Being female in physics is ridiculous.

[Evo]

The same problems, no. Similar problems, yes. For instance, back then people regarded women as less intelligent/capable. Now, if they see a woman with the same qualifications/awards as a man, they may assume she got those awards because she's a woman. So is it really a different issue?

The woman's performance will quickly confirm if it was merit based.

 

[jesse73]

The woman's performance will quickly confirm if it was merit based.

Agree. It seems like it is the same problems but with people rationalizing why they arent paying the same wages.

The problem will be gone when people stop trying to rationalize statistically significant disadvantages.

 

[jesse73]

I also don't think a first or second year undergrad has the qualifications to decide if a teacher is incompetent in a university setting since universities tend to choose faculty with a large weight towards research performance not teaching(which presumably the OP is using as the metric of competence). I would be hard pressed to find a first or second year undergrad who can judge research quality like a department hiring committee.

Confirmation bias seems like a likely culprit.

 

[Dishsoap]

I also don't think a first or second year undergrad has the qualifications to decide if a teacher is incompetent in a university setting since universities tend to choose faculty with a large weight towards research performance not teaching(which presumably the OP is using as the metric of competence). I would be hard pressed to find a first or second year undergrad who can judge research quality like a department hiring committee.

Confirmation bias seems like a likely culprit.

She is being replaced next year, and I was on the committee (along with professors and other students) who decided this. You're right, I'm not one to judge competence of a professor, however my opinion is also that of every single person on the committee.

 

[StatGuy2000]

So the implicit assumption is that white male workers work harder or females and URMs are lazy.

I don't think that's what the poster had in mind. What I assume he/she may be referring to are situations where, at least in the case of women, those who choose to take time out of their work to have children and or to raise a family may put in less hours (to accommodate their parental commitments, which still disproportionately fall on women, although that is changing), and thus be penalized in the workplace for it. So female employees who may start out being paid the same wage as their male peers may end up earning less in the future for the same job.

Now I'm not denying that direct discrimination against women or URMs do not occur in the workplace, but there may be other, complex factors that play into this that cannot or should not be ignored.

There is also the situation (as Sheryl Sandberg pointed out in a recent interview on 60 Minutes, commenting about women in the workforce) that many women professionals undervalue their relative worth in terms of salary when it comes to job or salary negotiation (and salaries, particularly in the private sector, are often negotiable prior to the actual hiring). This phenomena could also exist in URMs as well.

 

[jesse73]

I don't think that's what the poster had in mind. What I assume he/she may be referring to are situations where, at least in the case of women, those who choose to take time out of their work to have children and or to raise a family may put in less hours (to accommodate their parental commitments, which still disproportionately fall on women, although that is changing), and thus be penalized in the workplace for it. So female employees who may start out being paid the same wage as their male peers may end up earning less in the future for the same job.

That argument doesn't hold for URMs.

Also doesn't it seem odd that people are judging the wages of women over their lifetimes on events that at most occur a handful of times if at all in a women's lifetime (pregnancy) in these modern times.

Also shouldn't the scales of evidence be on showing that there is not a discriminatory factor. That you would have to show that these so called "complex factors" are statistically significant and causal instead of assuming they are and discounting the issues which historically (as in less than a century ago) are undeniable because they were institutionalized.

The simplest analogy would be that URMs and women are just starting to play a game of monopoly in which boardwalk,park place, and all the best properties are already purchased. Imagine how fair it would feel to have to play a game of monopoly after most of the properties have been purchased.

 

[Pythagorean]

There's some indication that blind hiring increases the hiring rate of women, indicating a real bias:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w5903

Maybe blind hiring, rather than affirmative action, is the way to approach the problem. I don't know how effective or ineffective affirmative action is in the first place, but if the complaints against it are valid, then a blind hiring process could satisfy both sides of the argument. I don't know how interviews would be conducted though. In an orchestra, you let your instrument speak for you. Maybe text chat interviews?

 

[jesse73]

I would love for there be some type of blind hiring process and a similar process for our justice system.

There has recently been a lot of talk and research about age discrimination in certain sectors. It seems like it would be easy to partially combat this by having application tracking systems strip dates from resumes and CVs.

There is also the problem that blind hiring is only a solution for a particular bottleneck in the system where there might be other parts where there might be issues. I rarely see people complain about the legacy system at colleges given the history of colleges which as you can guess this is benefiting males (As an example nearly all harvard alumni from before the 1960's are male).

