/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7084090]

/sci/, what are your thoughts on women in the mathematical/science workplace. People have been saying women are discouraged to become a physicist, chemist, engineer or mathematician.

I personally believe women should be encouraged into such a field. I mean look at all the females of science who have revolutionized such fields.

[Anonymous No.7084263]

Meh

[Anonymous No.7084269]

>>7084090

You're being sexist.

[Anonymous No.7084270]

>>7084090
I don't care about gender.
I don't think we should encourage a certain gender specifically to get in a field.
I personally feel way more uncomfortable working with stupid people than with attractive females.

[Anonymous No.7084271]

>>7084090
>I mean look at all the females of science who have revolutionized such fields.
All two Nobel physicists, and the one Fields medalist.

[Anonymous No.7084285]

Despite the stereotypes, they are quite competent.

[Anonymous No.7084300]

I've seen plenty of women with bio degrees working as lab monkeys. In general they've just acted like normal, bitchy women.

However all the female mathematicians I've studied under have been cool-headed, rational and funny. If there's one true litmus test for verifying that a particular women is or isn't an irrational cunt, it's checking to see whether she's a research mathematician.

[Anonymous No.7084301]

>>7084090
women belong in kitchens and glory holes booths

[Anonymous No.7084306]

Have there been any great female mathematicians other than Emmy Noether?

[Anonymous No.7084315]

My view on women in science is the same as on any other person in science: great if competent, need to fuck right off if not. Women don't deserve special treatment, neither do men. Now fuck off with these treads.

[Anonymous No.7084316]

>>7084306
Only other one I can find is Sofia Kovalevskaya

[Anonymous No.7084324]

>>7084316
Lol, even changing historical names for desperate hopes of a trigger or two.

[Anonymous No.7084327]

>>7084090
>>7084269
This is pretty sexist. You're implying that a gender makes a better scientist than the other when little evidence exists.
There's nothing stopping them from going into science. If social expectations cause most women to not want to go into science, meh. It's none of my or your business what other people want to do.
>>7084271
>Philosophers
>mathematicians
>chess grandmasters
>every field of science
I wonder why they're so absent from these things. I guess in literature there are a few salient ones like Dickinson but pretty sure they're outnumbered by men a lot

[Anonymous No.7084332]

>>7084324
What?

[Anonymous No.7084340]

>>7084270
This.

There's actually a problem with having to have fixed ratios for genders in a field. For example, female premeds have to compete for slots with other females, but their grades are generally higher, so it's a lot tougher to get in. It's fucking counterproductive.

>>7084090
Call me naïve, but I personally think that it would be a lot simpler if people left other people to do their own shit (instead of superimposing differences between genders). Now, I know that it's stupidly extremely likely that some idiot is going to try and corrupt what I mean to say, so allow me a preemptive strike (and I'm trying to be as clear as I can here): don't forget that this goes both ways. No extra encouragement is necessary, but doing nothing about sexist bastards in their respective fields should be addressed as well (because y'know, it's still imposing unfounded prejudices, etc., etc.).

[Anonymous No.7084345]

Women aren't discouraged. It's just that women generally aren't suited to intellectual roles.

It's anti-intellectual to sit around and just assume women and men are exactly the same. Both show gender trends. And the gender trend for women is to avoid dangerous work, high-paying work, or intellectual work.

How can you claim to be a scientist if you won't face facts?

[Anonymous No.7084353]

>>7084285
Your MOM is quite competent.

[Anonymous No.7084357]

>>7084345
>high-paying work
Women just crave being payed less

[Anonymous No.7084358]

>>7084340
So you're saying rape is okay

[Anonymous No.7084359]

>>7084345
>Women aren't discouraged.
Citation needed.

>It's just that women generally aren't suited to intellectual roles.
Citation needed.

>Both show gender trends.
Sure. But isn't this also heavily attributed to environment? And at this point, I'd suppose you know where this discussion is headed.

[Anonymous No.7084368]

>>7084306
Alicia Boole story was cool. Math has been about evenly split between men and women for like half a century now. The reason you can find more "great" women mathematicians is because you either don't know enough math to know what they did or they haven't died and really solidified their hero worship cult yet.

[Anonymous No.7084371]

>>7084357
>Women just crave being payed less
Women are less likely to stress pay as an issue when making career decisions because they (more so than men) have the option of finding a partner that will shoulder more than half the financial burden.

Women also have the same average IQ as men, but a lower standard deviation.
Thus, the most unusually intelligent people are predominately men, even though this also means the most unusually stupid people are also mostly men.

[Anonymous No.7084375]

>>7084368
>Math has been about evenly split between men and women for like half a century now
This is just not true dude. It's more balanced than CS or hard science fields but it is still dominated by men.

Please do not mistake the fact that the undergraduate major is nearly 50% female math ed teaching students for nearly 50% of the actual researchers in the field actually being female, that's ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.7084376]

>>7084371
Keep telling you that.

[Anonymous No.7084397]

>>7084376
women have definitely been proven to have a higher average IQ than men, your data is obvious bullshit made by a butthurt low IQ man

[Anonymous No.7084405]

>>7084397
*tips biologically degradable tampon*

[Anonymous No.7084406]

>>7084397
Yeah, he's not helping.
My point is that women are overrepresented in the middle of the bell curve, and underrepresented at the extremes.
His "men are smarter" is unsupported by research, and moot anyway.

>>7084397
>women have definitely been proven to have a higher average IQ than men
Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence#Current_research_on_general_intelligence
According to the 1994 report "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" by the American Psychological Association, "Most standard tests of intelligence have been constructed so that there are no overall score differences between females and males." Differences have been found, however, in specific areas such as mathematics and verbal measures.[9]

[Anonymous No.7084429]

As long as they're Asian or Indian it's not weird.

[Anonymous No.7084431]

Chemistry and the various fields in biology seem to be more female friendly.

[Anonymous No.7084465]

>>7084431

Because they're mostly stamp collecting and therefore more accessible in general.

Currently visiting a grad school for physics right now, I'm one of thirty male prospectives, whereas there were only 4 females.

