(M)any women on the site?

[EdEarl]

I think CharonY was being humorous.ie that the internet is NOT important.

 

I think these sort of discussions we have here is a relatively safe extension of play-fighting or sparring etc but at the cognitive level and, by and large, it possibly suits the male psyche more than females.

Very well, I'll call off the duel.

[CharonY]

I think that pretty much proves my point.

[Phi for All]

I think you guys should put your shirts back on.

CharonY, buy the right size and they won't shred when you breathe deeply like that.

And EdEarl, I hope that ends the flexing and the oiling too. You're going to make someone fall or poke an eye out.

[Deidre]

I'm female, but have been lurking mainly. I should post more.

[ewmon]

The fields of medicine and chemistry are thick with females.

[pears]

I'm female, but have been lurking mainly. I should post more.

Yippee another one

 

The poll still shows a more than 6:1 ratio though

[Phi for All]

The fields of medicine and chemistry are thick with females.

"Thick", really?

 

Not "replete" or "amply supplied"?

 

How about "well-endowed"?

[Deidre]

Yippee another one

 

The poll still shows a more than 6:1 ratio though

lol I just voted!

[Tridimity]

The fields of medicine and chemistry are thick with females.

 

I'd be surprised if you have ever encountered a female.

 

[Deidre]

 

 

I'd be surprised if you have ever encountered a female.

 

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

 

 

I'd be surprised if you have ever encountered a female.

 

 

 

 

I am both female and a chemist, so be surprised.

 

Also:

 

http://www4.lu.se/o.o.i.s/31332

 

Though I somewhat suspect that the value for chemical and biological scientists is contributed to more so by biology than by chemistry.

 

Further in response to one of CharonY's posts, I found this article. http://www.rsc.org/images/womensretention_tcm18-139215.pdf

 

I found it somewhat interesting because it reports (among other things) that the increasing numbers of females going into chemistry PhD's is not enough to increase the number of females at all levels. It states that,

 

 

 

Women are put off academic careers more than men partly because they do not want to work on short term contracts while undertaking post-doctoral research in universities. Early selection of the best scientists for longer term research fellowships, like the Royal Society Fellowships, with clear exit points, would provide a clear path to an academic position. Evidence is that women would be more likely to opt for an academic career if they are clear at the outset of their chances of success.

 

The evidence is also that female PhD students are more sensitive to issues of work-life balance than men. It is therefore important that science departments take note of work on good practice, and of schemes like Athena SWAN, to improve the working environment. This will in turn provide more positive inducements for women, and some men, to stay in research. It is also important to realise that culture varies from research group to research group and so the implementation of good practice does need to be in all parts of the departments and not just to processes affecting staff directly.

 

 

It also mentions that the overall experience for men completing chemistry PhD's tends to be more positive overall because their expectations are lower from the outset, which is an interesting point and not something I had really thought of myself. However, the overarching thing (at least for chemistry) seems to be that females are more likely to be put off because of the nature of academic research, possibly because of the work-life balance issues mentioned above. It's true that in theory, scientists have more liberty in their positions to create a greater work-life balance, but in practice I would have to question how many actually utilise that.

[WWLabRat]

Interesting. In high school I've often thought there's a kind of critical mass thing at play. Once a subject becomes too gender dominated the other gender 'sees' subject X as a boys/girls subject or just doesn't want to be the odd one out in class.

 

I think some members hide their gender is the same reason why some members, myself included, hide their age. People, in general, have a habit of making assumptions based on very limited data collected on a person. Hiding you gender or age helps to keep people from making assumptions based on either criteria.

[ewmon]

Hypervalent, thank you for rescuing me. For a moment there, the snarling and the bared fangs were coming right out the screen at me.

 

When I entered biotech, the gender mix was overwhelmingly female ... even women who didn't want me to kill a spider. Go figure.

[Tridimity]

The fields of medicine and chemistry are thick with females.

 

Seriously, there was no intentional double-entendrez here?

