That doesnt really bother me and as I said we came into this thread to highlight the plight of animal suffering in the name of so called SCIENCE.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~rabbit/aniexp.htm

Be they male or female involved they are low people. As for drug pushers who kill thousands of our kids I prefer to give them to the Scientists TBO

I make no bones about supporting a death sentence if the crime warrants it.

Like the Bali Bombers and of course it goes without saying those involved in killing our children with their drugs.

I would also like to see all Live Animal Exports added to that list.

*I would also like to see all Live Animal Exports added to that list.*

Well Gertrude, your wish is mostly being fullfilled. As far as I know,
virtually the whole lot are eaten when they get to their destination :)

PALEIF

In spite of your grammar improving your broad assumptions that all men are rapists, and all scientists torture animals are so bigoted and ignorant that your posts are extremely offensive.

If people take you to task you cannot cry foul.

PALE>"I make no bones about supporting a death sentence if the crime warrants it.

Like the Bali Bombers and of course it goes without saying those involved in killing our children with their drugs."
-=-=

What were you saying about animals?

Yabby,

You know very well, I meant the people involved in this barbaric practise.
People like you :)

As for your comments about all woman only reaching the top because they slept there way there shows how misguided you are. (Mind you it could also be a gage on how stupid “some men are .

I have observed through friends there are also men thinking they can walk into established companies and luxuries by involving themselves on a personal level with the female owners.

So it would be fair to say one would assume that this happens in both cases- Female and Men too.
It still has diddly squat to do with where are the woman Scientists.

Actually few comments on this thread addressed the title.

This clearly demonstrates an attempt by the author to have a shot at woman. How childish.

Only then to come out and shoot himself in the foot, by ‘admitting he personally knows women Scientists who carry out cruel experience on Animals.

Shadow Minister,

*your broad assumptions that all men are rapists, and all scientists torture animals are so bigoted and ignorant that your posts are extremely offensive.*

I certainly did NOT say all men are rapists or torture animals with Science. Most of the people I admire most and call good friends are men.

However now that *you mention it figures do show, more men rape then woman. AND as stevenlmeyer, pointed out far more Men are involved as Scientists.

So your not terribly bright raising 'that argument but thanks anyway.

I will just rest my case on everybody’s comments - hilarious!

lol, the misogynist card is played by PALE...lol "this thread is a shot at women" it's not. as far as i'm concerned, it's a discussion about gender propaganda

Maybe you'd like to answer these questions PALE:

Are women physically weaker than men?

Now why wouldn't you believe there might be psychological or mental differences? You *really* believe any differences are purely visual and visible, only to be seen by the naked eye?

*So your not terribly bright raising 'that argument but thanks anyway.*

Err Gertrude, before you comment about the intelligence of others,
perhaps look in the mirror to see a problem :)

*You know very well, I meant the people involved in this barbaric practise.*

Ok, so you seemingly lack the brains to write what you think.

*As for your comments about all woman only reaching the top because they slept there way there *

Show me where I said that ALL women ONLY reach the top because
they slept their way there.

You can't even read a post and understand what was written,
so in terms of brains, you really have a huge problem.

Perhaps you are just a tizzy blonde, for clearly its not brains
that you rely on to get you through life, as we all can see.

*Are women physically weaker than men?*

Steel,
Certainly by average women are physically weaker - agreed.

*psychological or mental differences?*

That is where women lead 'according' to research.

Yabby I made comment to your posts to Foxy which showed a man insulting a woman for no reason. She expressed surprise but I wasnt.
Regardless if its myself or any other female when you have no answer you stoop to personal attacks. Bottom line Yabby you WONT debate MLA AFIC Landmarks Elders AWB.
In general I think women still must work twice as yard as men to earn her place in many companies.

I might add that will be even harder now given introduction of maternity leave.
Many companies will hire men instead to avoid such payouts at a time we can least afford it.

Still that was all it was really about in the first place IMO. - employment figures.

So Yes woman are disadvantaged when it comes to job offers quite often. Still there are plenty of chances to get to the top for women who wait to marry and have children.

Fact is more men work to support a family than women do. Fact is many woman prefer to stay at home and have kids.
Fact is that is their business.

Again, none of your comments are addressing America or female Scientists.

*Yabby I made comment to your posts to Foxy which showed a man insulting a woman for no reason.*

Gertrude, which man insulted which woman? I certainly did not
insult Foxy, I simply stated a fact. Do you deny that some
women use sex as a way of obtaining a promotion?

*Bottom line Yabby you WONT debate MLA AFIC Landmarks Elders AWB.*

Bottom line is that Yabby spent friggin years debating this nonsense
on the animal welfare threads. The replies were a mumbo jumbo
mix of consiparcy theories and lack of reasoning. In the end Yabby
decided that it was a complete waste of time. More intelligent
posters on OLO, of which there are quite a few, are far more interesting to debate with.

*Again, none of your comments are addressing America or female Scientists.*

Reread my posts, they certainly addressed why men dominate in
Science and in business. So did many other posters. It is Gertrude
who tries to turn nearly every thread into an animal welfare thread.

I've told you before, your posts are frankly a waste of time and
a nuisance. I haven't seen too many on OLO who can make head or tail
of the majority of them. If they can, well great, debate with them,
but personally its not worth my bother

Yabby thats a lie.

Each time I raise MLA etc you either stop posting or divert back to your personal insults against woman to Nicky.

Now if you like I will go back and post some of the many examples.

Frankly Yabby you seem obsessed with sex. Why dont you open a thread about it.

Mean time I fail to see the connection regarding Scientists in America and whom sleeps with whom. . My only interest was in the title of the thread given our Animal Welfare work.


I don`t care to discuss men sleeping with woman or visa versa.