There is definitely a huge disparity in gender in physics but I couldn't tell you why, it could be that physics just appeals more to men or that women are discouraged by it being difficult.

[Anonymous No.7084480]

Political forces and motives desperately want them in, and they get very mad when reality just won't conform to their will since they're so use to being manipulative little cunts. So, they'll try every fucking tactic they can possibly invent, and the hell really hasn't begun potentially.

[Anonymous No.7084483]

Political forces and motives desperately want them in, and they get very mad when reality just won't conform to their will since they're so use to being manipulative little cunts. So, they'll try every fucking tactic they can possibly invent, and the hell really hasn't begun potentially.

[Anonymous No.7084490]

>>7084358
Good troll, made me lol 6/10.

>>7084483
Brilliant contribution, m8.

[Anonymous No.7084495]

I'm very against the "let's get girls into STEM". That just seems counterproductive, singling them out that. You should want to get all kids into STEM because its good for all people, you should always want to achieve the best you can as a human being, not to fill some quota in your magical fairy tale land of equality.

[Anonymous No.7084498]

>>7084483
>>7084490
btw engineering is really the most telling field since it combines rigor and physical work. Not saying engineering is some kind of superior thing, it's just the most adverse to what seems to be the nature of women, and that's not a problem whatsoever. It's just there are differences between men and women and engineering will really highlight that difference no matter how fucking hard these sociopathic or spoiled control freaks try.

I totally would encourage women to join, but it's really fucked up because it's not like engineering is filled with a bunch of Schrodingers that know how to really cater to women's desires. Yet, those types with their political agendas are going to even resort to bullying tactics to help shit on engineers even harder, and make the field (from start to finish) even more fucking stressful.

[Anonymous No.7084504]

>>7084498
... do you not comprehend sarcasm?

[Anonymous No.7084505]

>>7084495
I'm not against it at all, I'm against forcing them into it, or making it 50/50 men/women, but I'm totally for encouraging more women into STEM.

The point people try to stress when they say "we need more women in science" is that women haven't been encouraged at all to go into science, either through intimidation of being a woman in science, or through their own backwards beliefs that women can't do science.

Now you may say "so what, tell them to stop being whiny and go what they want", well yeah, that's the point. But you can't just say do what you want if they don't even consider that as an option. The point of getting women into science is to show them that it's a viable career path, and that they shouldn't be afraid of it. You waste upwards of 50% of potential (note I said POTENTIAL) talent when women feel like they can't do science because reasons.

[Anonymous No.7084509]

>>7084498
>>7084490
women can be very good with computation and science when it's done by the book, but when things aren't exactly like they've been precisely taught and there is no empathic or psychological element needing dissection they'll quickly fall apart.

Like I've noticed with math, most all papers seem to be published by men, but when it comes to anything at a calculus level or below they can do just as good if not better than guys in school.

I could rant on and on about this because the (young) choir probably does need some preaching to.

[Anonymous No.7084511]

>>7084504
oh I got it loud and clear m80, don't worry

[Anonymous No.7084520]

>>7084509
>but when things aren't exactly like they've been precisely taught and there is no empathic or psychological element needing dissection they'll quickly fall apart.
This is the sort of bullshit thinking that fuels tumblr-tier feminism. They want you to say unfounded crap like this so they can validate their victim complex. And to be honest when I see shit like this I don't blame them. You can't just say something like this from "observation" without any sort of concrete logic to back it up. And no, before you start, evolutionary psychology does not constitute concrete logic.

[Anonymous No.7084534]

I like women in the field, but my trouble is I want a wife. The more educated she is, the less likely she'll want to be a mother to a lot of kids. I want like 10 kids, if not more. I want to have a wife for the rest of my life. Affection, lots of affection.

Unfortunately the majority of women I've seen (as an American) are just bitter and don't like men, especially the higher they go in education.

I will probably go to another country, especially looking at South America for the growing economies, jungles, mountains, waterfalls, and hopefully women who want to have a ton of kids.

>>7084300
I may have seen two mathematicians, the one was a bit chubby and crass, but seemed ok. The other was an older woman who became a statistics/grant person.

>>7084327
>so absent from these things
Statistically, men are more diverse than women, so you see more at the top and bottom. Mensa/IQ is a good example, even though they test like any other IQ group, they've published they have gender ratios which reliably match what they should from previous testing: 2:1 male:female geniuses.

>>7084498
>engineering combines rigor with physical work
Nigga u srs. From both colleges I've seen, engineering has been literally the major with the least amount of work of any. It seems that it just puts a lot of pressure on knowledge+breadth skills over ROTE ROTE ROTE, even though there are some classes they do try to force the roteness. I literally have tutored math and science for 3.5+ years, and it's amazing how terrible people are at math and science, but can vomit like 10 page papers regularly for another class. A side note, there was only one female in my 7-student Dynamics class (the one that runs every other year for our Engineering degree at CC). She was 43, mother of three, from Peru, who had worked in logging and coal mining. Also was quite ADHD and needed physical affection. At uni the girls in Engineering seem mostly like normalfags, unless it's comp-sci then it's azns

[Anonymous No.7084539]

>>7084520
>without any sort of concrete logic
Actually women having better rote skills is probably literally the most concrete gender-disparate trait we know of. On basic EEG measures, women have consistently higher left hemispheric dominance, which means higher rote at the expense of breadth skills. In music, dance, and motor skills, they learn faster for a task that is a single stream (i.e. like music) but perform worse when needed to be flexible. Neurologically, estrogen potentiates dopamine which increases the precision of their memories and ability to execute them. Being gifted or an exceptional expert in mathematics requires the use of both left and right parietal lobes, and only the simultaneous activation of the right has been observed in expert male mathematicians. Literally men have more active right parietal lobes, and denser, which is consistent with measures of breadthwise "incorporating" thinking of math and science, versus predictable repeated tasks which show left biases for activation.

Even with something like understanding fucking fractions, it takes place in the right frontal lobe, which has a lower ratio of activation in women i.e. their left frontal lobe is more active on average, which is related to higher emotional lability for love/hate/happiness.

