Why don't more women pursue a career in Physics?

[CharonY]

Fair enough. Appreciate the correction. Suppose the next reasonable question then is whether all mods receive vitriol and demeaning remarks with the same frequency and intensity as you or if instead your experience remains distinct due solely to your nether plumbing.

 

With regards to online harassment, I once had a gender-ambiguous name while entering rather large-ish IRC channel that was RPG-(and strangely, engineering-oriented). Holy hell, I did not know that you could have so many PM windows open at once. One thing I noticed is that some people get defensive when gender bias gets mentioned. In that regard I would like to re-iterate that issues generally exist on a systemic level and often (due to the system) members of both genders participate in stereotyping (regardless of the gender of the subject). In that regard String is correct that it may take a long while until things really change. At the same time, I wonder about that, considering that stereotyping is typically the easy thing to do. Working against assumption requires conscious work and especially going against subconscious bias requires a significant amount of introspection, often with no clear answers. After all, there is generally no true objective way to fully evaluate a person and their qualities.

 

As such I feel the best one could hope for is to catch as many instances of those in oneself and at least be a little bit self-critical to minimize the impacts of such behaviour.

[StringJunky]

 

With regards to online harassment, I once had a gender-ambiguous name while entering rather large-ish IRC channel that was RPG-(and strangely, engineering-oriented). Holy hell, I did not know that you could have so many PM windows open at once. One thing I noticed is that some people get defensive when gender bias gets mentioned. In that regard I would like to re-iterate that issues generally exist on a systemic level and often (due to the system) members of both genders participate in stereotyping (regardless of the gender of the subject). In that regard String is correct that it may take a long while until things really change. At the same time, I wonder about that, considering that stereotyping is typically the easy thing to do. Working against assumption requires conscious work and especially going against subconscious bias requires a significant amount of introspection, often with no clear answers. After all, there is generally no true objective way to fully evaluate a person and their qualities.

 

As such I feel the best one could hope for is to catch as many instances of those in oneself and at least be a little bit self-critical to minimize the impacts of such behaviour.

My point about these things taking a long time is because you can't change those who are already set in their ways - it's too late - but you can catch the impressionable youngsters at the right time and equip/nurture them with the right attitude. Eventually the old ones naturally waste away and the young ones rule the roost with the new values. You can't change the shape of a fully grown tree but you can a sapling. It's about ensuring those that are yet to come don't adopt undesirable attitudes of the past. That's how you change society... imo, of course.

[CharonY]

My point about these things taking a long time is because you can't change those who are already set in their ways - it's too late - but you can catch the impressionable youngsters at the right time and equip/nurture them with the right attitude. Eventually the old ones naturally waste away and the young ones rule the roost with the new values. You can't change the shape of a fully grown tree but you can a sapling. It's about ensuring those that are yet to come don't adopt undesirable attitudes of the past. That's how you change society... imo, of course.

 

Here is the part that I am skeptical about. I have little doubt that the young ones realize that e.g. gender stereotyping is a bad thing. I am just not certain whether they are aware of what it entails and miss that behaviour as they assume it does not exist anymore. I.e. complacency has set in and you can hear quite often that people claim that things like racism, sexism etc. are non-issues as they do not consider themselves sexist/stereotyping/racist etc (after all, what we really have achieved as a first step is to associate these terms with a negative perception, which does not mean that the perception itself is eradicated). Hence, so goes the reasoning, it must have stopped existing. For example, just because gay marriage is now legal, it does not mean that discrimination has vanished. While there is significant improvement, much is being shifted from the over to the subtle. And the latter is often not considered an issue by perpetrators.

There have been a number of surveys among millenials (including e.g. biology students) and sadly, it appears that the trend is actually reversing when it comes to gender equality. I will have to dig those out, but students systematically overestimate the ability of their male peers and in other studies millenials were also less open to female leaders. Now, one could argue that it is still an improvement. But the sad thing is that in direct comparison, the males in the younger group (below 29 years or so) were more likely to have this views compared to males in the 30-44 year group and above 45 were even less likely. The same trend was also observed in females, where the youngest group was more likely to agree with an increased role of women in the household (instead of an career) than the older age brackets.

 

What really appears to happen is that the older ones, that have seen the massive shift in attitude seem, on average more willing to change their attitude. This observations fits well with what I have observed in academia, but is also in agreement with the study on physics teachers, I mentioned earlier. So one possible explanation is that one actually needs experience to recognize these attitudes, which means we may have to wait until the young generation gets older to see another shift.

