Crime Particles For Justice: Sexism, Gender & Physics

MVelsor

~ Work of the Gods ~
Banned
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Messages
2,733
Reaction score
1,700
The Italian physicist Alessandro Strumia's paper concluding that female physicists don’t face more career obstacles than their male colleagues has been accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed journal QSS (Quantitative Science Studies) and is almost certain to spark more outrage. It can be read here (pdf) and I have to say, I agree with every god damn word of it. Heh, kidding. Kind of.

If you'll recall...

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/science-environment-47478537

CERN Cuts Ties With 'Sexist' Scientist Alessandro Strumia

The European particle physics research centre CERN has cut ties with the scientist who said that women were less able at physics than men. It has decided not to extend Professor Alessandro Strumia’s status of guest professor. The decision follows an investigation into comments, first reported by BBC News, made by Professor Strumia at a CERN workshop on gender equality. Strumia told BBC News that he stood by his remarks.

"Some people hated hearing about higher male variance: this idea comes from Darwin, like other offensive ideas that got observational support," he told BBC News. "Science is not about being offended when facts challenge ideas held as sacred". He added that he believed that he had not been fairly treated.

Last September, Professor Strumia stated that “physics was invented and built by men, it's not by invitation" at a presentation at the CERN the workshop [on "gender and high energy physics"]. He also showed cartoons deriding women campaigning for equality in science and presented the results of an analysis that he claimed showed that work conducted by female physicists was not as good as their male counterparts.


Was CERN correct to cut ties with him? :confused:
 
An all-time survey conducted by Physics World.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/541840.stm

01. Albert Einstein
02. Isaac Newton
03. James Clerk Maxwell
04. Niels Bohr
05. Werner Heisenberg
06. Galileo Galilei
07. Richard Feynman
08. Paul Dirac (tie)
08. Erwin Schrödinger (tie)
10. Ernest Rutherford


I disagree strongly with it.

Of course, I'm not remotely in any position to criticize but I think it's nonsense and find "guys like Bohr" relatively overrated. His most significant contribution was a theoretical model of how electrons (discovered by JJ Thomson) orbit a positively charged nucleus (discovered by Ernest Rutherford) based on Max Planck's quantum theory of radiation (the origin) and was rendered obsolete within less than a decade. All of the aforementioned remain fundamental.

There were two different iterations of quantum mechanics when it was established: matrix mechanics (Werner Heisenberg) and wave mechanics (Erwin Schrödinger). The QM used today predominantly utilizes the wavefunction in the latter's equation to describe fundamental forces and subatomic particles and is considered the F=ma of quantum mechanics. Heisenberg has actually become better known for the contribution of the Uncertainty Principle.

It was Paul Dirac that showed matrix and wave mechanics to be mathematically equivalent although he's much better known for reconciling quantum mechanics with special relativity which predicted the existence of antimatter, was the first step towards the advent of Quantum Field Theory and thus, ultimately the Standard Model.

I'd probably have it something along these lines if you're going to try and "rate" physicists.

01. Sir Isaac Newton
02. Albert Einstein
03. James Clerk Maxwell
04. Michael Faraday
05. Erwin Schrödinger
06. Werner Heisenberg
07. Paul Dirac
08. Ernest Rutherford
09. JJ Thomson
10. Max Planck

8177246310_ebf4e4e05e.jpg
 
https://www.phys.org/news/2018-02-countries-greater-gender-equality-percentage.html

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797617741719?journalCode=pssa

Countries with greater gender equality see a smaller proportion of women taking degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), a new study has found. Policymakers could use the findings to reconsider initiatives to increase women's participation in STEM, say the researchers.

Dubbed the 'gender equality paradox', the research found that countries such as Albania and Algeria have a greater percentage of women amongst their STEM graduates than countries lauded for their high levels of gender equality, such as Finland, Norway or Sweden.


The researchers, from Leeds Beckett University in the UK and the University of Missouri in the USA, believe this might be because countries with less gender equality often have little welfare support, making the choice of a relatively highly-paid STEM career more attractive.

The study, published in Psychological Science, also looked at what might motivate girls and boys to choose to study STEM subjects, including overall ability, interest or enjoyment in the subject and whether science subjects were a personal academic strength.


Using data on 475,000 adolescents across 67 countries or regions, the researchers found that while boys' and girls' achievement in STEM subjects was broadly similar, science was more likely to be boys' best subject. Girls, even when their ability in science equalled or excelled that of boys, were often likely to be better overall in reading comprehension, which relates to higher ability in non-STEM subjects. Girls also tended to register a lower interest in science subjects. These differences were near-universal across all the countries and regions studied.

imrs.php
 
Women probably fall faster because of smaller surface area and less wind resistance
 
Yes, it's borderline criminal how the scientific community so readily accepts women.

I don't have a comment on the story itself, but the "crime" tag got a laugh out of me.
 
Yes, it's borderline criminal how the scientific community so readily accepts women.

I don't have a comment on the story itself, but the "crime" tag got a laugh out of me.

I only weigh in here with a measly bio-chem BSc and don't presently work in it, but the temperament of women in the lab and their ability to deal with criticism is fine for the most part IMO. I don't know why they aren't particularly well represented in physics but that isn't down to bias or discrimination, it's a just a ridiculously abstract field.

They've tended to fare much better in the life sciences, particularly microbiology for some reason from what I've seen. Female representation in the biological sciences is really quite good: In the US, 60% of undergrad degrees and holds at 50% at the graduate level as well. The areas with the crazy gender disparities are mostly computer science and engineering, not natural science.
 