[Anonymous No.7084543]

>>7084090
Nothing is more attractive to me than a proper education and intellect.

Having said that, it of course doesn't matter if she's fat and/or ugly. I wish I was better person regarding that, but I'm not. Can't help it.

Outside of the whole sexuality context, I think women are usually a very valuable addition to any workplace. They often have quite different approaches to problems that complements nicely. They also create a nicer atmosphere in the workplace. Can't really say what is, just feels more balanced, everybody seems to behave a little better.

[Anonymous No.7084544]

Most girls I've had classes with have just been regular people. They fit in just like all the guys in the class.

Now my first year is when there were the bitches with something to prove. The ones that think science is some kind of boys club and are trying to break it down. The ones that want to be treated 100% equal, only remember I'm a girl so I want to be treated as such. But those few didn't last long.

[Anonymous No.7084557]

>>7084090
>Even more competition as engineer.
I won't have none of that.

[Anonymous No.7084561]

A lot of the things they're trying now to get young girls into STEM seems like it's one step forward, two steps back.

Learn about engineering by building a Barbie dream house.
Learn about chemistry through baking.

Why not just try to get them interested like you do boys? Throw them a bunch of random erector set pieces and say go nuts.

[Anonymous No.7084566]

>>7084561
>Why not just try to get them interested like you do boys? Throw them a bunch of random erector set pieces and say go nuts.
Because that's not what interests girls.
Nature or nurture?
Probably some of each.
But why should we be striving to overcome nature just to suit someone's political agenda?

[Anonymous No.7084577]

>>7084566
>Because that's not what interests girls.
All girls do not have the same personalities and interests, though.

>But why should we be striving to overcome nature just to suit someone's political agenda?
What does that even mean?

[Anonymous No.7084578]

>>7084539
That alone doesn't explain the apparent lack of females in STEM though.

>>7084566
With that political agenda being wanted to be treated as an equal? Fucking nefarious.

[Anonymous No.7084583]

>>7084577
>All girls do not have the same personalities and interests, though.
There seem to be tendencies. Boys are interested in things, girls in people. It starts early on, even before any conditioning could have kicked in.

[Anonymous No.7084589]

>>7084583
Really now? Sauce?

[Anonymous No.7084603]

>>7084520
This shouldn't be rigorous and it shouldn't be gospel. We're all just shooting from the hip but a lot of us are fed up with the schism between reality/experience and this political crap across a wider board than just science. I've been very catering to women at the work place and at school, so it's difficult for me to understand where this comes from other than what I see when it comes to looking at how workloads get handled. But, I try to look further, and a most of this SJW chimera has built it's core momentum up from rape on university campuses. Probably hella legit, but I don't participate in that party culture from which it was grown; all I know is those issues are completely incompatible with the science area. I imagine guys can be some loveless creeps in this field, but they're completely harmless in a uniformity kind of way on the majority. It absolutely disgusts me when guys get over competitive, extremely moreso if that attitude is amplified when competing against women, but that's a fucking minority unless you're from some sickass city like chicago or some such who's social problems stem from things like political corruption and economic inequity.

There's just too much shit to argue here when these worlds combine because of how integral this SJW crap tries to be in order to wage it's warfare. The simple issue is guy and girls have different modes of operation, and most of us in the science field or trying to get into the sciences aren't fun to be around in the first place a lot of times.

I so desperately would want more women in science with the implication that they're more independent minded or thoughtful people to easily find and be around, but that's not going to be the case. But, if computers being so ubiquitous is going to change that, so be it; I'm keeping an open mind, but nothing is changing in my immediate non-big-city area.

>>7084583
this is all that needs to be said, please
>>7084589
stfu

[Anonymous No.7084607]

>>7084603
>stfu
What year is this?

[Anonymous No.7084609]

>>7084607
you've got nothing to say you disruptive cunt, you're just here to play games

[Anonymous No.7084615]

>>7084609
I'm not even the one you originally replied to. I just didn't know I was texting a 14 year old in 2006.

[Anonymous No.7084618]

>>7084583
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.7084619]

>>7084615
I don't care who else you were here, you obviously don't have anything to contribute, and your last comment was a simple and transparent projection.

[Anonymous No.7084624]

>>7084619
How am I projecting exactly?

[Anonymous No.7084626]

>>7084624
not entertaining your petty off topic tripe, this response was a third too many.

[Anonymous No.7084630]

>>7084626
Don't use words you don't know the meaning of.

[Anonymous No.7084633]

>>7084603
I agree with you that SJWs take their "issues" way too far, but there's a middle ground. Some of the stuff they say is true. If you truly want to keep an open mind, then don't agree with people like >>7084583 or >>7084509 because that isn't an open mind.

Boys and girls are different, obviously. But the differences clearly aren't enough to warrant any apprehension about more women getting into science. There are many women in history who have made real contributions to science, it's clearly possible for them to be at the level of incredibly intelligent men who currently dominate the field. They are as capable as men of doing great things if given the chance. Judge an individual, that's the proper way to do it. If an INDIVIDUAL woman is clearly less intelligent and not up to par with her peers, nothing should stop you from telling her so. But projecting this onto all women because of some ideology that they can't handle the type of thinking required for science is toxic.

And furthermore, saying "stfu" to someone asking for a source to an outrageous claim does not help your argument.

[Anonymous No.7084647]

>>7084609
You're making the claim, and you're expected back it up if you want whatever you're saying to be taken seriously. It's reasonable, no?

Otherwise, no one will buy your shit, you ass.

Besides, you can't even come up with a proper argument. You're just wordy.

For reference, I'm this fag:
>>7084578
>>7084504
>>7084490
>>7084340

[Anonymous No.7084665]

>>7084647
Aw, shit, I didn't refresh before I posted. Some points already covered by >>7084633

Sorry for redundance.

[Anonymous No.7084671]

>>7084665
*Redundancy. Lol. I'm making a language of my own.

[Anonymous No.7084672]

>>7084633
>apprehension about more women getting into science
I believe that apprehension is mostly a fabrication or anecdotes blown out of proportion and then rolled into a larger unorganized and mostly unrelated collage of issues that represent cultural problems, not just women's. Science has had a past of juvenile behavior and a lot of us work as hard as we can (understate) to weed out bad people and bad practices from science, and this stuff doesn't look like it's here to help.