Your post to Foxy was quite crude. No gentleman would make such a comment to the lady.

Then again Foxy probably doesn`t know the other side of you.

Like when you chop the heads off of puppies with an axe

Glad to see intellectual rigour is still thriving on this forum.

Veronika,

What your views are on The 20 Brightest Scientists in America.

The word scientists in a title naturally is going to attract comments from Animal Welfare.

I was about to leave the thread after making a comment when I read saw posts to Foxy



Foxy has shown herself to be an informed poster polite with nothing bar utter regard to others.

I saw Yabbys comments to her as untrue, unkind and said so.

That said I will leave it you to offer more intellectual rigour.

PALE: "What your views are on The 20 Brightest Scientists in America."

I'll tell you mine if you tell me yours.*

* NB: The views in question have to make some sort of sense.

Yeh, well that`s probably the smartest comment that 'anybody`s' made.

Would that be A Rare insight Veronica.?

Mean Time I think Fractelle`s comment made it.
Posted by Fractelle, Sunday, 23 November 2008 12:50:01 PM

Like I said- my comment was mainly to point out that by 'majority' woman spoke out about 'Animal Cruelty in scientists testing' on animals more often then men 'ah, Veronica"'

but you keep right on demanding that intellectual rigour is still thriving on this forum while - we keep on demanding some common deceny in the way in which out animals are treated.

More evidence that the reasons for the relative paucity among women in the higher echelons of science is NOT gender discrimination comes from a report issued by the policy forum at Washington University.

Quote:

"….By comparing funding rates of women and men for early-career grants, they found "that funding success rates for nearly all grants were essentially equal for men and women, regardless of degree" and say that the data suggest that women are CHOOSING to leave the NIH-funded career path…" (Emphasis added)

The report goes on to express the hope that the NIH and others will develop strategies to retain women.

Don't exactly come across as bunch of misogynists do they?

See:

http://www.genome-technology.com/

Men do it real well.

They know how to smash atoms and get nuclear explosions to crush enemies and how to make death rays to fry people( the warrior they never bind up).
They even know how to rip up the earths minerals and chop down all of its trees to convert to dollars and then its off to enjoy pleasures and lusts.

*NASA...the vain glory of men trying to get mankind to the stars rather than save a dying earth.

I think if men hadnt been so proud, they might have let more women into science, and reaped a wonderful harvest.
What woman would want earth destroyed for pride?
There would be so very few.

Many dont know it but the Bible preaches that there is no inequality between men and women in this New Testament age.
God regards women as equals to men.

stevenlmeyer

So as you say there must be another reason.

Ok You dont like some of the reasons I posted.
As you seem to think you have all of the answers why not just tell us- What is it?
If its not the fact men are promoted above women most times- And its not the having Children Issue..
Then perhaps you might like to consider some of the other reasons we posted.

Either way Its not a major thing really is it.
I mean the men are pretty happy with their old boys club as far as I can see.

Gibo,

No I didnt know that either- interesting.
Can you post the verse ...
Either way be kind to one another and the Animals.
Cheers

Steven: "In the current climate what academic who values his job, pension, research grants, promotion prospects and salary would DARE say anything else?"

Absolutely none, which is a crying shame. I think what happened to Summers was appalling, and appears to show that, as a culture, we're not yet mature enough to honestly investigate the differences between men and women.

Yabby, you make several excellent points. Generalised differences between the sexes exist. The problem is that people fly to the conclusion that this boxes them into their gender script, which it of course doesn't. I am 5"9, my brother 5"8. While this flies in the face of averages, I remain 5"9. I still think relative heights a useful area of study.

We will never get to a stage where both men and women can reach their inherent potential until we move past politicising the scientific arguments about gender differences. Having a discussion about gender vis a vis scientific ability should have no bearing on any particular individual's employability in the scientific community. It should be the best scientist for the job every time, male or female.

(But while I'm on this ride of agreeing with Yabby, I must say that the idea of women sleeping their way to the top is anachronistic. If it was true I would be a doctor by now.

Galatians 3:28 PALE
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus".

Dakes Annotated Reference Bible says of this scripture, "All christians are one in unity, in rights, and in priveleges as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one..."

As God sends men to preach... He likewise sends women.

I ran away from a preaching one Sunday many, many years ago when I found out that a woman was going to preach ("I'm having nothing to do with that", was my attitude) only to lob at another church to have a woman preach:)

God sure showed me that very day about bad attitudes towards women.

He showed me that day that women can do anything He calls them to; and that He does call many...and that many are called into many different walks of life to do jobs that men cannot do; or are called to counteract the damage that men do do, in certain instances.
The steadying hand of the female.

The woman I ended up with that Sunday was unique in all of Christianity...I came to find out.

She had a God-given Gift to bring people to repentence just by looking at them and extending a few small words into their hearts.
I never came across another preacher like her...not even a man.
Some similar...but none like her.
She was a real Deborah.
Women get a bad deal frequently because men wont let them rise to their God-extended abilities.

Thank you Veronika. An intelligent poster with a great sense of
humour, you should post more often!

In the 90s an interesting book was published on the subject,
called BrainSex. (by Anne Moir and David Jessel)

It went into the details of how the foetus develops, how
the male foetus is flooded with testosterone and how the interruptions
to these flows can affect male behaviour later in life.

All really interesting stuff really, ie. what Science new at
the time and how much effort was going into not discussing this
kind of basic biology, by those with a barrow to push. I think
that is a great shame.

I think we would be far better off if we acknowledged our differences
and do what we have a natural aptitude for. That does not mean
that one is inferior to the other, simply different.

Once again, this is about generalisations, each case is however
a bit different.

Fact is that hormones affect behaviour and to deny that is to deny
basic biology