Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Submit your paper to J Biol Methods today!
Photo
- - - - -

male/female ratio


  • Please log in to reply
98 replies to this topic

#46 toejam

toejam

    Guitar Hero

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 159 posts
15
Good

Posted 21 April 2009 - 02:14 AM

i'd say for the quality of their research rather than their gender.


Does this mean people often look at gender before looking at the quality of work? :) :P


what i meant is that because there are fewer women it is easier to recognize their names (at least in some areas).
"When there's no more room in hell the dead will walk the Earth"

#47 Telomerase

Telomerase

    Evil Incarnate

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 31 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 21 April 2009 - 10:49 AM

(With apologies to Bill Bryson for my misquoting)
Science was able to make great progress in the 20th century because sexism ensured that at least half of its’ best and brightest talent was retained at the ‘lab bench’ where the useful work was done. :wacko:


I've seen young women with spunk being put down in the lab until they "get" their place. Had my share of it. I have still much more doubt about myself, hesitate more, speak less directly and with me, it is definitely learned, because naturally I was always impulsive and a bit tomboyish. In some places, PI's still train women to listen to orders, and they speak on the equal basis with guys. It's so subconcious I swear sometimes I wish I punch those people, or do anything else to make them realize. Hadn't I change the lab, I'd probably get myself in the situation of one young female assistant professor, who was in fact a puppet of the old prof, and in the conference, he started to answer the questions at HER OWN PRESENTATION, not letting the woman speak. I am not there anymore, thanks heavens!

Pretty ones have it even worse! How many times I've seen the reaction... What was this lady with nice bosom speaking... what, what cloning? Wait, is she really smart, because she's too blonde to look like one? :rolleyes: I avoid dressing nice at the lab.

Edited by Telomerase, 21 April 2009 - 10:49 AM.

"Beware the power of a PhD student" - scolix

#48 leevonk

leevonk

    member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 04 July 2009 - 07:39 PM

100% male a the moment
(7)

little sickening

#49 GeorgeWolff

GeorgeWolff

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 294 posts
1
Neutral

Posted 05 July 2009 - 03:37 AM

Is the purpose of science to produce sound and novel observations and advance understanding of the special area or serve what some might see as poltical correctness in a balance of men and women in the lab? If we presumed the former as primary goal - is it best served by accomodations made for maternity?

As for stats - there are clearly more girls in te nation's science fairs and, as they progress, more at most professional meetings. Suggest that fewer at the prof rank (and I'm not familair with the stats there) is prob not due to maternity limitations because there are so many accomodations.

#50 casandra

casandra

    carpe diem by the jugulum

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,035 posts
57
Excellent

Posted 05 July 2009 - 02:42 PM

Is the purpose of science to produce sound and novel observations and advance understanding of the special area or serve what some might see as poltical correctness in a balance of men and women in the lab? If we presumed the former as primary goal - is it best served by accomodations made for maternity?

Hi George,

If this will provide more opportunities and make it easier for women who’d like to contribute to achieve this purpose, why not? I know this sense of entitlement grates but only if we’re living in a just world that there is no need for it. If women demand for equal opportunity, then would you say we’re not entitled to it?

Besides, I wonder what you’d include in these “many accommodations” but, ok….granted we now have legal recourse against sexism, paid parental leave, better salaries for women (although disparities still occur), subsidised daycare systems etc. but what about subtle forms of sexism that still exist? An employer who’s trying to choose between two equally qualified applicants but one’s a female in her child-bearing years, who’d get the job? And the same with job promotions.

Oftentimes, it’s the women themselves who put up the barriers…. How many women PhD or postdoc students get pregnant while in the experimentation stage of their theses? Can you imagine the paperwork/hassle that they and the PI have to go through so they can continue working in the lab? No acrylamide, no radioactivity, no solvent esp DMSO etc., they must replan their work schedule throughout the duration of the pregnancy and it’s not only them but the entire lab is also affected. Then not to mention all the physical and physiological changes...So having children is always a very difficult decision and no wonder it’s always postponed for much later and sometimes, already too late. Would it then be fair to say that men don’t go through this same difficult decision making?

