Hell, I just want the most qualified in the field. Gender matters not, nor does ethnic background. I just think its pretty bad to qualify someone on anything other than intelligence and knowledge. Does science need more women? Yes if they meet legitimate qualifications. I sure as hell don’t want an idiot in there, we have enough of those.
Exactly my point - “Works for me.”
The real problem is stopping those who are causing inability based upon globalist agendas and thus sexism, racism, and creed - making men weaker.
“Because of presumed prejudice, we have to make it obvious that men can’t do it by making them incapable of doing it.”
Of course once the males have been disabled, the females are easy prey.
How the fuck could that be your point? That’s MY point!
Jesus fucking Christ. This place is bonkers. I can hardly take it anymore.
This is nonsense. Babble. I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
Yeah right. Like I said, sounding more and more like the Dasein Bigus and not at all like the Buddhist.
…"Ignore what doesn’t favor your argument".
…Science certainly needs a lot more of THAT. 
Once either is disabled the other is easy prey. I agree with you otherwise. And yes feminists have gone too far. Suffragists would not want disabled males. Equality not superiority.
They have first disabled the males for centuries because disabling, or more often entrapping, the females is trivial.
I feel your pain!
I really appreciate your comment, Fuse.
One question would be: does science need less women?
If it does not need less women, then not too long ago some women were unfairly kept out of science. To me it is not so much an issue of science needing, but letting people do what they want and not unnecessarily hindering them based on ideas that are incorrect or for some other reason.
If men and women will tend to focus on different questions or different facets of issues, then having qualified members of both sexes is likely to be better than having only qualified members of one sex.
Science being an abstraction does not benefit from anything. But we might. And I Think we have benefitted.
I would not go for affirmative action - women scientists get to go ahead of men scientists or into science graduate programs, etc. I tend to Think that a lot of problems are better handled by stopping doing shitty stuff rather than adding on a new layer to make up for the shitty stuff that keeps going on. So if a girl is interested let her pursue her interest and don’t tell her that because she a girl she doesn’t have the right brain for science or really she should be setting her sights on a role in the household or whatever. If she ends up doing well and gets into a graduate program in some science and then into the field, fine. If she Changes her mind or can’t cut it, then she doesn’t go that way. Same with the men. Allow for their interests, parents and teacher nurture these and them and let the cards fall where they may. A while back a women was definitely going to have to run a gauntlet in many science fields that the men around her would not have. She would have her intelligence questioned not because of what she did, said, wrote. She would have her validity as a person challenged for being in those fields. It’s good that that shit has been declining and the hallucinations that Went along with them.
For some Agency or government body to try to squeeze more women into science would be silly.
Just continue cutting off the shit, be decent parents, teachers and society members and let humans make choice and gain the skills and roles they are capable of.
It’s sad but funny that so many souls only decided there was prejudice when affirmative action came along. Suddenly they want fairness. That’s wimpy self-serving justice only. And, again, that doesn’t mean I am for affirmative action. I’m not. I just see a lot of hair pulling THAT DAMN WELL SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE BEFORE.
Science needs more imagination. Lately, scientists are just data analyzers. But this is not science. Getting a load of “data” and analyzing them until you die is not science. Science is imagining a solution to a problem or a beaufitul new theory out of almost nothing! Einstein discovered everything he discovered with his mind! He did not have a CERN to back him up. When we understand that, we will witness the greatest progress science has seen for years…
And yes, women tend to be better in thinking not like data analysts…
PS. “Equality” between men and women is something legal. They both must have the same rights in society. The same chances to success. However this does not mean that they are equal in every aspect of life!
You seem to have an entirely false image of science. Science has far too much imagination and not enough rational thinking. Billions of dollars are being spent on pointless projects that merely feed military forces with synergistic offshoots. The offshoots are the incentive and funding for imaginary, fantasy goals. And progress is measured by how inexpensively weapons can be made and distributed to law enforcement agencies.
Almost entirely incorrect. Science is very, very largely collecting and analyzing data. That is a part in which women participate probably a little better than men. But due to science, most of that is being done by computer. What the data means in reality is another subject that doesn’t require imagination, but clear, cold, objective understanding.
And Einstein was actually wrong, so he makes a poor example. If during the past 50 years a woman had resolved why he is wrong, it would have been all over the news for years simply because a woman was involved. But it wasn’t a woman, so you hear nothing about it. The would-be woman would not have to be actually in science to find and correct the error and less likely to if she was in science due to the effect of having been saturated with wrong notions that keep scientists thinking in the wrong terms. The resolve to the errors of Einstein is merely one of ontological correctness, logic, very restricted from wishful imagination. It requires the establishment of a new foundation and frontier, a masculine specialty.
Also exactly wrong. Women tend to be data processors better than men. Relating the data to the real world is what they have trouble with and that is the part that science needs, not imaginative, fantasy solutions.
That is one of the feminie fantasies. There is no such thing as “equal opportunity” anywhere, in anything… ever. It is a physical impossibility. It cannot happen ever. So while feminine laws are being made to put chains on researchers to enforce a law that can never be enforced, science suffers in the same way that all businesses suffered when they started doing that. Unemployment rises as costs rise every time the government gets its fingers into businesses. And research is a business.
You seem to be expressing a fantasy image of science from 50 years ago. Today science doesn’t know what to do with all they have, much less do they need more.
Women are there merely to get rid of the males for the sake of other males far away. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of justice or equality between the genders. Injecting women into Science is exactly the same as forcing the Euro currency on Greece. Look where Greece is now.
Such things are not done to serve the entity, but to enslave the entity… or sometimes merely to destroy it.
I’m not a fan of CERN, but Einstein did have the results of a great deal of previous practical scientific research. He did not learn in a vacuum.
The masculine mind is to accomplish it.
The feminine mind is to make it comfortable, delectable, accepted.
It is the exact same scam used by the other religions and governments.
I failed at delectable 101. I can shoot, fish and clean what I kill… you can safely eat what I cook… 
Doesn’t sound like you failed.
You are married aren’t you. 
He was warned by my family about my “flaws” I was warned by his about his “flaws” His cooking involves burning meat, I am the least of two evils. Marriage was survival for both of us
No one learns anything in a “vacuum”.
But… there are some things which we do learn in vacuum.
They are our initial hypotheses, our initial axioms from which we begin our quest for knowledge.
These are based on nothing more than intuition.
And who has better intuition than women?
No they are not. Hypotheses and axioms arise from what came before. Everything is built on the existing foundation. Innovation comes from combining ‘what is’ in new ways. Nobody ever created anything in a vacuum.
If there is any merit in having more women in science it is simply that they have had a different set of experiences and as a result their ‘what is’ is not quite the same as men’s. Therefore they may innovate in a different direction than men.
Not true.
Logic needs no “what came before”.
And women are notably not very good at logic, but rather what they are told, much like children. Women don’t particularly care about what is true, merely what it takes for them to get along… go along with the man with the money.