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.