In science, women are less than men. This applies to positions in research centers and in teaching positions at universities. Only the 1/5 of phDs in physics are given to women in the US.
It seems that unfortunately we need a lot more work to debunk certain prejudices.
I personally believe that women can give science what it currently lacks: A more spiritual and holistic view to the problems of the cosmos. We have treated universe as a machine for too long. It is time to look at things from a different angle…
Statistically Science has fewer blonds than dark hairs. We need to eliminate the dark haired people and make room for the blonds.
Science needs more BLACKS!
Statistically Science has fewer blacks than whites. We need to eliminate the white people and make room for the blacks.
Science needs more JEWS!
Statistically Science has fewer Jews than Gentiles. We need to eliminate the Gentiles and make room for the Jews.
Science needs more GREEKS!
Statistically Science has fewer Greeks than Non-Greeks. We need to eliminate the Non-Greeks and make room for the Greeks.
Science needs more CATS!
Statistically Science has fewer cats than people. We need to eliminate the people and make room for the cats.
Science needs more ANDROIDS!
Statistically Science has fewer androids than people. We need to eliminate the people and make room for the androids.
We seriously must stop this prejudice of allowing merely those who can do a job to do it. That just isn’t fair.
If they are not of a minority, just don’t hire them. It isn’t fair that the majority is employed while the minority has to sit on their butts. Why should the majority get the rewords of dedicated struggle and talent?
Fire the majority. Let the Minority get all the jobs and rewards.
Skakos’s thesis is that the scientific establishment has unfairly discriminated against women, and that this has been detrimental to scientific progress. Your response hasn’t addressed either of these points. For instance, if you don’t think that being a woman makes you more likely to have a less mechanistic perspective, you should at least say so, and preferably make an argument. If you don’t think a less mechanistic approach is welcome, same thing.
The focus on WHO is in science or doing a job merely distracts from the job getting done. The same with concepts being discussed on this forum. If who is saying or doing it is the focus, then its veracity and integrity is necessarily lost. Conclusions become the lowest common denominator, not the best available. Which is more important?
Skakos claims the job isn’t getting done. I didn’t think that point was easy to miss. Your obsessions are clouding your ability to read and comprehend a simple, straightforward thesis.
Your obsessions are preventing you from seeing that “the job” isn’t getting done even by the best being offered. So as all anxiety dictates, you advocate changing, divorce from any faith. And of course, to do that, one must accept less talented merely for sake of “fairness” to others and at the sacrifice of the job getting done any better. The job falls even shorter of getting done because getting the job done wasn’t the focus, merely balancing out “fair play”. That’s great for children… at play.
The issue is one of “who decides whether the job is getting done?” And even then, what will necessarily make it get done better.
The argument has not been presented that Science needs more women, only that Science doesn’t have as many women as men. Perhaps there is a good reason for that rather than merely an imagined bad reason.
This;
“A research in Yale showed that between two candidates with EXACTLY THE SAME qualifications who applied for a job at a research center, the man is much more likely to be hired.”
is a ridiculous statement to an actual scientist.
There can be no such altruistic “research”. What constitutes the “EXACT SAME qualifications”? The male brain functions differently than the female, for a reason. How did they get men and women that are “EXACTLY THE SAME” in order to make such a “research”?
And if they are “EXACTLY THE SAME”, why does Science need one over the other?
You really don’t understand a very simple thesis, do you? The idea is that scientific research is currently deficient, because of gender inequality. It’s a debatable thesis, but so far you don’t seem to understand what the thesis actually is.
I don’t advocate accepting less talented scientists. On the contrary, I think the quality of our scientists is distressingly low. I have no ready answer for how to make things better, though.
Jane Goodall was an exemplary scientist. I know we could use more like her, whether male or female.
Why not just accept the fact that women are not now, and never have been, truly interested in or creative when it comes to “hard” science?
Oh, yeah, because that’s sexist. And as we all know, sexism is evil. And therefore, the premise is automatically false.
So instead, let’s implement a quota, to force against their will, more women, more blondes, more blacks jewish greeks, more cats and androids, into “hard” science classrooms.
That will automatically make everything better, it may even result in world peace. All of your most impossible dreams will come true, if you implement these quotas.