 

As usual, things are complicated.

[swansont]

Yes, I see it here but it isn't the same thing as we are talking here. Plus, I personally didn't say that this would be considered sexist, but a more ''ugly'' version, such as ''hey sexy babe'' might be considered sexist. A significant part of the 31% statistic might be this. YOU DON'T KNOW THAT.

My point was that you are saying definitively that this is what happened and YOU DON'T KNOW THAT. Stop pretending that you know details that you don't.

 

You said, in context of the harassment vs car analogy, that "If someone says ''hey sexy'', you don't remove him from work forever". So you were, in fact, summarizing sexual harassment as saying, "hey, sexy". Don't attack me because you made a poor argument.

 

 

 

So what? The point still stands that the rate is not higher than in other fields. However you twist it, the numbesr themselves that there is no reason that sexual harrassment should divert women from physics, as opposed to other jobs where they get equally harrassed. This has shown nothing so far. The other thing you said about blind grading etc. stands. It is clear indication that something is wrong. But not this.

Cite some studies that show the harassment is identical in other fields, because that's what you're claiming. Or that leaving the workforce entirely will not stop workplace harassment, which is a laughable assertion.

 

You might notice that I wasn't claiming that women might leave physics because there is more harassment than in other professions. I actually said "I don't know that the fraction of physicist that engage in this practice is necessarily higher than in other fields" I was saying it's a reason women don't continue on in a physics career.

 

The thing is that in academia (and possibly in industry and government), leaving your science job often means moving to another location, and some people would not be willing to do that. Which exacerbates the situation. There are a number of professions where there is more than one place to work in a town or city, or the next town over. Academia isn't like that (especially if you have a spouse also in academia; the famous "two-body problem"; now you have to find positions for both people if you move) That's just one reason why this might be more of an issue for scientists than for other professions.

Fair enough. Appreciate the correction. Suppose the next reasonable question then is whether all mods receive vitriol and demeaning remarks with the same frequency and intensity as you or if instead your experience remains distinct due solely to your nether plumbing.

From what has been shared (and that's probably only a fraction of it) I can say for sure that some is not the same as the vitriol I receive. It goes beyond the standard accusations of e.g. being drunk with power.

My point about these things taking a long time is because you can't change those who are already set in their ways - it's too late - but you can catch the impressionable youngsters at the right time and equip/nurture them with the right attitude. Eventually the old ones naturally waste away and the young ones rule the roost with the new values. You can't change the shape of a fully grown tree but you can a sapling. It's about ensuring those that are yet to come don't adopt undesirable attitudes of the past. That's how you change society... imo, of course.

One issue that confounds this is if you have insulated communities, there is no feedback to pressure people from bad behavior, and the situation festers.

[Velocity_Boy]

I think the answer is as smiple as: they are not interested in it as much as men are. There is no other logical explanation.

 

Also, linking is disabled for you, a new member, as a form of spam protection. It is usually required that a discussion takes place on the forum itself.

 

 

But there are other logical explanations. Or at the very least, credible hypotheses. Such as: women's brains process information differently that does the male brain. This is a fact, btw, not only a theory. So...it could be quite possible that given this fact, women often--not always!--are not quite as efficient at digesting STEM-type information as are men. IOW: by and large (again, there are obvious exceptions) women are simply not usually as good at "doing science" as men are.

 

The extreme and quite impressive, actually, dearth of women computer programmers really supports this hypothesis. I am not sure how much you know about programming, but the processes used by the mind in coding are extremely congruent with the primary way in which the typical male thinking pattern differs from women. That is: highly focused, vector-like, non-abstract, language-oriented, left-brained. All things men usually excel at more than women.

 

I do agree that for the most part women may not be as interested in physics as men. But go a bit deeper and ask why? Maybe because it is a part of science and early in school they realized they often have trouble with that area. We rarely enjoy are become interested in things we do not like or are not adept at.

 

So, yeah, bring on the downvotes, guys and gals. I am quite certain this post will bring charges of misogyny and bigotry. This, in due to the absurd pre-occupation with political correctness in this country. But as a psych major I know with absolute certainty--and will indeed be all too glad to post as many links and sources as you wish--that everything I just said about mens' and women's' cognitive processing differences is valid. Thus, I cannot in good conscience allow your post to go without adding my own ideas on the topic.

 

In closing, I cannot see what the big deal is in admitting that men and women think differently and excel at different tasks. But, again, such is the extreme affliction of PC Obsession today, that it is often impossible to mention this fact without incurring wrath.

