<p>
[quote]
Whatever. So what, who cares? Any article that calls people like Marie Curie "outliers" is not socially constructive. I think this kind of discussion is really irrelevant to science. It's very difficult (I'd say impossible) to say that one gender is "better" than the other gender in entire academic fields. Even if that's true...does it matter? Are you going to pass laws based on this? Discriminate based on this? Obviously not. It's just some men beating their chests and trying to prove their superiority, when really they don't even need to do that. I'd rather see a celebration of the numerous illustrious accomplishments of male and female scientists through the ages than a useless argument of "I'm better than you!!!"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You obviously don't understand the relevance of statistical analysis. The essay wasn't even trying to make an argument; it was simply saying that men are better at math and science than women...and it's true. It's roundly true. Name me one technology institution (MIT, Ga Tech) where there are more female students than male students. And before you go, "well, MOST schools have more males than females," let me just say that that isn't true. Women outrank males in both attendance rates and graduation rates. </p>
<p>Isn't it funny how, through the 90s, all we heard was how girls are smarter than boys and how girls mature faster than boys...but then when a couple of studies come out that tilt in favor of boys, everybody gets defensive?</p>
<p>See, I can accept this and I do think there are some differences in gender. But again, my reaction to this is who cares? It shouldn't stop society from trying not to stereotype people and letting them be good at whatever they're good at. No one thing is better than the other and it helps us to have different talents doing the things they're good at. The whole point of evolution is to make us as a species better, to be able to adapt more to life to survive and science/technology is a great way to do that (if we dont blow ourselves up of course) so it makes sense to encourage both men and women to take part in it. Who knows in the far future, maybe the biological difference may not even be there. That's evolution for you.</p>
<p>Why is there a constant need assert your dominance among people on this board. Look your thesis in that essay, which I admittedly just skimmed through, for god's sakes FORMAT, has been defuted many many times. And if you think there still isn't research bias going on then you are completely ignorant of history. The reason most women don't pursue science is because when they asked mommy for a chemistry kit they got a doll, in school they got praised for how nice, and verbal they were. You want to pull out the "there are more male scientists (and by the way, many of the great feminine historical figures had male pseudonomes) so women MUST BE SO DIFFERENT and we are better in science. Then I will point this out: Women have now overtaken men in Med School and Law School, is this because we are fundamentally better doctors and lawyers? (and also that the balance is shifting slowly but surely to an even number of women as men) It wasn't that long ago that women were allowed to become doctors. </p>
<p>There are many social forces that keep women out of academia, including the unfair distribution of work in the home. Let's face it, if a woman wants a baby then she had better give up at least partially, her career. Looking at the numbers, educated men in acadmia are almost always married, but for women the more educated you become the more likely you will be unmarried, and therefore (in most cases) without children. So unlike men we have to decide whether to have kids or to be extremely successful in our careers (I realize there are exceptions). AND there is a huge pressure to have children. </p>
<p>I do believe there are fundamental differences in the male and female brain, women tend to be able to multi-task better, men are better risk takers, but none of these differences make men more important in the world of science (or anything else for that matter).</p>
<p>Vet school is harder to get into than med school. Obviously, one needs to excel at science to get into either one. Since 80% of vet students are women, can we conclude that women are better at science?</p>
<p>You can always take isolated statistics and try to make something out of them. What you should NOT do, and what every arrogant male on the planet does do, is to measure a changing phenomenon as evidence of a constant difference. You would not measure the temperature in San Diego in the summer (70 degrees) and then Massachusetts in the summer (90 degrees) and conclude that San Diego is cooler than Massachusetts all the time. Likewise, the numbers of women in the sciences continue to rise. As such, you have to just wait until there is no change to find out if there's actually any difference. Otherwise, you end up with the ridiculous conclusion that women have radically advanced, genetically, over the past 50 years. ;)</p>
