94 replies to this topic

[GeorgeWolff]

"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.

[casandra]

GeorgeWolff, on Jul 8 2009, 05:42 AM, said:

"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.

[DRT]

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 . 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.

[casandra]

DRT, on Jul 8 2009, 11:35 PM, said:

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 . 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 ...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....

[leelee]

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?

[GeorgeWolff]

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.

[casandra]

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.

[DRT]

casandra, on Jul 9 2009, 01:50 PM, said:

Don't shoot yourself yet DRT, cos you've got some proving to do ...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.

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.”

[leelee]

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.

[casandra]

DRT, on Jul 9 2009, 09:18 PM, said:

casandra, on Jul 9 2009, 01:50 PM, said:

Don't shoot yourself yet DRT, cos you've got some proving to do ...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.

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... ....so what were the guys doing while the women were engaged in such tedious computational tasks?

[DRT]

casandra, on Jul 10 2009, 01:25 PM, said:

....so what were the guys doing while the women were engaged in such tedious computational tasks?

In the library??
Remember the time when researching a topic involved looking up the index of every journal in turn.

[GeorgeWolff]

Wrong casandra - leelee's question were pure ad hominem - ignoring the question (for which data could have been offereed pro or con) and probing the nature of the questioner. Her comments were a whining demonstration of female chauvinism and no more justified than the opposite. I'll ask if leelee wouldn't rather be barefoot and pregnant and if she thinks women can compete in the lab and then suggest we all "lighten up" after the usual distaff outrage.

[casandra]

GeorgeWolff, on Jul 10 2009, 07:28 AM, said:

Wrong casandra - leelee's question were pure ad hominem - ignoring the question (for which data could have been offereed pro or con) and probing the nature of the questioner. Her comments were a whining demonstration of female chauvinism and no more justified than the opposite. I'll ask if leelee wouldn't rather be barefoot and pregnant and if she thinks women can compete in the lab and then suggest we all "lighten up" after the usual distaff outrage.

Hi George....if it's just probing/divining the other's intent- that's still not considered ad hom and esp not "pure"....it could even provide a backdrop for the discussion itself...besides, you also ignored her questions so would you admit committing the same fallacy...perhaps it would be better if you make clear your position on this and hence justify your asking her/us to prove that the women scientists had indeed contributed to the progress of science (or not, as also implied by your tone and line of questioning)...or are you one of these guys who's just interested in having an argument for the pure art of argumentation and not really on the position/side of the fence one is in?

[GeorgeWolff]

It's ad hominem as it questions motivation of the individual asking the question without addressing it in the least manner - as is your "one of those guys" who enjoys argument for argument sake.

Again - I asked for proof that the following was true.
"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."

Seeing nothing but ad hominem responses from the distaff side, I'll close my participation in this discusion.

[casandra]

GeorgeWolff, on Jul 11 2009, 10:58 AM, said:

It's ad hominem as it questions motivation of the individual asking the question without addressing it in the least manner - as is your "one of those guys" who enjoys argument for argument sake.

Again - I asked for proof that the following was true.
"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."

Seeing nothing but ad hominem responses from the distaff side, I'll close my participation in this discusion.

But what exactly was your participation, if I may ask, without being accused of resorting to ad hom ...to ask us to prove what was not even claimed by any of us but was quoted from Bryson? And when leelee asked you questions in return
(just so you can clarify your position), you then refused on the ground that she used ad hom? And I had to google what "distaff" meant- really George...you're such a picky customer ....this is not exactly to prove anything but it is an interesting read..a bit dated too but at least it has some stats that can be checked out...job discrimination.....there's something there about women in science and technology...