Do a random simulation where you sample 50/50 from two groups M/F where you "admit" students randomly but give a bias for individuals labeled legacy and initialize it so that 90+% of legacies are male. I can guarantee you that the bias will favor the male group for more than a handful of generations.

 

[lendav_rott]

Personally, I wouldn't care at all about the "prefer not to respond"-gender problem. Prejudice is inevitable, sure, but I have been proven otherwise infront of my own 2 eyes while I was sober (I think) that a woman is perfectly capable of fixing a car.

Back to the original point - should you be into your subject, I think you shouldn't even pay attention to things that are not important. Are you just going to do physics to prove something to others? I mean, who cares, if you want to study physics, then go for it - if you are good, it will have nada to do with your gender/race/religion and whatnot.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I would love for there be some type of blind hiring process and a similar process for our justice system.

There has recently been a lot of talk and research about age discrimination in certain sectors. It seems like it would be easy to partially combat this by having application tracking systems strip dates from resumes and CVs.

There is also the problem that blind hiring is only a solution for a particular bottleneck in the system where there might be other parts where there might be issues. I rarely see people complain about the legacy system at colleges given the history of colleges which as you can guess this is benefiting males (As an example nearly all harvard alumni from before the 1960's are male).

Do a random simulation where you sample 50/50 from two groups M/F where you "admit" students randomly but give a bias for individuals labeled legacy and initialize it so that 90+% of legacies are male. I can guarantee you that the bias will favor the male group for more than a handful of generations.

As far I know, Canadian universities do not allow legacy admissions (as you can probably tell, I'm from Canada).

 

[StatGuy2000]

That argument doesn't hold for URMs.

Also doesn't it seem odd that people are judging the wages of women over their lifetimes on events that at most occur a handful of times if at all in a women's lifetime (pregnancy) in these modern times.

Also shouldn't the scales of evidence be on showing that there is not a discriminatory factor. That you would have to show that these so called "complex factors" are statistically significant and causal instead of assuming they are and discounting the issues which historically (as in less than a century ago) are undeniable because they were institutionalized.

The simplest analogy would be that URMs and women are just starting to play a game of monopoly in which boardwalk,park place, and all the best properties are already purchased. Imagine how fair it would feel to have to play a game of monopoly after most of the properties have been purchased.

I don't dispute that it seems odd that people are judging the wages of women over their lifetimes on events that occur on specific intervals -- my point is that the time interval in which these events occur are precisely those years when workers first establish themselves in the workplace. And in the absence in the US of family-friendly work laws (e.g. no mandated maternity leave), these could have a real, substantial impact on future earnings. Whether they actually do or not is an area that is worth research.

Also, I never stated that there wasn't a discriminatory factor; I'm just stating that there may be other complex factors at work that must be considered when assessing the reasons behind the relative lower earnings of women and URMs. I agree that any assertion of whether discrimination is a factor or not should be based on evidence that is carefully weighed and researched, with appropriate statistics -- I'm certain social scientists have looked at this question and there would be publications available. Once I find something, I'll provide a link to it.

 

[jesse73]

I don't dispute that it seems odd that people are judging the wages of women over their lifetimes on events that occur on specific intervals -- my point is that the time interval in which these events occur are precisely those years when workers first establish themselves in the workplace. And in the absence in the US of family-friendly work laws (e.g. no mandated maternity leave), these could have a real, substantial impact on future earnings. Whether they actually do or not is an area that is worth research.

That argument just doesn't add up when you compare wages of women without children with women with children. There is a 23% gap between women and men and only a 7 to 14% gap between women with children and those without.

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/07/146522483/the-wage-gap-between-moms-other-working-women

Unless the wages are supposed to be depressed for women even if they have no children.

 

[Tosh5457]

Unfortunately this often becomes the case, but the principle itself is not misguided in my opinion. In the sciences women face barriers, societal and otherwise, that men usually do not. These societal barriers appear in the form of discouraging young girls from pursuing careers in the sciences and special scholarships for women are a reasonable first step in combating this issue. Aside from the male/female sex imbalance in graduating PhDs, this discrepancy is exacerbated even further in the breakdown of senior faculty (see post #14), which is indicative of discrimination in either the recognition and/or hiring of women. So even without affirmative action policies, discrimination is still rampant, just in the other direction. Which of these is worse depends largely on your perspective I suppose, but the point is that while there are legitimate criticisms of affirmative action, pretending there are no issues to be fixed is ludicrous.
Why should this be the case?