I've got to leave for an hour or so, but there's a lot I could say in a more compassionate, thoughtful tone and way, but there's no discrepancy in the first place, so this appears to just be a infuriating waste of time at the least, and unnecessary provocation of people who are already stressed and overloaded with the natural rigors of these vocations ontop of trying to understand women better outside of a less than perfect workplace or study environment, etc etc.

[Anonymous No.7084674]

>>7084672
>(understate)
*understatement

[Anonymous No.7084691]

>>7084672
Well you're clearly level headed and not from /pol/. But I have no idea what trying to say in the second paragraph.

I don't think the apprehension is a fabrication or anecdotal. I think it's a real thing that holds people back. There's nothing wrong with trying to correct it, just as long as it doesn't turn into "we now only accept women" or something. You don't have to get 50/50, you just have to make sure that every person (not just women) who wants to be a scientist has proper access to that career path. A lot of people, myself included, think that not everyone does, specifically certain groups like women.

[Anonymous No.7084692]

>>7084618
This is not a real source, but watch this

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xp0tg8_hjernevask-brainwashing-in-norway-english-part-1-the-gender-equality-paradox_news

It presents a number of interesting studies that indicate that there's a little more going on then the usual "girls don't like science because they play with barbie dolls"-bullshit. Not saying that conditioning isn't an important part of this, but it's certainly not the only point as often believed by people like >>7084633 who think it's open minded to not even consider biological reasons for the quite significant difference in interests.

[Anonymous No.7084701]

I agree, there should be more women in science in general.

In my field (biology), there are a lot of women, probably more women than men. Some are okay, but like other women, and other men, they can sometimes be really bitchy and dumb.

It may be sexist, but I just feel like women (especially good-looking women) usually think they are entitled to things. They aren't expected to go through the same rigorous trials of failure because most of the men in their life will let mistakes slide. Perhaps the reason there aren't as many women in science is because they are, on average, not able to handle failure as much. It's not the "easy" path so most don't take it. This is true of men too, but to a lesser extent.

For one thing, the ones that do "make it", a significant population of them have zero manners and laboratory etiquette. Just last week I was about to run an experiment using a common work space. Right after I set everything up and was about to start taking readings, this girl just strolls up and starts doing her own thing like I don't exist. Like, did not even ask if she could use it when I was clearly already there. I just had to sit and wait until she was done, and I wasn't able to leave until much later than usual. It's just little things like that. Women absolutely need to be held to the same standards as men. They should not be given special treatment just because they're women and deserve more opportunities or chances.

[Anonymous No.7084726]

>>7084701
Then why DID you let it slide?

If we're going to be posting anecdotes, then this is going to be just as ~valid: good-looking girls have to deal with men feeling entitled to sex, and they're held to much higher sexual standards. Not to mention the expectation of failure, and the expectation of their remaining attractive (because how else are they supposed to succeed?). I'm sure you can imagine lots of other things.

See?

Actually, pretty people of either sex do have it easier though. This isn't exclusive to women. Will look for relevant lit in a bit. I'm procrastinating on studying for a test.

[Anonymous No.7084755]

>>7084691
>A lot of people, myself included, think that not everyone does, specifically certain groups like women.
Really? You really, honestly feel that if a woman is interested in a subject and wants to pursue a scientific career that she is going to find that prohibitively difficult or impossible? Do you work with no women at all yourself?

[Anonymous No.7084757]

STEM is constantly being promoted by at least the US government and Affirmative Action by colleges/programs shows that there is a Deep Calling for Women in these kind of fields. As a white male in the field, do I love that in some cases women are getting special treatment for the uncontrollable past of STEM majors being male? No. Do I care if my partner on a certain project is a female? No, as long as she can do her tasks then I am fine with it. Personally, as long as no one gets special treatment for things that they can't control (obviously excluding injuries/disabilities), I am fine with calling fro more women in the STEM workforce.

[Anonymous No.7084758]

>>7084692
>who think it's open minded to not even consider biological reasons for the quite significant difference in interests.
You didn't even give "biological reasons" in the post I replied to. All you said is boys like things and girls like people. What biology is that?

Also I didn't watch your whole video but I agree with it. There will never, ever, ever, ever be 50/50 men/women in every job. It will never happen in all of time, because men and women are different. But that doesn't mean you can use these differences to justify that women aren't right for science, or construction. Nor can you use these differences to justify that men aren't fit to be caretakers, or nurses, or whatever women traditionally do. It's just how our society works. Some of it is biological, but the point is nothing prevents women from doing any job a man can do and nothing prevents men from doing any job a woman can do. Nothing.

And even if you consider things like physical labor, which probably has the most extreme disadvantages for women, the fact that some women can and do have jobs such as police officers, construction workers, firefighters, even some limited infantry jobs, etc. proves that it is up to the individual to prove themselves capable for it. You can't deny someone the opportunity to try, it's unjust.

[Anonymous No.7084762]

>>7084755
I said proper access. I doubt that someone would find it difficult or impossible to pursue science if they have the aptitude. But social interactions with your peers has a lot of influence on your choices. In this thread alone there are people who seriously think that women aren't as capable as men in scientific thinking. Whether they are justified or not doesn't matter. If someone in the field holds that prejudice against you, do you really think it's going to be the easiest thing in the world to work with them?

[Anonymous No.7084764]

>>7084534
>my trouble is I want a wife
You don't want a wife. You want a childbearing, child-minding, servant, prostitute.

[Anonymous No.7084772]

>>7084758
>You didn't even give "biological reasons" in the post I replied to. All you said is boys like things and girls like people. What biology is that?
I thought it was obvious. What other reasons than biological ones could possibly be responsible for a shift in interests from birth on?

[Anonymous No.7084779]

>>7084701
If someone did something like that to me, I would just tell the person. I mean, if you just sat there grinding your teeth, you're probably part of the whole entitled women thing.

[Anonymous No.7084780]

>>7084764
A prostitute doesn't love you back though.