 

Cheers.

 

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/men-women-brains-difference-1.3473154

Edited April 27, 2017 by Velocity_Boy

[Raider5678]

 

 

But there are other logical explanations. Or at the very least, credible hypotheses. Such as: women's brains process information differently that does the male brain. This is a fact, btw, not only a theory. So...it could be quite possible that given this fact, women often--not always!--are not quite as efficient at digesting STEM-type information as are men. IOW: by and large (again, there are obvious exceptions) women are simply not usually as good at "doing science" as men are.

 

The extreme and quite impressive, actually, dearth of women computer programmers really supports this hypothesis. I am not sure how much you know about programming, but the processes used by the mind in coding are extremely congruent with the primary way in which the typical male thinking pattern differs from women. That is: highly focused, vector-like, non-abstract, language-oriented, left-brained. All things men usually excel at more than women.

 

I do agree that for the most part women may not be as interested in physics as men. But go a bit deeper and ask why? Maybe because it is a part of science and early in school they realized they often have trouble with that area. We rarely enjoy are become interested in things we do not like or are not adept at.

 

So, yeah, bring on the downvotes, guys and gals. I am quite certain this post will bring charges of misogyny and bigotry. This, in due to the absurd pre-occupation with political correctness in this country. But as a psych major I know with absolute certainty--and will indeed be all too glad to post as many links and sources as you wish--that everything I just said about mens' and women's' cognitive processing differences is valid. Thus, I cannot in good conscience allow your post to go without adding my own ideas on the topic.

 

In closing, I cannot see what the big deal is in admitting that men and women think differently and excel at different tasks. But, again, such is the extreme affliction of PC Obsession today, that it is often impossible to mention this fact without incurring wrath.

 

Cheers.

 

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/men-women-brains-difference-1.3473154

Hence, sexism.

Your claim wasn't that men think differently, it's that they think better.

[swansont]

 

 

But there are other logical explanations. Or at the very least, credible hypotheses. Such as: women's brains process information differently that does the male brain. This is a fact, btw, not only a theory. So...it could be quite possible that given this fact, women often--not always!--are not quite as efficient at digesting STEM-type information as are men. IOW: by and large (again, there are obvious exceptions) women are simply not usually as good at "doing science" as men are.

 

The extreme and quite impressive, actually, dearth of women computer programmers really supports this hypothesis. I am not sure how much you know about programming, but the processes used by the mind in coding are extremely congruent with the primary way in which the typical male thinking pattern differs from women. That is: highly focused, vector-like, non-abstract, language-oriented, left-brained. All things men usually excel at more than women.

 

I do agree that for the most part women may not be as interested in physics as men. But go a bit deeper and ask why? Maybe because it is a part of science and early in school they realized they often have trouble with that area. We rarely enjoy are become interested in things we do not like or are not adept at.

 

So, yeah, bring on the downvotes, guys and gals. I am quite certain this post will bring charges of misogyny and bigotry. This, in due to the absurd pre-occupation with political correctness in this country. But as a psych major I know with absolute certainty--and will indeed be all too glad to post as many links and sources as you wish--that everything I just said about mens' and women's' cognitive processing differences is valid. Thus, I cannot in good conscience allow your post to go without adding my own ideas on the topic.

 

In closing, I cannot see what the big deal is in admitting that men and women think differently and excel at different tasks. But, again, such is the extreme affliction of PC Obsession today, that it is often impossible to mention this fact without incurring wrath.

 

Cheers.

 

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/men-women-brains-difference-1.3473154

 

 

It could be...but that's not it. There have been links in this thread already that show the ability is there. So if you are going to suggest otherwise, even without that information already in play, you need to do more than make bald assertions.

[hypervalent_iodine]

But there are other logical explanations. Or at the very least, credible hypotheses. Such as: women's brains process information differently that does the male brain. This is a fact, btw, not only a theory. So...it could be quite possible that given this fact, women often--not always!--are not quite as efficient at digesting STEM-type information as are men. IOW: by and large (again, there are obvious exceptions) women are simply not usually as good at "doing science" as men are.

 

The extreme and quite impressive, actually, dearth of women computer programmers really supports this hypothesis. I am not sure how much you know about programming, but the processes used by the mind in coding are extremely congruent with the primary way in which the typical male thinking pattern differs from women. That is: highly focused, vector-like, non-abstract, language-oriented, left-brained. All things men usually excel at more than women.