How often do we hear that guys have a hard time choosing between family and career? Or have a ticking biological clock? ;) And when the child arrives, more often than not, who’d be taking care more of it? Whose priorities are going to change? Science or at least research would lose a lot of these talented women if the working environment and esp the bosses/PIs would not be equally supportive…and if we have to count on this “entitlement” I ask again, why not?
"Oh what a beauteousness!"
- hobglobin, personal comment about my beauteous photo......

#51 GeorgeWolff

GeorgeWolff

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 294 posts
1
Neutral

Posted 08 July 2009 - 01:42 AM

"Science was able to make great progress in the 20th century because sexism ensured that at least half of its’ best and brightest talent was retained at the ‘lab bench’ where the useful work was done."

Prove it.

#52 casandra

casandra

    carpe diem by the jugulum

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,035 posts
57
Excellent

Posted 08 July 2009 - 11:55 AM

"Science was able to make great progress in the 20th century because sexism ensured that at least half of its’ best and brightest talent was retained at the ‘lab bench’ where the useful work was done."

Prove it.

Who said this? the radical feminists? and the meaning is not very clear and sounds even sarcastic....is it sexism or laws againts sexism? and who're the best and brightest left on the bench? the women after the men had been "promoted" to managerial/PI position instead of still doing the actual hands- on labour or or is it vice versa? we need the original article George....and what do you want proven? that women scientists had indeed contributed to the progeress of science in the 20th century?

PS...found the Bill Bryson (mis) quote in this thread...perhaps DRT can link us from which article/source it was taken from.........

Edited by casandra, 08 July 2009 - 12:37 PM.

"Oh what a beauteousness!"
- hobglobin, personal comment about my beauteous photo......

#53 DRT

DRT

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 162 posts
7
Neutral

Posted 08 July 2009 - 07:35 PM

Or perhaps I should just shoot myself in the foot and retire witless from the debate before I get killed.
The misquote comes from “A short history of nearly everything”. Bill Bryson was referring to a specific discovery (I forget which) so the generalisation is mine; made after an irritable week taking a visiting postdoc through some assays while his wife, who was obviously more talented and asked all the relevant questions, was taking the backseat to her husband’s career :P . I think it is more ironic than sarcastic, the general theme of the book seemed to be.... if you want to do great science don’t get promoted.

#54 casandra

casandra

    carpe diem by the jugulum

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,035 posts
57
Excellent

Posted 08 July 2009 - 07:50 PM

Or perhaps I should just shoot myself in the foot and retire witless from the debate before I get killed.
The misquote comes from “A short history of nearly everything”. Bill Bryson was referring to a specific discovery (I forget which) so the generalisation is mine; made after an irritable week taking a visiting postdoc through some assays while his wife, who was obviously more talented and asked all the relevant questions, was taking the backseat to her husband’s career :P . I think it is more ironic than sarcastic, the general theme of the book seemed to be.... if you want to do great science don’t get promoted.

Don't shoot yourself yet DRT, cos you've got some proving to do :D ...of course now it's more obvious the ironic tone. But I guess this theme of not getting promoted is not gender-related, eh? So how could you get us all excited about this...he probably didn't even pinpoint that it was a women's issue....
"Oh what a beauteousness!"
- hobglobin, personal comment about my beauteous photo......

#55 leelee

leelee

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 652 posts
53
Excellent

Posted 08 July 2009 - 07:51 PM

So let me ask you two things, GeorgeWolff

1. Do you think that women are inferior scientists to men?

2. Do you think being a parent makes a person an inferior scientist?

#56 GeorgeWolff

GeorgeWolff

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 294 posts
1
Neutral

Posted 09 July 2009 - 01:31 AM

I understand you can't answer the question.

