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.