 

I do agree that for the most part women may not be as interested in physics as men. But go a bit deeper and ask why? Maybe because it is a part of science and early in school they realized they often have trouble with that area. We rarely enjoy are become interested in things we do not like or are not adept at.

 

So, yeah, bring on the downvotes, guys and gals. I am quite certain this post will bring charges of misogyny and bigotry. This, in due to the absurd pre-occupation with political correctness in this country. But as a psych major I know with absolute certainty--and will indeed be all too glad to post as many links and sources as you wish--that everything I just said about mens' and women's' cognitive processing differences is valid. Thus, I cannot in good conscience allow your post to go without adding my own ideas on the topic.

 

In closing, I cannot see what the big deal is in admitting that men and women think differently and excel at different tasks. But, again, such is the extreme affliction of PC Obsession today, that it is often impossible to mention this fact without incurring wrath.

 

Cheers.

 

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/men-women-brains-difference-1.3473154

I'm sorry, but what rubbish. There is at least one meta study that I know of that shows that gender difference by subject is greatest for language courses, and that although boys tend to get better scores on one off tests, classroom grades are always dominated by females across the board where focus is required for longer periods. http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/04/girls-grades.aspx

 

Kind of puts a dampener on your whole hypothesis, really.

[Raider5678]

I'm sorry, but what rubbish. There is at least one meta study that I know of that shows that gender difference by subject is greatest for language courses, and that although boys tend to get better scores on one off tests, classroom grades are always dominated by females across the board where focus is required for longer periods. http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/04/girls-grades.aspx

 

Kind of puts a dampener on your whole hypothesis, really.

Yes, I agree. In my school the teachers constantly remind the boys that the girls are almost always smarter.

[CharonY]

I'm sorry, but what rubbish. There is at least one meta study that I know of that shows that gender difference by subject is greatest for language courses, and that although boys tend to get better scores on one off tests, classroom grades are always dominated by females across the board where focus is required for longer periods. http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/04/girls-grades.aspx

 

Kind of puts a dampener on your whole hypothesis, really.

 

Huh, I can't believe that I have not read the metastudy (or if I did, I forgot, which would be even worse). I only had data from OECD studies but they were basically achievement scores. Now the distinction is quite interesting. Hmm the authors seem familiar, though.

Thanks for sharing,

Yes, I agree. In my school the teachers constantly remind the boys that the girls are almost always smarter.

 

I am not entirely sure whether that is a great approach, though.

[StringJunky]

 

I am not entirely sure whether that is a great approach, though.

It's not really because gender wars aren't going to solve anything.

[Velocity_Boy]

Hence, sexism.

Your claim wasn't that men think differently, it's that they think better.

Firstly, thanks for confirming my suspicions on the sort of reaction I'd get from my post.

 

Secondly, you would do well not to tell me what I did and did not say. Especially when you are quite wrong. Read my post again. I even provided a link showing how men and women think differently. Which I would bet you didn't bother to read.

 

Hell, i even added caveats to my claim, by stating no less than three times that there are exceptions to my opinions. Anybody who takes exception to my very carefully worded OP can only do so, in my opinion, if they are simply insecure and are fairly spoiling for an opportunity to cry sexism. The term for this sort of soul is a knee jerk feminist.

 

And I find those people rather amusing. So thanks again for confirming my original hypothesis on the collective zeitgeist here, as well as the chuckle.

 

Cheers.

Edited April 27, 2017 by Velocity_Boy

[Raider5678]

Secondly, you would do well not to tell me what I did and did not say. Especially when you are quite wrong. Read my post again. I even provided a link showing how men and women think differently. I even added caveats to my claim, by stating no less than three times that there are exceptions to my opinions. Anybody who takes exception to my very carefully worded OP can only do so, in my opinion, if they are simply insecure and are fairly spoiling for an opportunity to cry sexism. The term for this sort of soul is a knee jerk feminist.

 

Sound familiar?

Considering I've been arguing most of the time from the other side, and have been accused of being sexist and a knee jerk feminist in this argument, It's obvious nobody supports having a middle stance.

Either it's the worst crisis in history and it's dooms day or it's nothing at all and everyone else are crybabies.

 

I still say the statistics say it's a middle. It's getting better, but it's not done yet.

Why can nobody approve of that?

[Velocity_Boy]

Considering I've been arguing most of the time from the other side, and have been accused of being sexist and a knee jerk feminist in this argument, It's obvious nobody supports having a middle stance.

Either it's the worst crisis in history and it's dooms day or it's nothing at all and everyone else are crybabies.