>implying I can't buy a woman who loves me
Unless I find some 20-25 y/o women who really wants to be a mother and isn't a tremendous bitch in America, I will literally buy a woman in another country and live there.

Western women a shit

[Anonymous No.7084793]

>>7084757
being female is a disability though

[Anonymous No.7084804]

>>7084764
you know there are actually shitloads of women who want to be housewives and have tons of kids.

[Anonymous No.7084886]

>>7084691
That guy again, and thank you for your assessment. I was in a hurry at the beginning of that second part. The main thing I was trying to point there is that there isn't a problem, but provoking the culture of guys in it who are already stressed due to the nature of science, how it's taught, how conceptual demanding it is, the practice that's required (computational drudgery), et al. is likely to create a problem and then exacerbate it as well because the men involved are likely to have more troubles with sexual relations (again due to the nature of science) on average than other areas or higher-education.
>I don't think the apprehension is a fabrication or anecdotal.
What makes you think it's a systemic problem rather than regional (for example) though?

[Anonymous No.7084904]

>>7084269
Sexist is the belief that one gender is superior to others. The fact is that people believe their gender to be better. Is it a strawmen argument implying that I hate women.

[Anonymous No.7084905]

>>7084764
And women don't want a husband. They want a money-making instagram trophy.

I can make insulting oversimplifications too, feminist cuck.

[Anonymous No.7084919]

>>7084904
sex·ism
\ˈsek-ˌsi-zəm\noun
: unfair treatment of people because of their sex;especially: unfair treatment of women

Full Definition
1
:prejudice or discrimination based on sex;especially:discrimination against women
2
:behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

>especially: unfair treatment of women
>;especially:discrimination against women

What the fuck?

[Anonymous No.7084920]

>>7084886
>>7084691
I should also point out women in hard sciences (what I mean when I simply say "science" typically) are equally as socially inept as the men which play into the difficulties with sexual relations.

What I think should be continually noted is there is a dramatic culture difference from soft to hard science. Just saying science without minding how significant this difference in culture is will create horrendous equivocations if someone is to speak anecdotally or from a large amount of experience.

I wouldn't be surprised if the softer sciences have a HUGE problem with sexism.

[Anonymous No.7084941]

>>7084920
There is a sexism issue in softer sciences. The problem is actually due to the women. Softer sciences are female dominated and they are generally very lazy overall. Which stresses out guys like myself who have to pickup their slack and can't say anything about it without the risk of being fired. At least the hard sciences are difficult enough and have areas most women aren't capable of being productive in... soft sciences are just littered with frustratingly dumb women.

Another issue I have noticed is that women are FIERCELY aggressive when it comes to other women dealing with men. If a woman who comes to you for advice/help sees another woman trying to do the same they will get irrational and confrontational very fast. Sometimes I wish I had a bit more aptitude for physics but I am happy where I am at... with the science not the work place.

[Anonymous No.7084955]

Why does it matter how many "women" there are in science?

The category "women" is sexist in itself.
"Women are this, women are that, women aren't that.". Can't we just stop generalizing everything?
We are all individuals.
If you, as an individual, are capable of doing science, what is preventing you from doing so?

Not enough money? Then we should have scholarships based on merit, so that worthwhile individuals like you can make it despite the hardships.

Let's not confuse people's choices and arbitrary categories with problems, please.

[Anonymous No.7084976]

>>7084465
Honestly, from my experiences with women in math, physics, chemistry, and bio a lot of it has to do with the tedium. The females I have dealt with do not like the fields where there is a definite right/wrong, strong criticism, or absolute ways of doing things. Most of the time they get insanely frustrated after messing a few things up and having no recourse other than admitting they fucked up. I am guessing it is an emotional thing? Not saying all women are incapable of handling criticism but many of them cant. The few women who do well in the harder sciences I have dealt with were more emotionally stable and could handle that kind of stuff.

However, my field is FULL of pretentious bitches who will not take a single note of criticism. It is frustrating and we (male grads) tend to just act like they dont exist and go about our research.

[Anonymous No.7084989]

>>7084955
I think most people realize that "not enough women in sciences" isn't a problem because that is a choice. You aren't assigned a slot in sciences you have to work for it. I think the discourse is more along the reason of "why" that happens when if women and men were equal there would already be just as many.

Also, I agree about scholarships by merit but sadly that is usually how it doesn't work as I am sure you know too.

[Anonymous No.7084995]

>>7084976
If you compare how many males go into STEM overall, I can absolutely get behind that while both genders have trouble with criticism, women take it more negatively. You could have 97% of women ignore STEM and 90% of men, and you'd still have a 3:10 ratio.

Working as a tutor I've had to break many people of a perfectionist hyper-critical plan. It's amazing how many people would nearly shit themselves if they thought they were going to fail, and it's like "you can take it again, failure is not going to end your education". For some people it could've, but the realization that a single failed class is probably not going to define the rest of their life was something not a lot of people wanted to face.

[Anonymous No.7084998]

>>7084941
Yeah, that objective value is probably going to be hard to convey. But just doing work is one half of the token. The other half is making sure the work is done in the correct way, and managing that aspect can sometimes come across as laziness. In the military (aircraft maintenance) we have a person who's job is to not do any manual labor so that way there isn't a conflict of interest with the person performing the double-checking/QA work. It's a position that can either be exploited (since they're in charge essentially) or they can be the one's getting screwed because it's a special qualification in shorter supply than just being a competent worker.

It's been my experience that those who know how to do the job absolutely correctly, and take the final responsibility for the job being done correctly can not get the credit they deserve from those who actually do the manual labor; however, 'most all' people who work towards getting that special qualification are actually the harder workers, it's just that once they get it they end up doing all the paper work instead. That's just the way the nature of no non-sense work imo. But again, I have seen people that know how to exploit this position and exclusively work hard just so they don't have to work hard, and they are the vilest, most bigoted, ignorant trash I have ever known.

[Anonymous No.7085009]

>>7084989
>You aren't assigned a slot in sciences you have to work for it.
That's what some countries are doing with affirmative action though.