You didn't provide any evidence of such discrimination, the ratio not being close to 1:1 isn't evidence of discrimination.

Why should it be the case that every job should be balanced between men and women? The only thing that justifies it is an ideology, that says men and women should be equal in everything, an ideology that is spread by the feminist movement. Unfortunately that's not how reality is, you can't force reality to fit to your ideology of how things should be, that's just childish.

 

[jgens]

You didn't provide any evidence of such discrimination, the ratio not being close to 1:1 isn't evidence of discrimination.

No part of my argument is predicated on this claim. If you actually read the post I directed you towards (so hard right), instead of just pretending you know what it says, then you would already know this. Roughly 25% of math PhDs are women yet looking at schools like Harvard and UChicago reveals that fewer than 7% of senior faculty are women. To me that speaks to discrimination.

Why should it be the case that every job should be balanced between men and women?

I have not made the claim that this should be true. My whole argument is essentially just that prejudices against women still exist in the sciences. Not that (on average) men and women have equal abilities at this stuff. On the other hand, you did claim that men will always be overrepresented in the sciences and I am asking for justification for that opinion. As of yet it has not been delivered. Unless you count some possibly misogynistic grumblings about feminism of course.

The only thing that justifies it is an ideology, that says men and women should be equal in everything, an ideology that is spread by the feminist movement. Unfortunately that's not how reality is, you can't force reality to fit to your ideology of how things should be, that's just childish.

Unfortunately reality is not this mystical fairy tail land where women in the STEM fields face no discrimination either. Pretending that is the case is simply ignorant.

 

[Tosh5457]

No part of my argument is predicated on this claim. If you actually read the post I directed you towards (so hard right), instead of just pretending you know what it says, then you would already know this. Roughly 25% of math PhDs are women yet looking at schools like Harvard and UChicago reveals that fewer than 7% of senior faculty are women. To me that speaks to discrimination.

Please, have you investigated that further before making that bold claim that it must be discrimination?

I have not made the claim that this should be true. My whole argument is essentially just that prejudices against women still exist in the sciences. Not that (on average) men and women have equal abilities at this stuff. On the other hand, you did claim that men will always be overrepresented in the sciences and I am asking for justification for that opinion. As of yet it has not been delivered. Unless you count some possibly misogynistic grumblings about feminism of course.

Where did I say men will always be overrepresented in sciences?

 

[jgens]

Please, have you investigated that further before making that bold claim that it must be discrimination?

Depends on what counts as investigation. If you mean a scientific study on this exact situation or something of that nature, then of course not. But if that were your criteria, then you would also need to give up on the notion that affirmative action is definitely discriminatory against males. So what exactly constitutes "further investigation" here?

Where did I say men will always be overrepresented in sciences?

In post #27 you wrote "healthcare will always have more women and engineering-related courses will have more men." Perhaps you genuinely meant to restrict your statement solely to engineering and not more generally the sciences. In that case I do apologize for putting words in your mouth, but the sentiment still stands. So perhaps I should have written instead:

On the other hand, you did claim that men will always be overrepresented in engineering and I am asking for justification for that opinion. As of yet it has not been delivered. Unless you count some possibly misogynistic grumblings about feminism of course.

Is that better?

 

[jesse73]

Please, have you investigated that further before making that bold claim that it must be discrimination?

Think logically. Less than 2 generations ago there has been discrimination without a shadow of a doubt. Given that we know this effect was present 2 generations ago isn't it safe to assume it is still there until the data proves otherwise. This is especially true given how the indirect data like wages and employment rates are highly suggestive of it still being present in a less direct way.

If threw a dirty shirt in the hamper I wouldn't assume a month later that it is clean. You would assume it is in the state you left it (dirty) until it has been proven otherwise.

 

[Monique]

You didn't provide any evidence of such discrimination, the ratio not being close to 1:1 isn't evidence of discrimination.

Why should it be the case that every job should be balanced between men and women? The only thing that justifies it is an ideology, that says men and women should be equal in everything, an ideology that is spread by the feminist movement. Unfortunately that's not how reality is, you can't force reality to fit to your ideology of how things should be, that's just childish.

There are social studies show that gender discrimination does still exist, there have been several threads on this in the social sciences subforum.

 

[mfb]

No part of my argument is predicated on this claim. If you actually read the post I directed you towards (so hard right), instead of just pretending you know what it says, then you would already know this. Roughly 25% of math PhDs are women yet looking at schools like Harvard and UChicago reveals that fewer than 7% of senior faculty are women. To me that speaks to discrimination.