 

I still say the statistics say it's a middle. It's getting better, but it's not done yet.

Why can nobody approve of that?

 

You obviously didn't read my link.

 

It's not a riddle.

 

Nor is it anything remotely close to Doomsday.

 

Men. Women. Think. Different.

 

It's not a difficult concept.

 

At least for most of us.

 

I invite you to research the matter yourself.

 

Allow me to get ya started.....

 

https://www.powerofpositivity.com/ways-men-women-think-differently/

Edited April 27, 2017 by Velocity_Boy

[CharonY]

It's not really because gender wars aren't going to solve anything.

 

Obviously. Though I suspect that the comment was at least somewhat facetious.

 

Firstly, thanks for confirming my suspicions on the sort of reaction I'd get from my post.

 

Secondly, you would do well not to tell me what I did and did not say. Especially when you are quite wrong. Read my post again. I even provided a link showing how men and women think differently. I even added caveats to my claim, by stating no less than three times that there are exceptions to my opinions. Anybody who takes exception to my very carefully worded OP can only do so, in my opinion, if they are simply insecure and are fairly spoiling for an opportunity to cry sexism. The term for this sort of soul is a knee jerk feminist.

 

Sound familiar?

 

If you think that your post was carefully worded, I would encourage you to carefully revisit your statements. Stating that there are exceptions to your opinion is a sneaky way to around it. Then you re-iterate a couple of assumptions and believe you made a fully fleshed out argument. Except, that nothing (except that there are gender-specific brain differences) is actually substantiated.

Take a close look at your argument. You would need to show that the observed differences would translate to performance differences in specific disciplines, which is incredibly difficult. Instead you just reiterate your assumptions a few times and claim that any deviation are actually exceptions. Assuming you are a biology student (as I believe you claimed) you'll have to be very careful in your assignments if have the tendency to extrapolate things wildly.

As it stands, the real only difference that has been observed was an advantage if girls for language and an advantage for boys in maths (except in Jordan) based on OECD studies. Even if that was true it would not fully explain the large differences in the distribution when comparing different STEM disciplines. And as I already mentioned, men with lower scores then women still have a higher likelihood to enter physics (or mathematics) compared to their female peers, who performed better.

 

But the paper that Hyper mentioned deconstructs even the small difference found in the OECD studies (which are best on tests). If your hypothesis was correct, (almost) all academic courses should be dominated by women.

Edited April 27, 2017 by CharonY

[swansont]

Hell, i even added caveats to my claim, by stating no less than three times that there are exceptions to my opinions.

Well, that's just it. If it's only opinion, who cares?

[Velocity_Boy]

It could be...but that's not it. There have been links in this thread already that show the ability is there. So if you are going to suggest otherwise, even without that information already in play, you need to do more than make bald assertions.

There is a vast difference between the cognitive abilities merely being present and the brain being wired to perform optimally. I never claimed that women are all bereft of scientific abilities. Jeez, did you also not read my OP? How many times must I state that there are exceptions in that some women are keen in STEM? So I do not need to show otherwise, as you said, since I never claimed what you wrongly said I did.

 

My assertions are hardly bald. I claimed that women's brains process information differently than men. I backed this up with links. I then surmised that the way in which their brains do process cognitive input may not be the optimal modality for science and technology disciplines. My links also supported that. I also...Sigh....Never claimed what I opined is irrefutable fact. My OP was in response to a guy who said there are no other explanation for the dearth of women in science other than that they aren't interested. I offered that there indeed may be other explanations. I then offered one.

 

Never figured you to throw up a straw man, but you indeed did by rephrasing my original claim by saying I claimed that women posses no abilities for science.

 

This is my field and I will not be bullied away from expressing my valid ideas on a topic pertaining to it. However unpopular my idea may be. Respectfully.

 

Cheers.

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/jan/18/educationsgendergap.genderissues

Well, that's just it. If it's only opinion, who cares?

I care because my OP was in response to a member who claimed there were no other explanations for the dearth of women in science other than they aren't interested in it. So I offered one.

 

 

Since when are opinions frowned upon here? So long as they're backed by links and sources as is mine here?

Obviously. Though I suspect that the comment was at least somewhat facetious.

 

 

 

If you think that your post was carefully worded, I would encourage you to carefully revisit your statements. Stating that there are exceptions to your opinion is a sneaky way to around it. Then you re-iterate a couple of assumptions and believe you made a fully fleshed out argument. Except, that nothing (except that there are gender-specific brain differences) is actually substantiated.