Oh, and to your suggested ad hominem:

1) I don't care.
and
2) I don't care.

Edited by GeorgeWolff, 09 July 2009 - 01:52 AM.


#57 casandra

casandra

    carpe diem by the jugulum

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,035 posts
57
Excellent

Posted 09 July 2009 - 11:14 AM

huh? C'mon George...leelee didn't use any ad homs...her questions are fair......but had she called you a sexist, misogynist, male chauvinist dinosaur then you can cry fowl... :) she didn't...you're the first one to ask for proof and now suddenly you don't care......let's all lighten up and cool down.....there should be stats on this...I'm gonna check out the women's sites- they should be very unbiased... ;)

Edited by casandra, 09 July 2009 - 11:19 AM.

"Oh what a beauteousness!"
- hobglobin, personal comment about my beauteous photo......

#58 DRT

DRT

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 162 posts
7
Neutral

Posted 09 July 2009 - 05:18 PM

Don't shoot yourself yet DRT, cos you've got some proving to do :blink: ...of course now it's more obvious the ironic tone. But I guess this theme of not getting promoted is not gender-related, eh? So how could you get us all excited about this...he probably didn't even pinpoint that it was a women's issue....


Found the original. Fancy sending me off to find the library; that large empty building that no one uses any more. :wacko:

pg 116
“Hubble's luck was to come along soon after an ingenious woman named Henrietta Swan Leavitt had figured out a way to find [pulsating stares]. Leavitt worked at the Harvard College Observatory as a computer, as they were known. Computers spent their lives studying photographic plates of stars and making computations - hence the name. It was little more than drudgery by another name, but it was as close as women could get to real astronomy at Harvard – or indeed, pretty much anywhere - in those days. The system, however unfair, did have certain unexpected benefits: it meant that half the finest minds available were directed to work that would otherwise have attracted little reflective attention and it ensured that women ended up with an appreciation of the fine structure of the cosmos that often eluded their male counterparts.”

#59 leelee

leelee

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 652 posts
53
Excellent

Posted 09 July 2009 - 05:51 PM

I can't see how anything in my post was a personal attack against you, GeorgeWolff, as casandra said, they were fair and genuine questions. However, if you misunderstood the tone of my post, then for that I apologise.

#60 casandra

casandra

    carpe diem by the jugulum

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,035 posts
57
Excellent

Posted 09 July 2009 - 07:25 PM

Don't shoot yourself yet DRT, cos you've got some proving to do :lol: ...of course now it's more obvious the ironic tone. But I guess this theme of not getting promoted is not gender-related, eh? So how could you get us all excited about this...he probably didn't even pinpoint that it was a women's issue....


Found the original. Fancy sending me off to find the library; that large empty building that no one uses any more. :blink:

pg 116
“Hubble's luck was to come along soon after an ingenious woman named Henrietta Swan Leavitt had figured out a way to find [pulsating stares]. Leavitt worked at the Harvard College Observatory as a computer, as they were known. Computers spent their lives studying photographic plates of stars and making computations - hence the name. It was little more than drudgery by another name, but it was as close as women could get to real astronomy at Harvard – or indeed, pretty much anywhere - in those days. The system, however unfair, did have certain unexpected benefits: it meant that half the finest minds available were directed to work that would otherwise have attracted little reflective attention and it ensured that women ended up with an appreciation of the fine structure of the cosmos that often eluded their male counterparts.”

So you got the book...hmm... I must commend you then for a job well done...actually, I think that the library is now the place to be if you wanna get a decent or shld I say power nap...thanks DRT....and he was indeed referring to women as the half with the finest minds..hah...that's not new... :wacko: ....so what were the guys doing while the women were engaged in such tedious computational tasks?
"Oh what a beauteousness!"
- hobglobin, personal comment about my beauteous photo......




Home - About - Terms of Service - Privacy - Contact Us

©1999-2013 Protocol Online, All rights reserved.