>You aren't assigned a slot in sciences you have to work for it.
No?
Obviously there's corruption like everywhere, but why wouldn't worthy individuals who get defined as "women" by sexists get granted those scholarships, if they are examined in a standardized, as-objective-as-possible way?

[Anonymous No.7085015]

>>7085009
Meant to quote this
>Also, I agree about scholarships by merit but sadly that is usually how it doesn't work as I am sure you know too.

[Anonymous No.7085017]

>>7084353

[Anonymous No.7085019]

>>7084090
>what are your thoughts on women in the mathematical/science workplace

I'm okay with it. That way I don't have to make my own sammiches or get my own coffee.

[Anonymous No.7085020]

>>7084989
Well, we need to make sure the line in the sand is clear to these SJW types who either have no concept of rigor or have no concept of what diversity and equal opportunity really means in a skillful environment.

[Anonymous No.7085028]

>>7085019
please leave you obnoxious son of a bitch, we don't need played out memes around here to convey our points or parody your unintellectual angst.

That's basically the "da jews" equivalent, except not as funny.

[Anonymous No.7085030]

>>7084090
If they genuinely want to get into a STEM field then I have no issue. Anybody who genuinely wants to get into STEM should get in. The option should be open to anyone (regardless of gender) and then let them decide if they want to go down that path or not.

[Anonymous No.7085032]

>>7084919
The word is rooted historically in the treatment of women, and not in general the idea of sexism.

[Anonymous No.7085035]

>>7085019
>memes around here to convey our points or parody your unintellectual angst

Real cringe right there

[Anonymous No.7085047]

>>7085035
everything around this topic is cringe you dense mother fucker, leave your swag with your user accounts.

[Anonymous No.7085053]

>>7084090
It's not that women and girls are discouraged, though I've seen it happen. It's that they're not encouraged to go into math and science. They're encouraged to get married and have kids. At least that's the way it is down south.

[Anonymous No.7085068]

>>7084976
Honestly, I see probably the same ratio of emotionally driven men in the field as I do women, they just react in a different way. They react in this petty, passive aggressive way to criticism that I would expect from emotionally stunted high school students. Boys nowadays have an unacceptable emotional maturity level.

[Anonymous No.7085125]

>>7084090
Who gives a shit, a thought shouldnt be given to it

[Anonymous No.7085144]

>>7084315
This. /thread

[Anonymous No.7085151]

>>7084919

The past literally predicts the future, goy! Women cannot be sexist!!!!!

[Anonymous No.7085813]

>>7084534
How can you have a meaningful relationship with someone so dumb and unmotivated as to want to bear and rear 10 kids? 28 years (at least) of never being able to do anything because she has to stay at home all day raising screaming children of all ages, and completely fine with it? You'd have to be really fucking dumb to agree to that shit, and really fucking dumb to want to marry that shit.

You don't want a wife, you want a sow.

[Anonymous No.7086159]

lol

[Anonymous No.7086217]

Work in commercial biotech. Mix of biochemists, biotechnologists, and chemical engineers. Women are an essential part of a good team as they tend to be more diligent, great help for regulatory submissions. And anything to stop groupthink, which large groups with the same gender, age and background tend to fall into, is good in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.7086220]

>>7085813

No, he wants a wife instead of a "partner" or "ally", which is what you think a wife should be.

[Anonymous No.7086225]

>>7086220
you sound like a winner, enjoy your water buffalo

[Anonymous No.7086262]

>>7084429
this

[Anonymous No.7086263]

>>7084090
I have no problem with the current percentage of women in science. Those who make it to the 300 level generally know what the fuck they're doing.

What we should be doing is a eugenics program involving the euthenasia of women who choose to major in "women's studies" for the greater benefit of the human race.

[Anonymous No.7086264]

>>7086217
>And anything to stop groupthink
>advocates hiring women to stop groupthink
o i am laffin

[Anonymous No.7086269]

>>7084090
I support women in the food science field.

Especially in the kitchen making me a sandwich.

[Anonymous No.7086271]

women love gossip and drama. I dont. Women I used to work with gossip that they think I was hitting on them or trying to have sex with them when I wasnt. I am asexual for the most part except for when I get horny and rub one off. Women are natural followers, not leaders. In group projects women blame me for not giving them work to do or giving them direction which pises me off, just because i have a dick doenst mean I need to tell you what to do in a group project, we should all decide who does what. I would rather work with
1.omega males
2.beta males
3.beta/omega females
4.alpha males(usually douchebags)
5.alpha female

[Anonymous No.7086272]

Women belong in the kitchen, silly.

But it doesn't bother me if they like to play pretend scientist/mathematician. Nobody takes them seriously anyway.

[Anonymous No.7087019]

>>7086271
If all women love gossip and drama, then all men are douchebags who love sucking cock.
Aren't generalizations fun?

[Anonymous No.7087033]

>>7084583
So, I see this argument: women are more interested in people, men in objects.
Then, I see this one: women only care about material shit (objects), like clothes and shoes, while men only care about sex and women in general (people).
So which is it?
Do women care more about shoes, or people?
Do men care more about objects, or about sex?

[Anonymous No.7087044]

>>7084544
>Now my first year is when there were the bitches with something to prove. The ones that think science is some kind of boys club and are trying to break it down. The ones that want to be treated 100% equal, only remember I'm a girl so I want to be treated as such. But those few didn't last long.

[Anonymous No.7087084]

>>7084465
>>7084976
I agree that some of it is emotional; women aren't great at dealing with frustration, especially when it's their fault. And I also agree about the criticism; women aren't used to being told they're flat out wrong. Women like to look for different interpretations, which is great in creative fields and also engineering because women come up with novel solutions, but it's usually awful in fields like physics and math because they have to ignore their urge to look for different ways before they can actually be of any use in physics (at which point, this urge is conditioned away).