First, there are many reasons for this difference. Discrimination is one of them, but you can't just point to any difference and say "difference => discrimination!".

Second, don't forget time as an influence. We all agree that discrimination was significant in the past, and most current senior positions are occupied by people who got their PhDs some decades ago. What was the fraction of female PhDs back then?

Unfortunately reality is not this mystical fairy tail land where women in the STEM fields face no discrimination either. Pretending that is the case is simply ignorant.

The same is true for the other direction. What do we learn from that?

 

[jgens]

First, there are many reasons for this difference. Discrimination is one of them, but you can't just point to any difference and say "difference => discrimination!".

I agree with this. Which is why I did ask Tosh what was meant about "further investigation" because that is a legitimate question.

Second, don't forget time as an influence. We all agree that discrimination was significant in the past, and most current senior positions are occupied by people who got their PhDs some decades ago. What was the fraction of female PhDs back then?

I agree with this to a point. Both the schools I mentioned (Chicago and Harvard) turn over faculty quite quickly. In post #29 I estimated that roughly 50-75% of senior faculty at Chicago were hired in the last 10-15 years and that number completely ignores faculty that came and went during that time period. So they have ample hiring opportunity and bring in young talent for senior faculty positions with some frequency, yet only extraordinarily rarely are they women. As mentioned in one of my previous posts, the process for hiring new professors is no doubt complicated and there might not even be active discrimination against women here, but if the process itself disproportionately selects for qualified male candidates instead of qualified female candidates, then that is de facto discrimination.

The same is true for the other direction. What do we learn from that?

Reading back to post #28, for example, one can see I am obviously in agreement. There is a difference (to my knowledge) between discrimination men and women in STEM fields however. Whatever discrimination men face is usually artificial or, in other words, the result of affirmative action policies. Discrimination against women in these fields is more societally ingrained. There are social barriers women face even entering the fields and there are barriers in getting recognition and getting hired (whether by prejudice or flaw of process). Again which of these is worse probably depends largely on your perspective, but pretending discrimination is completely absent is ludicrous.

Edit: I am honestly disinterested in having this argument. Obviously Tosh and mfb should counter if they disagree with my points, just expect no response.

 

[Zarqon]

On the other hand, you did claim that men will always be overrepresented in engineering and I am asking for justification for that opinion. As of yet it has not been delivered. Unless you count some possibly misogynistic grumblings about feminism of course.

Let me try to answer that.

We know from statistics on personality types that there are clear differences in the personality type between men and women (note: large individual difference within each gender exists, but that does not prevent also average differences between genders from being present).

A good example is the 'T' variable in MBTI, i.e. a rational thinker type of person, which we know is a type that is heavily overrepresented in technical sciences like engineering/physics/mathematics. Statistics show that among men there are twice as many T as for women (see here for example).

This clearly explain why there would be an expected gender difference in the technical sciences even in a perfectly gender-unbiased society.

 

[Tosh5457]

Let me try to answer that.

We know from statistics on personality types that there are clear differences in the personality type between men and women (note: large individual difference within each gender exists, but that does not prevent also average differences between genders from being present).

A good example is the 'T' variable in MBTI, i.e. a rational thinker type of person, which we know is a type that is heavily overrepresented in technical sciences like engineering/physics/mathematics. Statistics show that among men there are twice as many T as for women (see here for example).

This clearly explain why there would be an expected gender difference in the technical sciences even in a perfectly gender-unbiased society.

Exactly.

Think logically. Less than 2 generations ago there has been discrimination without a shadow of a doubt. Given that we know this effect was present 2 generations ago isn't it safe to assume it is still there until the data proves otherwise. This is especially true given how the indirect data like wages and employment rates are highly suggestive of it still being present in a less direct way.

If threw a dirty shirt in the hamper I wouldn't assume a month later that it is clean. You would assume it is in the state you left it (dirty) until it has been proven otherwise.

You can't expect the ratios being close to 1:1 to say: Ok, there isn't discrimination anymore. You can wait and wait for that to happen in engineering and healthcare

 

[ZapperZ]

I have hesitated in participating in this thread, mainly because this topic HAS been discussed already a number of times. See, this one, for example

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=700359

First of all, let's be clear about a couple of things:

1. No one is advocating a 1:1 ratio of women to men in science/physics. In many of the issues I've read regarding women in science, I can't ever remember reading that this was the goal!

