I agree with him when he says sexism exists in academia. Absolutely. It's just not the sexism he thinks. Seriously? Has he browsed a course/major catalog?

Well, if you have images that are unrelated to the subject of the website, then yes, you not would be taken seriously. However, if your website or article is about Pikachu or Hello Kitty, then you would be. Common business and marketing sense really. Like having pictures of garden tools for the background of an online laptop store.

what great benefits have accrued to mankind ( er person kind) from research by wimyn not the tomes of twaddle as in the Hite Report but something as invention of penicillin or the cracking of the DNA code or Tesla's genius in radio science

Quote from FloatyBoaty

Well, if you have images that are unrelated to the subject of the website, then yes, you not would be taken seriously. However, if your website or article is about Pikachu or Hello Kitty, then you would be. Common business and marketing sense really. Like having pictures of garden tools for the background of an online laptop store.

Yeah, I meant your website related to physics.

Quote from shaazam

what great benefits have accrued to mankind ( er person kind) from research by wimyn not the tomes of twaddle as in the Hite Report but something as invention of penicillin or the cracking of the DNA code or Tesla's genius in radio science

Slightly unrelated, but how long before feminists bitch about the phrase "father time," despite the obvious problem of there being mother nature....

Shaazam: What great contributions to science did negro slaves make before Emancipation? All of the discoveries you mentioned occurred when women were still fighting for equal rights and did not have the same opportunities in education and men's fields (science, engineering, law). You cited discovers that occurred when women were commonly excluded from scientific discourse, when their articles were turned down from peer-reviewed journals, when women had to fight just to get into schools like Harvard.

Additionally, your ignorance of women's discoveries doesn't mean they did not occur: Women in science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note particularly who provided the research and observations that allowed Watson & Crick to discover DNA.

Marie Skłodowska-Curie, the first woman to win a Nobel prize in 1903 (physics), went on to become a double Nobel prize winner in 1911 (chemistry), both for her work onradiation.

In 1901 Annie Jump Cannon first noticed that it was a star's temperature that was the principal distinguishing feature among different spectra.

To his credit, Hubble himself often said that Leavitt deserved the Nobel for her work.^[35]Gösta Mittag-Leffler of the Swedish Academy of Sciences had begun paperwork on her nomination in 1924, only to learn that she had died of cancer three years earlier^[36] (the Nobel prize cannot be awarded posthumously).

In 1925, Harvard graduate student Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin demonstrated for the first time from existing evidence on the spectra of stars that stars were made up almost exclusively of hydrogen and helium, one of the most fundamental theories in stellar astrophysics.

French virologist Françoise Barré-Sinoussi performed some of the fundamental work in the identification of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) as the cause of AIDS, for which she shared the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

Rosalind Franklin was a crystallographer, whose work helped to elucidate the fine structures of coal, graphite, DNA and viruses. In 1953, the work she did on DNA allowed Watson and Crick to conceive their model of the structure of DNA. She could not share the Nobel prize with Crick, Watson and Wilkins because of her premature death.

Irène Joliot-Curie, daughter of Marie Curie, won the 1935 Nobel Prize for chemistry with her husband Frédéric Joliot for their work in radioactive isotopes leading to nuclear fission.

Maria Goeppert-Mayer was the second female Nobel Prize winner in Physics, for proposing the nuclear shell model of the atomic nucleus.

Deborah S. Jin's team at JILA, in Boulder, Colorado in 2003 produced the first fermionic condensate, a new state of matter.

Stephanie Kwolek, a researcher at DuPont, invented poly-paraphenylene terephtalamide — better known as Kevlar.

Is it just me, or does it seem like the "great discoveries" women made were mostly just looking over data? Not like they had some brilliant insight like Einstein, Dirac, or Feynman. (Save for Emmy Noether.)

And actually, didn't they hire the woma/en who discovered the main sequence scaling relation because women were paid less?

Isn't that what most male scientists do as well?

Is there a woman on the planet who could create a unifying theory and have males worldwide accept that a genius level she-monster with ovaries ordained it?

She'd have to use a male pseudonym, just like most female writers once had to do to be respected as authors. (Though Stephanie Meyer and whoever wrote that Fifty Shades of Gray drivel should make females consider pen names again-- that crap is embarrassing.)

I am not implying that there is an intentional bias in science, there definitely is not (it has been scientifically proven!), but there is still a bias against viewing women as brilliant.

CONSIDER: Why are none of the scientists that you list a minority of color? Does that mean people of a certain skin color are inherently better suited to science than those who are not represented in the hallowed halls of scientific genius? Does cultural privilege really have ZERO influence on success in society?

POINT: If it were a level playing field then lack of representation wold be proof of inability and not lack of opportunity. Consider that women were legal chattel long after slavery was abolished and were not allowed to vote for almost 50 years after in the U.S.)

Quote from Eidolon

Isn't that what most male scientists do as well?

Yes, but my point is, it seems like all the supposedly great female scientists didn't actually have to be that smart.

Is there a woman on the planet who could create a unifying theory and have males worldwide accept that a genius level she-monster with ovaries ordained it?

She'd have to use a male pseudonym, just like most female writers once had to do to be respected as authors. (Though Stephanie Meyer and whoever wrote that Fifty Shades of Gray drivel should make females consider pen names again-- that crap is embarrassing.)