 

Good then that you won't find any here: I'd be surprised if you have ever encountered a female.

 

If you expect me to stand by while you insult females then your expectations need to shift.

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

 

 

Everybody,

 

If you suspect that anyone is insulting someone else (or perhaps posts sexist jokes that are going too far), please just report the post, using the report button at the bottom of that particular post. Writing warnings here in the thread, and trying to fix insults with possible flaming is not only usually counterproductive, it is also against our rules.

 

I guess that this little moderator tip was hardly necessary. So, let's just carry on with this lovely thread. Below, I want to read only happy posts.

 

Thanks.

[Genecks]

I could care less that there are females on this website unless they live near me and I can commute to them. I guess that could be said about anyone, though, especially if someone has something cool that he/she is working on.

 

If you feel that someone is wrongfully hitting on you on this site and flirting has gone TOO FAR, I'd suggest just reporting the issue.

 

But yeah, there are differences in gender count when it comes to STEM.

 

In reference to what CharonY said, I do not recall that many women being on this website. I have only referred one female to this website. I was here around 2005 (no earlier than 2004) with the name Cyberman, but then I got banned a few times and whatnot. But this account was signed up in 2006. I surely don't remember there being that many obvious females. And, in a lot of ways, this website is kind of general. There are a lot of other websites that specialize in certain topics. And I feel whenever those topics get too specialized, people shut out others in order to stay competitive...

 

Gender as an issue? Meh.

ydoaps as a moderator/staff/etc? I'm not sure about that still, but whatever.

 

Actually, now that I think of it, there was ONE gender issue that was starting to PISS ME OFF.

 

I mentioned it like a year or two ago. It had to do with me observing a lot more females doing biology research than males at the university I was at. It seemed like three females for each male (if there was even a male). Yeah, I really, really felt there were a lot more females in the research labs.

 

I felt as though there was some discrimination against males, yet the biology research was dominated by male professors. I couldn't tell if that was just normal or if there was some kind of bias in choosing females to be in the labs. I had a fair knowledge of statistics and was a very active thinker, and I felt that there was a female bias wherever I looked. However, I did not collect ample evidence to support the conclusion that there was a bias toward having many more female undergrad research biologists than males.

 

If I had been in nursing, I'd been aware I was dealing with a pink collar profession. But it wasn't nursing.

 

For the research I did after undergrad, yeah, there was still a VERY SERIOUS bias (I felt). The first lab I worked in after completing undergrad, there were like 5 females and about three males. The neighboring lab had four females and two males. Of course, no better if it was male biased. But the point is that it surely didn't appear equal or close to. Seemed like more labs than not had a preference for female lab researchers.

 

I think CharonY and I had talked about this some time ago. I don't know where the thread is, but it's a topic I generated probably in the last three years.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Genecks

[hypervalent_iodine]

ydoaps as a moderator/staff/etc? I'm not sure about that still, but whatever.

What on Earth does this have to do with anything?

 

Actually, now that I think of it, there was ONE gender issue that was starting to PISS ME OFF.

 

I mentioned it like a year or two ago. It had to do with me observing a lot more females doing biology research than males at the university I was at. It seemed like three females for each male (if there was even a male). Yeah, I really, really felt there were a lot more females in the research labs.

 

I felt as though there was some discrimination against males, yet the biology research was dominated by male professors. I couldn't tell if that was just normal or if there was some kind of bias in choosing females to be in the labs. I had a fair knowledge of statistics and was a very active thinker, and I felt that there was a female bias wherever I looked. However, I did not collect ample evidence to support the conclusion that there was a bias toward having many more female undergrad research biologists than males.

 

If I had been in nursing, I'd been aware I was dealing with a pink collar profession. But it wasn't nursing.

 

For the research I did after undergrad, yeah, there was still a VERY SERIOUS bias (I felt). The first lab I worked in after completing undergrad, there were like 5 females and about three males. The neighboring lab had four females and two males. Of course, no better if it was male biased. But the point is that it surely didn't appear equal or close to. Seemed like more labs than not had a preference for female lab researchers.