2. No one is arguing that men and women are the same! In fact, I would like to insist that, in many aspect beyond physiology, women and men SHOULD be different! This is not a bad thing, and in fact, it is a GOOD thing. If large groups of scientists from different parts of the world with different cultures, religions, social norms, etc. can work together and present various idea from different points of views, then having men and women who are different from each other is a strength! No one is trying to assimilate one into the other!

3. There aren't that many obvious, blatant discrimination anymore in many parts, and certainly, in the US and in many Western world, it is illegal to blatantly prevent a woman moving up the ladder in science just because she is a woman.

Now, having said all that, there ARE issues in the way science is done that hinders the progress and participation of women. These are not done on purpose, nor even done consciously. Since the practice of science and how it is done have been done throughout history by men, the system in place never accounts for the issues faced by women. In the link I gave above about a previous thread on this topic, there are several issues faced by women that are unique to them that aren't usually the burden of men in general.

One such example is family obligation. While this may not be that big of an issue in, say the US, women scientists in other parts of the world are faced with the social obligation of raising a family, regardless of her standing in the scientific world. A man can just pick up and go to attend a conference, a woman can't do that that easily. Still, if you read the account giving in the links in my post, you'll see that even women here in the US continue to feel that family obligation, that they do not have the same freedom as men to simply pick up and spend, say, 2 weeks at CERN during a run.

Not being able to do all these, or not being able to do these as often, can have an affect on one's scientific career. Again, these are not something that are consciously done to prevent women from going further in science. It is just part of an established system that never had to consider the needs of women before. And recognizing that is the first step in trying to remedy the situation.

I'm not in the mood to force someone into science or to shove someone in who doesn't belong. However, I also feel that it is a shame if talented people, be it men or women, don't go into science, and especially physics, just because of other extraneous circumstances. It is especially sad if they are driven away simply because we didn't recognize the barriers we unconsciously put in front of them. It is a waste of potential talent!

To read my opinion about one of the latest statistical analysis of women faculty members done by the AIP, go here.

Zz.

 

[jgens]

I swore off participating further, but this example is so silly.

A good example is the 'T' variable in MBTI, i.e. a rational thinker type of person, which we know is a type that is heavily overrepresented in technical sciences like engineering/physics/mathematics.
Statistics show that among men there are twice as many T as for women (see here for example).

The first problem with the MBTI test is that "types" are roughly normally distributed i.e. they bunch up around the middle. So while the peak for men on the Feeling/Thinking scale is skewed more towards the "Thinking" end than for women, the sheer breakdown between number of men with the "Thinking" trait and number of women with the "Thinking" trait exacerbates the real difference.

The second issue here is that men and women are socialized to think about themselves differently. Since the test depends wholly on self-perception, and since women on the whole are societally taught they are less rational and more emotional (while men are taught the opposite), my concern is that the existing difference on the Feeling/Thinking scale is more a product of the status quo than an intrinsic personality difference.

This clearly explain why there would be an expected gender difference in the technical sciences even in a perfectly gender-unbiased society.

This is not so clear in my opinion. Certainly there are genuine personality differences between men and women (on average), but whether this particular test is good at detecting them is genuinely dubious.

 

[jesse73]

I have hesitated in participating in this thread, mainly because this topic HAS been discussed already a number of times. See, this one, for example

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=700359

First of all, let's be clear about a couple of things:

1. No one is advocating a 1:1 ratio of women to men in science/physics. In many of the issues I've read regarding women in science, I can't ever remember reading that this was the goal!

2. No one is arguing that men and women are the same! In fact, I would like to insist that, in many aspect beyond physiology, women and men SHOULD be different! This is not a bad thing, and in fact, it is a GOOD thing. If large groups of scientists from different parts of the world with different cultures, religions, social norms, etc. can work together and present various idea from different points of views, then having men and women who are different from each other is a strength! No one is trying to assimilate one into the other!

Agree especially with these 2 points

 

[StatGuy2000]

I swore off participating further, but this example is so silly.



The first problem with the MBTI test is that "types" are roughly normally distributed i.e. they bunch up around the middle. So while the peak for men on the Feeling/Thinking scale is skewed more towards the "Thinking" end than for women, the sheer breakdown between number of men with the "Thinking" trait and number of women with the "Thinking" trait exacerbates the real difference.

The second issue here is that men and women are socialized to think about themselves differently. Since the test depends wholly on self-perception, and since women on the whole are societally taught they are less rational and more emotional (while men are taught the opposite), my concern is that the existing difference on the Feeling/Thinking scale is more a product of the status quo than an intrinsic personality difference.