Take a close look at your argument. You would need to show that the observed differences would translate to performance differences in specific disciplines, which is incredibly difficult. Instead you just reiterate your assumptions a few times and claim that any deviation are actually exceptions. Assuming you are a biology student (as I believe you claimed) you'll have to be very careful in your assignments if have the tendency to extrapolate things wildly.

As it stands, the real only difference that has been observed was an advantage if girls for language and an advantage for boys in maths (except in Jordan) based on OECD studies. Even if that was true it would not fully explain the large differences in the distribution when comparing different STEM disciplines. And as I already mentioned, men with lower scores then women still have a higher likelihood to enter physics (or mathematics) compared to their female peers, who performed better.

 

But the paper that Hyper mentioned deconstructs even the small difference found in the OECD studies (which are best on tests). If your hypothesis was correct, (almost) all academic courses should be dominated by women.

The known fact that women think more intuitively and in fact rely on that more than men, who are more analytical and linear in their thinking, as well as less prone to attempt multi tasking is in fact a difference that could factor into the idea that the cognitive processing modalities of the female brain may not be the optimal one for science or technical work.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/jan/18/educationsgendergap.genderissues

Yes, I agree. In my school the teachers constantly remind the boys that the girls are almost always smarter.

We call what your teacher said sexism.

 

Where have I heard that accusation before?

 

Oh yeah.

 

Here.

 

From you.

 

How was my post in any way nearly as sexist as that? Jeez, if I came out and just said men are smarter you people would have a bloody fit.

 

The double standards I'm seeing here stinks.

 

It is especially odorous given the fact it's a science forum.

Edited April 28, 2017 by Velocity_Boy

[Raider5678]

We call what your teacher said sexism.

 

Where have I heard that accusation before?

 

Oh yeah.

 

Here.

 

From you.

 

How was my post in any way nearly as sexist as that? Jeez, if I came out and just said men are smarter you people would have a bloody fit.

 

The double standards I'm seeing here stinks.

 

It is especially odorous given the fact it's a science forum.

Us guys aren't stupid. We realize that's just as sexist as saying men are smarter.

But for the most part we could care less, and if the girls need the extra motivation in today's world then they should have it.

I don't care.

[Velocity_Boy]

Us guys aren't stupid. We realize that's just as sexist as saying men are smarter.

But for the most part we could care less, and if the girls need the extra motivation in today's world then they should have it.

I don't care.

 

 

guys?

 

your bio says you're female.

 

typo? or lie?

 

just curious.

[hypervalent_iodine]

 

 

guys?

 

your bio says you're female.

 

typo? or lie?

 

just curious.

 

 

Have you tried reading this thread even a little bit?

[CharonY]

 

 

Have you tried reading this thread even a little bit?

 

Or reading own links. Or reading.

[Raider5678]

Again, proof of our argument.

I've changed my profile to say I am a female.

It may have to do with you being a moderator.

 

 

 

 

guys?

 

your bio says you're female.

 

typo? or lie?

 

just curious.

[swansont]

There is a vast difference between the cognitive abilities merely being present and the brain being wired to perform optimally. I never claimed that women are all bereft of scientific abilities. Jeez, did you also not read my OP? How many times must I state that there are exceptions in that some women are keen in STEM? So I do not need to show otherwise, as you said, since I never claimed what you wrongly said I did.

You never established that these are "exceptions". You just asserted that.

 

My assertions are hardly bald. I claimed that women's brains process information differently than men. I backed this up with links. I then surmised that the way in which their brains do process cognitive input may not be the optimal modality for science and technology disciplines.

surmise: to suppose that something is true without the evidence to prove it

 

My links also supported that. I also...Sigh....Never claimed what I opined is irrefutable fact. My OP was in response to a guy who said there are no other explanation for the dearth of women in science other than that they aren't interested. I offered that there indeed may be other explanations. I then offered one.

Link, not links. And that was to the brains being different, nothing more.

 

Never figured you to throw up a straw man, but you indeed did by rephrasing my original claim by saying I claimed that women posses no abilities for science.

Please find where I said that.

 

This is my field and I will not be bullied away from expressing my valid ideas on a topic pertaining to it. However unpopular my idea may be. Respectfully.

Your field? Then you should be more than capable of backing up claims with valid science, rather than posting (by your own admission) unsupported suppositions and opinion.

 

Since when are opinions frowned upon here? So long as they're backed by links and sources as is mine here?

Since long before you've been a member. And you posted a single link, which does not support your claims beyond saying that there are difference between people's brains.