<p>Yeah, I'm so sick of these neo-con wannabe kids trying to come off as being edgy and ultra-conservative by restating crap already said by the Ann Coulter's of the world, of which there are millions.</p>
<p>Look, if you guys wanna be controversial, argue something so disgusting, so morally reprehensible that you're attacked on it from all sides. I'd like to see a thesis that states "Abortion is murder but killing babies is not that bad." or "Everyone who was killed in the twin towers deserved it." Back that up with meaningless stats you yuppie scumbags.</p>
<p>I'd be more than happy to write a controversial essay about AIDs in Africa (more satirical than anything, though), but then absolutely everyone alive would hate me...so eh.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Some people need to go to the dictionary and read what the term "feminist" really means. All it means is you believe women and men should have equal opportunities to do things, and there really should be no stigma attached to this word.</p></li>
<li><p>As mentioned by others, fifty years ago there were no girls in med school and it was assumed at the time it was because girls just weren't cut out to be doctors. Now girls are the majority of people who apply to med school. Did they all just get smart all of a sudden?</p></li>
<li><p>In Hungary, women make up the majority of physicists in the nation. Does that mean Hungarian women are smarter than Hungarian men, or that they're the smartest women in the world?</p></li>
<li><p>Girls make up half the students who take physics in high school in the US, and the great majority of students who study chemistry and biology. While we're at it, girls are recently entering colleges in greater numbers than the guys.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I could go on, but I'll stop there. Yes, there are differences between men and women (well really), but right now it seems much more likely that discrimination and biases over hundreds of years are at play more than these differences.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Abortion is murder but killing babies is not that bad."
[/quote]
Well, I'll argue a small point of that for the hell of it. A year or so ago, there was a child who was born with two heads. The heads were attached to each other; the best way to describe it is that it was a baby's body with an extra head coming out of the top of the skull. The "head" didn't have a body, but obviously got its nutrients from the other baby. Its eyes moved and it could smile. The doctors took the "head" off of the full baby and let it die. Acceptable? If they had not, the "full" baby could have survived, but would not have been able to lift its head (the weight of two heads being too much) and its organs would have been under tremendous strain to nourish two brains (as the brain takes a tremendous amount of the body's resources). </p>
<p>So is that killing a baby? Yeah, probably. Is abortion still murder? Of course. </p>
<p>Are there times when even the most sophisticated neonatal tests would not reveal a problem that is only found upon birth? Of course. Are there times when doctors may choose to quietly end that child's life, rather than allow it to suffer for days or weeks and die slowly? Yes. In the past, midwives would just say to the mother that the baby was stillborn and would smother it.</p>
<p>Up until the ninth week, it's nothing more than an embryo...and destroying an embryo is hardly murder. Even when done in the last four weeks of the first trimester, it's hardly enough of a fetus to count.</p>
Woah, now. Not everyone believes that.
It would be odd if this thread evolves into an abortion debate. Sorry if I'm adding fuel to a nascent fire ...</p>
<p>well yeah... i could have but I had to write an essay and present it to the class anyways and most of the class is female.</p>
<p>and why would I argue something like "Abortion is murder but killing babies is not that bad." I mean that's just being controversial for the hell of it... if you want to be that way why not just say that "Hitler was a saint" or that "Jefferey Dahmer would make a loving husband" or something else stupid like that. No one thinks killing babies is "not that bad" so if YOU do why don't you go write an essay on it?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah, I'm so sick of these neo-con wannabe kids trying to come off as being edgy and ultra-conservative by restating crap already said by the Ann Coulter's of the world, of which there are millions.</p>
<p>Look, if you guys wanna be controversial, argue something so disgusting, so morally reprehensible that you're attacked on it from all sides. I'd like to see a thesis that states "Abortion is murder but killing babies is not that bad." or "Everyone who was killed in the twin towers deserved it." Back that up with meaningless stats you yuppie scumbags.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nice rant and I totally agree. But you can't legislate what people choose to research and write on. There are plenty of antiquated institutions that still get a lot of attention in this country.</p>