When will women match men in their contributions to science and technology?

[Anonymous No.12058986]

If they ever do

[Anonymous No.12058989]

>>12058986
it won't happen, not for any men>women reason but because hardly anyone is singlehandedly contributing anymore. every new discovery is a collaborative effort of many different contributors.

[Anonymous No.12058994]

>>12058989
Aren't most contributors men? Except for biology and chemistry which for some reason seem to attract females more than other stem fields

[Anonymous No.12059002]

>>12058994
historically yes. this is changing even at the top level though. in a few generations it will be closer to 50%
>for some reason
biology was the easiest field for women to break into since it was the most "acceptable" so it happened there first. chemistry is a related field so that's why it happened there second.

[Anonymous No.12059049]

>>12059002
>in a few generations it will be closer to 50%
Bullshit, go look at Norway which has been pushing "equal representation" far longer than most. Despite opening up, the gender representation in fields hasn't organically shifted much.

[Anonymous No.12059057]

>>12059049
do you know how long "a few generations" is?
we haven't been pushing stem onto girls until very recently, and even then there have been cultural difficulties (older generations still discouraging it).
it will take time to see these effects. unlike you I'm in science, and I can see that my colleagues are much more sexually diverse than the older generations

[Anonymous No.12059064]

>>12059057
>unlike you I'm in science
Ah yes, that's why you take anecdotes over facts, is it?
Go read:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox
And stop being so self-important, you know nothing about me, but I clearly know more than you.

[Anonymous No.12059075]

>>12059064
>you know nothing about me, but I clearly know more than you
lol
>However, separate Harvard researchers were unable to recreate the data reported in the study, and in December 2019, a correction was issued to the original paper.[10][11][12] The correction outlined that the authors had created a previously undisclosed and unvalidated method to measure "propensity" of women and men to attain a higher degree in STEM, as opposed to the originally claimed measurement of "women’s share of STEM degrees".[11][10][13] However, even incorporating the newly disclosed method, the investigating researchers could not recreate all the results presented.[14][15] A follow-up paper by the researchers who discovered the discrepancy found conceptual and empirical problems with the gender-equality paradox in STEM hypothesis.[16][14]
Did you even read beyond the first sentence in the article you linked? your "facts" don't prove shit, you're obviously just searching for anything that remotely fits your narrative.

[Anonymous No.12059089]

>>12059075
>He thinks academics don't attack academics.
Are you sure you're in academia?

[Anonymous No.12059104]

>>12059089
if you want to be a conspirator then I'm not going to stay here any longer.
there's a thing called replication. your results don't mean anything if they can't be reproduced and confirmed by another group.

[Anonymous No.12059115]

>>12059104
Your "debunking" even says that some of the findings were replicable:
>However, even incorporating the newly disclosed method, the investigating researchers could not recreate all the results presented.
>... could not recreate all the results presented.
Id est: Some could be, but not all of them. Methodological issues aren't unknown in social sciences, see:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
However, in the case of this study, there was some basis for their claims, your "debunking" itself says so.
Why am I teaching you your own supposed profession?

[Anonymous No.12059122]

>>12059115
You're cherry picking certain words to support your narrative. I can't win this and I'm not going to bother anymore
>Why am I teaching you your own supposed profession?
you're not, in fact you're just saying the same things I've already said. reading comprehension is not your strong suit, especially since my initial point still stands.

[Anonymous No.12059135]

>>12059122
>reading comprehension is not your strong suit, especially since my initial point still stands.
Stronger than yours, considering I was able to understand the meaning of that sentence, and its context, meanwhile you were busy saying that it was, to paraphrase:
>Totally debunked!
Yet, even the criticism admits it has some basis, otherwise it would have been worded differently:
>None of the results could be replicated.
But they didn't say that.
Also, this post contains no defense, no explanation of WHERE I was incorrect in my reading, just your assertion that I was. So much for your critical thinking, Mr. "Serious Scientist".
By the way, gender studies doesn't count as STEM.

[Anonymous No.12059557]

you think those men washed their own dishes and cooked their own meals?

[Anonymous No.12059791]

>>12059049
there are already 60-70 to 40-30% women to men in unis in norway

[Anonymous No.12059890]

>>12059557
I cook my own meals and wash my own dishes, requires <1% of brainpower to do and anyone can do it.

[Anonymous No.12059997]

>>12059890
it takes like 2 hours (or 10%) of your day

[Anonymous No.12060078]

>>12059997
>implying he's fucking cooking 30 lobsters everyday, probably eats all of them in 5 mins aswell

[Anonymous No.12060111]

>>12060078
breakfast is what, 10-15 minutes? dinner 30-60? laundry, dishes/dishwasher around 5-10 minutes a day?

are you neet or underage with parents who cook for you?

[Anonymous No.12060300]

>>12060111
No I'm just not a loser who edges for 2 hours just to get more coom in my food.

[Anonymous No.12060314]

>>12058986
Never. Not because they couldn't if they wanted to, they generally just don't want to.

[Anonymous No.12060514]

what about non white people

[Anonymous No.12061835]

>>12058989
>not for any men>women
>>12060314
>Not because they couldn't if they wanted to
Why not? is there any reason to believe they could perform equally as men at a top level?

[Anonymous No.12061838]

>>12060514
Go back long enough and it was non-whites that were the only ones making all the scientific contributions.

[Anonymous No.12061843]

>>12061838
It was non-whites but sadly it was asians, not niggers, try again.

[Anonymous No.12061851]

>>12059135
>>12059115
Cope for being beaten the fuck out by
>>12059075

[Anonymous No.12061855]

>>12061843
No actually i was thinking about middle easterners and north africans but yes East Asians too.
>/pol/fag that is obsessed with black people
Nothing good can come out of this. Have a good day.

[Anonymous No.12061861]

>>12061855
>faggot obsessed with pol projecting @me

[Anonymous No.12061982]

>>12061861
take the reddit wojaks somewhere else

[Anonymous No.12062002]

I sure wonder why there weren't so many women in science in the past, especially in the times of aristotle, galileo, newton and so on

[Anonymous No.12062011]

>>12060111
>he doesn’t let his dishes stack in his room for days and then cleans them all in one go
Ngmi

[Anonymous No.12062138]

>>12061855
>north africans
Your american education did tell you the race of people who lived in north africa in antiquity, right?