Last edited:
Their usually isn't a microscope in the kitchen, which is a disadvantage.
 
I think Chun said it best...



Women should be at home. Making babies. Preferably man child.
 
I only weigh in here with a measly bio-chem BSc and don't presently work in it, but the temperament of women in the lab and their ability to deal with criticism is fine for the most part IMO. I don't know why they aren't particularly well represented in physics but that isn't down to bias or discrimination, it's a just a ridiculously abstract field.

They've tended to fare much better in the life sciences, particularly microbiology for some reason from what I've seen. Female representation in the biological sciences is really quite good: In the US, 60% of undergrad degrees on the latter and holds at 50% at the graduate level as well. The areas with the crazy gender disparities are mostly computer science and engineering, not natural science.
Women are more focused on the social while men tend to be interested in the physical. I think that explains it. Traditional gender roles aren't necessarily enforced but often chosen. I'm pretty sure that makes me some sort of an "ist", but I don't much care.

Here in Calgary women get more financial incentives to enter the trades than men, but they just don't tend to choose those career paths regardless of how well they pay. Just like most men don't choose to go into child care regardless of how much more comfortable the work environment. It turns out hundreds of thousands of years of evolution shaped the sexes differently. Shocking, right?
 
An all-time survey conducted by Physics World.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/541840.stm

01. Albert Einstein
02. Isaac Newton
03. James Clerk Maxwell
04. Niels Bohr
05. Werner Heisenberg
06. Galileo Galilei
07. Richard Feynman
08. Paul Dirac (tie)
08. Erwin Schrödinger (tie)
10. Ernest Rutherford


I disagree strongly with it.

Of course, I'm not remotely in any position to criticize but I think it's nonsense and find "guys like Bohr" relatively overrated. His most significant contribution was a theoretical model of how electrons (discovered by JJ Thomson) orbit a positively charged nucleus (discovered by Ernest Rutherford) based on Max Planck's quantum theory of radiation (the origin) and was rendered obsolete within less than a decade. All of the aforementioned remain fundamental.

There were two different iterations of quantum mechanics when it was established: matrix mechanics (Werner Heisenberg) and wave mechanics (Erwin Schrödinger). The QM used today predominantly utilizes the wavefunction in the latter's equation to describe fundamental forces and subatomic particles and is considered the F=ma of quantum mechanics. Heisenberg has actually become better known for the contribution of the Uncertainty Principle.

It was Paul Dirac that showed matrix and wave mechanics to be mathematically equivalent although he's much better known for reconciling quantum mechanics with special relativity which predicted the existence of antimatter, was the first step towards the advent of Quantum Field Theory and thus, ultimately the Standard Model.

I'd probably have it something along these lines if you're going to try and "rate" physicists.

01. Sir Isaac Newton
02. Albert Einstein
03. James Clerk Maxwell
04. Michael Faraday
05. Erwin Schrödinger
06. Werner Heisenberg
07. Paul Dirac
08. Ernest Rutherford
09. JJ Thomson
10. Max Planck

8177246310_ebf4e4e05e.jpg

Bro u have no idea what you're talking about. I have a PhD in molecular bio-mechanical physics and you're full of it.
 



Man, I got to admit, that the east coast rap stood the test of time better than the west coast rap.

Mac Dre still goat though. RIP feral.

"Every lady in palace named Alice, cuz i run things like JR Dallas."
 
Man, I got to admit, that the east coast rap stood the test of time better than the west coast rap.

Mac Dre still goat though. RIP feral.

"Every lady in palace named Alice, cuz i run things like JR Dallas."

1990s MC's are still sporadically crushing it today.

 
Women are more focused on the social while men tend to be interested in the physical. I think that explains it. Traditional gender roles aren't necessarily enforced but often chosen. I'm pretty sure that makes me some sort of an "ist", but I don't much care.

Here in Calgary women get more financial incentives to enter the trades than men, but they just don't tend to choose those career paths regardless of how well they pay. Just like most men don't choose to go into child care regardless of how much more comfortable the work environment. It turns out hundreds of thousands of years of evolution shaped the sexes differently. Shocking, right?

"These are the days that must lay a new foundation of a more magnificent philosophy, never to be overthrown: that will empirically and sensibly canvas the phenomena of nature, deducing the causes of things from such originals in nature, as we observe are producible by art, and the infallible demonstration of mechanics: and certainly, this is the way, and no other, to build a true and permanent philosophy." -- Henry Power, Royal Society (1664)

And social justice revisionists want to claim these people didn't know what they were building towards? That there wasn't actually a scientific revolution? Since this whole thing happened I've noticed a lot of chalking everything up to lack of opportunity and all I can really think is, "Oh my, the perks and privileges of inventing civilization, education and... science?" Opportunity! What enterprise has more thoroughly challenged social hierarchies and political systems or eroded dogmatic religious belief to bring us to our modern secular status?

With Darwin, it's also always worth mentioning how his work further opened the human mind to pursuing scientific inquiry unimpaired by any supernatural prejudices and all but sent the church into full-time retreat, wielding irrevocable impact on the outlook and progression of western civilization on the whole. He's viewed as an iconoclastic, paradigm-shifting figure of towering historical relevance and often mentioned in the same breath as Isaac Newton for good reason.
 
Is under-performing women a phenomenon relevant to just physics?

In my 12 years working in the government technology sector, specifically programming for Web services, I've worked with some incredibly talented women.

Most of which were and are Indian or Chinese, exactly two were Eastern European.

Exactly zero were and are white or black American women, who instead have and do occupy the roles of support services and HR.

<Fedor23>
 
Back
Top