Another reason for the disparity:
In order to get a good job in physics, you need a PhD. A lot of women want to (eventually) have kids, but know that it isn't a good idea until there's a stable form of income. Coupled with the ticking of their biological clocks, it just takes too long to get a well-paying job in physics, and then it's more difficult to raise children while working than it is in other fields. That difficulty is partly due to the fact that in physics, you're often teaching, grading hw, etc., which is more of a time-sink than jobs outside of academia. Furthermore, women in STEM are more likely to marry men in STEM than the other way around, so women are expected to be the one to quit their jobs to raise children, even if their husbands wanted children just as much, so it makes less sense to enter a field that takes so much school just to have to quit to raise kids.

[Anonymous No.7087092]

>>7084090
no room. too many white men

[Anonymous No.7087106]

>>7084534
Maybe they just don't like you because you think that women should be stuck at home having babies left and right? Obviously educated women want more from life than the constant pain of childbirth. How would you feel about having to watch children all day for the rest of your "good" years, unable to pursue your interests? Why do you think women should have fewer interests then men, or do you just think that women have less of a right to pursue those interests than men do?

Source for Mensa? Including a rough number of how many men to how many woman test? Because I'd think that men are more often encouraged to test than women are, based off of experience (girls at the top of the class having to ask if they could take it, as opposed to guys near the top or around average being encouraged to take it).

[Anonymous No.7087120]

>>7084543
Why does caring about more than looks make you a bad person? Not everyone is born attractive, and that applies to both men and women.
If you want pretty and dumb, buy a realistic sex doll. This aids natural selection in two ways: idiotic girls stop breeding, and so do guys that allow people with stupidity genes to continue living and having idiotic kids.

[Anonymous No.7087138]

>>7084566
Hey, I had legos and lincoln logs, and I'm studying engineering. No one told me that girls aren't interested in that shit and so I couldn't play with them. My parents thought it would be good for me to have more than just barbies to play with, and I'm thankful they did. Because if they raised me the way most girls are raised, I wouldn't be going into this field.

I don't see it as overcoming nature, because I think interests must be nurtured in both girls and boys in order for them to go somewhere (obviously not always true; people go into STEM even when their parents try to tell them to be lawyers or some shit). If you discourage girls (no, Star Wars legos are for boys, have a barbie house!) then it's really difficult for them to get past their conditioning to ignore anything "masculine" as an option for the future. I've had conversations with girls, asking why they didn't go into STEM, with responses like
"I dunno anon, there don't seem to be a lot of girls in STEM"
"So?"
"So I dunno if I'd be any good at it, since girls aren't supposed to be as good as guys"
which comes off less as disinterest, and more as conditioned thinking that girls can't be as good as boys.
I believe that comes in part from the idea that girls just aren't interested, even though they have to potential to be.

[Anonymous No.7087225]

>>7084090

Why are there so many women in the biomedical science (and related) fields?

[Anonymous No.7087256]

>>7084701
I'd have to agree that you're part of the problem. Did you consider that she didn't realize that she was taking up all of the space, or didn't notice you? If neither of those could possibly have been the case, then you're still in the wrong for not taking back your space, or at the very least, making it hella uncomfortable for her. Sure, it's a common work space, but you took the time and effort to make that particular area "yours" for the duration of your experiment. If you think women need to be held to the same standards, hold them to the standards yourself! You're part of the population that lets women think they're something special and can do whatever the fuck they want to. Don't complain about shit you cause.

[Anonymous No.7087263]

>>7084758
>nothing prevents women from doing any job a man can do
Sperm donor. Checkmate

[Anonymous No.7087269]

>>7084793
Being this much of a fag is too.

[Anonymous No.7087370]

>>7084762
Thing is right, males aren't all automatically assumed to be able to do anything they want either. People often have an impression that this male is stupid or that one doesn't know shit all about whatever. But the appropriate response to such a situation isn't jumping up and down and demand people respect your ability, but to prove it.

I mean just look at all the shitflinging that occurs here in /sci/ to engineers, fedoras, neckbeards, biologists, psychologists, mathematicians. Do you fucking quit your profession because someone who doesn't know better thinks it's shit? Of course not. But you're a man.

[Anonymous No.7087398]

>>7087225
better paying, better job security, better hours, more jobs so you don't have to schlep across the country for a postdoc. every community has a hospital so it's a cinch to keep your kids close to your parents for help with babysitting (or if you are a caregiver for your aging parents)

[Anonymous No.7087404]

>>7087263
What if a woman collects a man's sperm and donates it?

[Anonymous No.7087412]

>>7087019
Implying you can classify people (bundles of 100 trillion cells each composed of a gorillion atoms) without generalisisms.
Why don't we get really precise and describe people -only- with a massive fucking array specifying for each atom its exact position in their body at every moment they were alive. Just so we're not generalising too much.

[Anonymous No.7087417]

>>7087370
Not that anon, but there's a difference between some people thinking you're stupid or don't know anything based on you saying something stupid, and the vast majority of people in your field saying you'll never amount to anything because you're a woman. Additionally, considering it's people in your field rather than shitposters on 4chan, and typically seniors, they SHOULD know what they're talking about, and you should be able to assume that whoever's judging you had taken your abilities into account.

I mean, to an extent, I agree that you should pursue what you're interested in (and good at) regardless of what people's opinions of you are, but at the same time, for many people it just isn't worth having to keep defending yourself. In a way, it's like women are expected to do MORE than men. If a woman does something well, men in the field might say "well I could have done that, what makes her so special? Oh yeah, she's a woman." So a woman in science who is average (like most of the men) is seen as less because she isn't genius-tier, all of this assuming she can get past the prejudices in the first place.

[Anonymous No.7087439]

>Not that anon, but there's a difference between some people thinking you're stupid or don't know anything based on you saying something stupid, and the vast majority of people in your field saying you'll never amount to anything because you're a woman.

I can see how that would happen. But we're also talking about women here, so I might just be compensating. At any rate your justification for it is bullshit which is why I'm not sure to take it as a badly reasoned yet true statement, or the compensating.

Just look at all the crackpot physicist/mathematicians - timecube, vortex math and so on. They get derided like shit but they just double down on the crazy. Don't know of any women like that.