 

I think CharonY and I had talked about this some time ago. I don't know where the thread is, but it's a topic I generated probably in the last three years.

I just want to clarify your position. You were pissed at the gender imbalance towards females at the undergraduate level you perceived in the labs, but the fact that the professor level was male dominated was not a concern to you? I have to ask why this pissed you off in the first place? I mean, you seem to indicate that you worked in the lab, so clearly you were not discriminated against in that sense.

[Genecks]

I was also past my 24-hour mark while writing that. Maybe I'll reply and clarify at a later time.

 

No rest for the wicked.

 

Peace.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Genecks

[StringJunky]

Does it really matter if there is a visible gender imbalance in biology? i would expect there to be proportionally more females because I think they are naturally more inclined in that direction...let people be where they want to be and be damned with statistics. and the artificial need for equal representation.

Edited October 12, 2013 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

While I agree that people should choose what they have interest in, I wonder about the "naturally inclined" part. Why would a preference to a specific natural science be "natural"?

There is certainly perception involved but I would think this has societal rather than natural causes.

[turionx2]

I've always had trouble working with females because I've never met a single one that would admit when she was wrong. This type of behavior has always rubbed me the wrong way.

[StringJunky]

I've always had trouble working with females because I've never met a single one that would admit when she was wrong. This type of behavior has always rubbed me the wrong way.

 

Has it ever occurred to you that it might be your own attitude towards your female counterparts that invites a stubbornly contrary position from them? Maybe they feel embattled when engaging with you. I don't think contrariness is gender-specific.

Edited October 12, 2013 by StringJunky

[turionx2]

Has it ever occurred to you that it might be your own attitude towards your female counterparts that invites a stubbornly contrary position from them? Maybe they feel embattled when engaging with you. I don't think contrariness is gender-specific.

 

Impossible since I don't go out of my way to prove them wrong.

 

So I should be a pushover and let them belittle me when they engage the conversation further after I've told them that they have been misinformed?

[Tridimity]

 

Impossible since I don't go out of my way to prove them wrong.

 

So I should be a pushover and let them belittle me when they engage the conversation further after I've told them that they have been misinformed?

 

 

You absolutely should not be a 'pushover'. However, neither should you attempt to make the female (true for any individual of either gender, actually) truncate the conversation before (s)he is ready to do so (unless the conversation has degenerated into an unpleasant argument, in which case walking away is advisable). Just because you think that a point is clear and that there should be no further disagreements or misunderstandings does not mean that this is necessarily the case for the other person. Ideally in these situations, both parties ought to be assertive. This only works so long as both parties care about one another's feelings. Disclosure is pointless if the person you are talking to does not care about the impact that their behaviour is having on your feelings. Also, above, you are assuming that the female is wrong. 'Wrong' is not an objective judgment except, perhaps, in the case of scientific facts. If you are referring to differences of opinion, then your idea of 'wrong' may not equate to her idea of 'wrong', because you have different moral frameworks and different ways of looking at the same situation.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Tridimity

[WWLabRat]

 

Has it ever occurred to you that it might be your own attitude towards your female counterparts that invites a stubbornly contrary position from them? Maybe they feel embattled when engaging with you. I don't think contrariness is gender-specific.

 

Impossible since I don't go out of my way to prove them wrong.

 

So I should be a pushover and let them belittle me when they engage the conversation further after I've told them that they have been misinformed?

 

No one said you should be a pushover, but the attitude towards females that I've seen thus far in this thread would indicate that you have, at the least, a severe distaste for women in science. And everyone is going to have times that they will fight tooth and nail for their stance even if they are wrong. I'm sure you have done this too at some point in your life as well. StringJunky's got a point. It may not necessarily be what you're saying to them, but rather the attitude that you exude while around them that prevents them from wanting to admit fault.