This is not so clear in my opinion. Certainly there are genuine personality differences between men and women (on average), but whether this particular test is good at detecting them is genuinely dubious.

I completely agree with all of the points raised by jgens. It is indeed true that the "types" as defined in the MBTI psychometric test are roughly normally distributed so you would expect to see considerable overlap between men and women on the different "types".

Further, tests based on self-perception as above are frequently subject to bias (in this case due to cultural norms), and thus validity and reliability of the test in detecting personality differences may well be suspect.

 

[ZapperZ]

This latest study examines the differences that led some women to choose one area of physical science over another, especially in comparison on why certain women will choose chemistry over physics, for example.

http://prst-per.aps.org/abstract/PRSTPER/v10/i1/e010104

The paper should be available for free.

Zz.

 

[AlephZero]

From ZZ's study, above:

Results indicate that females who have negative undergraduate chemistry experiences as well as higher grades and positive experiences in undergraduate physics are more likely to pursue a career in physics as opposed to chemistry.

Well, who would have guessed that? [/IRONY]

And why would you expect males to behave any differently (unless males make irrational decisions, of course).

 

[D H]

(unless males make irrational decisions, of course).

Of course not!

There's even a show on MTV dedicated almost exclusively to the entirely rational decisions made by teenage boys and young adult men. "Could something bad result if I jumped off this building? Who cares? YOLO!" You don't see many females on that show making such perfectly rational decisions.

[/sarcasm]

 

[Chronos]

There is one factor that probably impedes women's success more than any other - not just in science, but, in most career paths - and that is risk aversion. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...y-risk-taking-leads-to-success_n_3749425.html for discussion. Incidentally, the article was written by a woman.

 

[Pythagorean]

Interestingly, that article points out that the alleged tendency for women to not take risks is not biological, but a product of nurture. I perceive that as support of the idea that it's a man's world and we would need policy (or some other major social game changer) if the goal is to overcome the impedance to success for women.

On the other hand, I think a bigger impedance to people's success and ability to take risk is poverty. A woman born into a rich family has many more opportunities than a man born into poverty and can take many more risks exploring those opportunities.

 

[jesse73]

There is one factor that probably impedes women's success more than any other - not just in science, but, in most career paths - and that is risk aversion. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...y-risk-taking-leads-to-success_n_3749425.html for discussion. Incidentally, the article was written by a woman.

I am assuming you have taken a science course given that you are on this forum and appeal to your scientific sensibilities in pointing out that that article is an op-ed piece with no data outside of a few anecdotes from some female CEO's except for the the beginning of the second paragraph which contradicts your bolded statement.

But the idea that women are biologically risk-averse is a myth.

which link to these articles which claim that women don't take less risk than men especially when you account for leverage on that risk.
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/11/why-women-dont-take-risks-with-their-money/265224/
http://www.simmons.edu/overview/about/news/press/820.php

The huffinton post article seems to not do a great job of describing the articles it links which means that it is a good idea to actually read the articles or study it links to.

 

[jesse73]

From ZZ's study, above:Well, who would have guessed that? [/IRONY]

And why would you expect males to behave any differently (unless males make irrational decisions, of course).

Agree that paper isn't that insightful since their conclusion applies to anyone. They should of done the same thing for males and then compared but likely it would be the same thing so they wouldn't have much of a paper.

 

[Chronos]

I never said women were biologically risk aversive, so where is the perceived contradiction?

 

[ainster31]

First of all, let's be clear about a couple of things:

1. No one is advocating a 1:1 ratio of women to men in science/physics. In many of the issues I've read regarding women in science, I can't ever remember reading that this was the goal!

2. No one is arguing that men and women are the same! In fact, I would like to insist that, in many aspect beyond physiology, women and men SHOULD be different! This is not a bad thing, and in fact, it is a GOOD thing. If large groups of scientists from different parts of the world with different cultures, religions, social norms, etc. can work together and present various idea from different points of views, then having men and women who are different from each other is a strength! No one is trying to assimilate one into the other!

Do people actually agree with this or is this just your opinion? Maybe this is because I am from Canada and as a result of the political atmosphere in Canada, this is exactly what I hear people advocate. More than once, I've heard that the only difference between men and women are their genitals. I tell them that this isn't scientifically true and I get called sexist. Admittedly, it probably is my cognitive bias that makes me focus on the idiots.