[Anonymous No.7087440]

>>7087412
Well then maybe you can't classify people.
"Not all x are y" will always be a valid argument, but it's even more valid when you take a trait that isn't necessarily prevalent and ascribe it to a group (and if you say it is prevalent, I'll need a source). If anon had said "These women at my work loved gossip and drama. I don't," then there wouldn't be a problem. If he said "Women like gossip and drama. Men don't," there would be even more of a problem because in addition to not all women liking gossip and drama, there are men who like gossip and drama. Instead, he claims that, based on his experience with coworkers, women as a whole enjoy gossip and drama.

I'm not saying that it has to get super precise, but there's a difference between "Women ______" and "Many women I've met ______." Don't say that it's implied that you don't mean all women, because there are people who truly think all women are the same, and it's impossible to tell where you're coming from with a generalization.

[Anonymous No.7087455]

>>7087440
Well.. You know..

You can not generalise people if you want, but everyone who's not retarded realises pretty promptly that treating each individual as a totally new case that you have no information on is a waste of time and formulate and refine a template which each individual deviates from in their own ways.

[Anonymous No.7087466]

>>7087439
How is the reasoning bullshit? If a professor says that you should just give up now because you're not going to get anywhere, you'd take into consideration that he sees a lot of students, and also knows what he's talking about. Maybe you wouldn't quit over it, but if you're told that multiple times, you might become inclined to believe them. Same if your supervisors kept telling you that your work isn't up to standards.

They may get derided, but they still have support from some people, whereas women don't get much support for what they're doing, generally speaking. You get people who say shit like "it doesn't bother me if they like to play pretend scientist/mathematician. Nobody takes them seriously anyway." There are people in STEM who feel this way, and it gets tiring. And besides, even if what she says is shit, people don't deride crackpot STEM women if they're attractive for fear of scaring them away, which is a problem. Attractive but wrong women need to be told they're wrong, and women who are right regardless of looks should be encouraged, but that just doesn't happen.

[Anonymous No.7087484]

>>7087455
Do you know how annoying it is to hear shit like "Wow, how refreshing to meet a non-ignorant black person who grew up in the hood!" or "Oh, you're asian, so I thought you would be better at biology than I am." Why make generalizations, when people deviate so much from them that they become useless? Again, there's a difference between generalizing women, and stating that all of the women you've met have done or been something. It doesn't even take much more effort to add "My experience has been..." in front of your generalization.

[Anonymous No.7087488]

>>7084090
not this thread again.

sage

[Anonymous No.7087514]

>>7087466
If your supervisor or prof is telling you your work isn't up to scratch isn't the rational response to work harder and prove that you're capable?

I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure if I told someone their work wasn't up to scratch and they told me I'm being unreasonable when they're getting average marks or below I would just figure maybe they're retarded.

[Anonymous No.7087521]

>>7087466
If you can't take the heat, go back into the kitchen.

[Anonymous No.7087532]

>>7084090
In my technical classes the females always had the lowest GPA. I believe in equal OPPORTUNITY. if a female can do the work by all means let her, but the fact is the female brain is wired differently on average and can't manipulate numbers and logic like most males ON AVERAGE.

[Anonymous No.7087582]

>>7087514
One would assume that they're being honest, that your work actually isn't good enough no matter how much effort you put in. But what if they're actually just being sexist, and holding women up to a higher standard then men? I'm not saying that it's true all, or even most of the time, but it happens, just as teachers who grade unfairly happen.

If both men and women are receiving average marks and only the women are being told they need to step it up, then there is some support for the idea that women need to do better than men for recognition of their abilities. Within every group of people, there will be some "average" people. If average men can make it, average women should be given just as much of a chance; not more and not less. If and when women receive low marks and are clearly not performing well, then I agree with you, and they need to be told, I just as men ought to be. I think it's completely fair to say that a lot of women have difficulty with STEM and shouldn't be encouraged when they're shit. But I think that men are more likely to receive slack for not being spectacular than women are. I don't have anything to back this up besides my own experience on robotics and programming teams (at least on some of them, I was expected to do more than my share of the work as a sort of justification of my sex being allowed to be a part of the team; doing just my share left guys complaining that I wasn't doing enough and shouldn't be on the team); it's just my opinion regarding some of the discouragement.

[Anonymous No.7087585]

>>7087582
*than men

[Anonymous No.7087598]

>>7084397
It's not that they have an average higher IQ. What you're thinking of is that they have a lower average standard divergence in IQ than men.

[Anonymous No.7087669]

>>7087582
Not sure if you included the part about being femanon to bait me into saying something along the lines of ahah see I knew you were a femanon because only a female would take such ribbing seriously and get intimidated out of their chosen career by it.

[Anonymous No.7087679]

>>7087582
Seriously though the male protocol for people giving you an unreasonable share of the work is to tell them to suck it and pull their fucking weight. (or finding some other way like bribery or intimidation to convince them to do a fair share)

It's not your fault you don't instinctively know these things if you're a woman, but it's also no excuse for not learning how it's done.

[Anonymous No.7087744]

>>7087669
Still in engineering, so no, I'm not intimidated. Some girls are though, because their self-doubt + external doubt leads to leaving.

>>7087679
Anything aside from accepting the work load leads to being ostracized from the group. Which would be fine, if I didn't need to both be and appear productive. Besides, you see all the posts where men don't like working with women because they're bitchy? This would (and does) count as being bitchy. Again, I don't back down from it, but some girls do, and they're not completely unjustified.

[Anonymous No.7087812]

>>7084465
>Because they're mostly stamp collecting and therefore more accessible in general.

Of all the STEM disciplines, mathematics is probably the one with the least imbalanced sex ratio.

http://www.maa.org/external_archive/columns/launchings/launchings_09_09.html

[Anonymous No.7087945]

>>7084397

>Social/Cognitive science shit
>Proving

[Anonymous No.7087950]

>>7084465
>Stamp collecting
>Accesible
Fuck that shit, it is hard to rely on remembering lot of information.

[Anonymous No.7087961]

>>7084090
Chemistry Eng here. There is a 50 50 distribution of genders and in my university women where in average more apt at it (but the tops where always bros). Also in my working experience (research lab in the pharm industry) it applies to chemists and biologists.