I dunno how she'd verify it given the energy scales but, yeah, I'd accept that, and so would every other scientist, male or female.

I am not implying that there is an intentional bias in science, there definitely is not (it has been scientifically proven!), but there is still a bias against viewing women as brilliant.

I credited Emmy Noether in my above post....

CONSIDER: Why are none of the scientists that you list a minority of color? Does that mean people of a certain skin color are inherently better suited to science than those who are not represented in the hallowed halls of scientific genius? Does cultural privilege really have ZERO influence on success in society?

Tomonaga (he was Japanese) also did some work on renormalization in QED. Nambu, who did a lot of work on the Higgs mechanicsm and spontaneous symmetry breaking, won the Nobel prize. (He also proposed color charge.) The Nambu-Goto action in String theory is named after him, and it's arguably string theory's most fundamental equation.

POINT: If it were a level playing field then lack of representation wold be proof of inability and not lack of opportunity. Consider that women were legal chattel long after slavery was abolished and were not allowed to vote for almost 50 years after in the U.S.)

Well they've been pushing "women in science" since ~1960 and so far not much has happened. What's the obvious conclusion?

Man, it's scary to think how long they're going to keep pushing this and how far they're going to go before they come to the obvious (but politically incorrect) conclusion.

John: I responded to shazaam who seemed ignorant that women contributed anything but offspring to this planet. Obviously they've made some contributions. From the way you are painting it, it also seems that most male research scientists haven't actually had to be "that smart." But a few male geniuses sure give them all a good name and validate their entire gender in the sciences.

Do I point out that Tomonaga wasn't an oppressed minority living in a society where he faced stigma for his race/gender? When he was born, Japanese men were not marginalized based on their race, they were masters of their domain in Japan, and in fact, saw themselves as noble and racially superior to other nations. They viewed Westerners as barbarians.

How many black male scientists do you consider as "smart" in countries where black men were formerly slaves and faced continued prejudice after emancipation? Should we re-institute slavery because there haven't been enough black Einsteins & Feynmans after 150 years?

Shall we compare the number of years each race and gender has had social opportunity to advance in the sciences by the number of geniuses that resulted? Shall we say "men were been in charge for thousands of years yet only produced a handful of brilliant scientists!" Or rather should we estimate the total number of male researchers throughout history and comparing that to the number of resulting male geniuses?

"They" were "pushing" women in science in the 1960s but there was still a huge disparity in terms of actual numbers of women in science. My mother was second in her class for chemistry but she her instructor told her not take advanced courses because they were for "men" with an additional quip that she would be off having children (early 1970s). And while in certain countries, like the U.S.A, there is equal number of men and women graduating in the sciences, there is still a global disparity:

UNESCO figures reveal that in 121 countries with available data, women comprise 29 percent of researchers but there were big disparities among regions. For example, in Latin America and the
Caribbean, 46 percent of researchers are female and Argentina, Cuba, Brazil, Paraguay and
Venezuela have achieved gender parity. In Asia, women constitute only 18 percent of
researchers overall. India and Japan have 13 percent female researchers and South Korea has 15
percent. In Africa women comprised about 33 percent of researchers (UNESCO 2009).
In Europe, women comprise 29 percent of S&T researchers. They also comprise 29 percent of
those employed as scientists and engineers across the EU, but the growth rate in their
participation between 1998 and 2004 was lower than that of men (European Commission 2006).

Would you say that black men are unfit for political roles since there has only been one black President in history of the United States? Why are you drawing broad assumptions based on a very limited data set?

Eidolon, as the proud father of a daughter with an interest in science, I'm with you all the way. Thanks for taking the time to provide such a complete and reasoned response. I don't really think there's much room for serious argument.

People! I'm not saying we deny women the opportunity to study science, I'm saying we accept that, on the average, men are more likely to be capable of doing science than women are, and we should stop hiring inferior women just so that science is 50% male, 50% female to please the feminists.

Quote from John

People! I'm not saying we deny women the opportunity to study science, I'm saying we accept that, on the average, men are more likely to be capable of doing science than women are, and we should stop hiring inferior women just so that science is 50% male, 50% female to please the feminists.

Women can make great assistants though... ;-)

Quote from John

People! I'm not saying we deny women the opportunity to study science, I'm saying we accept that, on the average, men are more likely to be capable of doing science than women are, and we should stop hiring inferior women just so that science is 50% male, 50% female to please the feminists.

Hear what you're saying.
My kids are in Filipino schools and posters of "Famous Filipino Scientists" are posted on the walls. Every man-jack worked in a western university and usually as a team-member. I'm all for nation-building but claiming artificial kudos is highly suspect.

I have a very bright, pretty and extrovert daughter. Her mother thinks she should be an actress. I would like her to be a lawyer or doctor.
But if she turned out to be a just good mother of an intelligent brood (male and female) of curious kids, I wouldn't be disappointed.

Would you cosplay to a business meeting? I'm also with John on this one. There are many females who make great scientists but realistically men outnumber them so trying to get a 50/50 workplace either means that the industry needs to be shrunk, or unqualified females are hired into science positions, or more women are forced to go into a career they didn't want to go into...