Deranging nature and female bodies?? Really? In case you do not know tubal ligations can be made to be reversible as can vasectomies. I honestly would not mind paying taxes for prepubescent kids to have these done, both genders. Too many young minds have to leave school to support babies. Its a waste.
Science and so many other areas need more bodies and good minds. Different perspectives and attitudes can quite likely find what stagnant perspectives and attitudes have not.
If a man allows himself to be made stupid, then it seems to me he made that decision. This goes for women too. Only physical damage can make stupidity non reversible .
What can be accomplished by removing stigma? So many good things hopefully. Quite likely a couple of bad things.
On the internet, it’s hard to tell when someone is being serious and when she is being facetious.
A. Chemical altering of biology
B. Potentially brainwashing
C. Reasonable
Only the first sentence was facetious.
A: chemical altering is right now proving to be unhealthy.
B: Brainwashing has been done, now we need to rinse all that blocking soap off. Brainrinsing.
C. Yep
When are you getting rid of the old brainwashing and when are you introducing new brainwashing?
You basically need to know what the unbrainwashed man or woman is like.
If you are doing that in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies, that is a totally different issue. But to say that “Science needs it to be done”, is ludicrous and maniacal.
But that isn’t what you get when you employ those tactics. What you get is lesser minds that achieve diversity through chaos and thus through suffering. They don’t merely improve the female. To them “all things are relative”, thus the way they accomplish it is primarily by decreasing the males (a much, much easier and profitable means). That is why you see SO VERY many stupid males in your society. The end result is a “gay-science”, a play-like science, a pretense.
Oh really?
People only become stupid because they chose to?
Get real.
The fantasy hopes used to lure into enslavement and a trap.
“Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise… until it is too late to choose otherwise.”
The point the OP made was that men have a bias for the mechanical thus the leaders of science, mostly men, have created a paradigm of reality as a machine.
I feel it’s reasonable to propose such a bias exists, and reasonable to speculate about the degree to which any bias might have infected what should ideally be a purely objective observation. If such a bias exists, it remains to be seen if additional women scientists can overcome it, and where that might lead if they do.
A case can be made that our relationship with science is close to insane, or at least dangerously outdated and far too simplistic. This is a big topic in itself, so for now let’s just recall that science has given us the ability to erase 5,000 years of civilization in a single afternoon. This highly troubling development should have inspired scientists and the rest of us to start asking big questions such as, how much science is enough, and how much is too much etc.
It seems the current leadership of science is not very interested in, or perhaps capable of, leading such an important conversation. They seem stuck in the “more is always better” mindset of the past. This suggests fresh faces in the leadership class might be a great idea.
But why women? It seems reasonable to propose that women have a deeper relationship with children than men do, and that this closer relationship might make them more serious and practical about the future. Such seriousness might inspire them to ask more fundamental questions about the role of science.
I don’t have a strong opinion. I just want this thread to be honest and straightforward and not terrorized by James’s and others’ ridiculously off-topic rants.
Thank you. Got it, James?
This, and the rest of that “report” is pure propaganda tripe;
Note the study has not been displayed AT ALL.
You are reading a propaganda piece and from STANDFORD no less (do they do anything else?), not to mention a “President’s Council” report. Can you get any LESS reliable than that?
Do you have any idea at all what actual Science looks like? You must not because none of this tripe even comes close. It is 100% “HEARSAY” by conspicuously suspect people, "New York Times, “President’s Council”, “Standford University”… three of the LEAST altruistic organizations in the entire world.
You might as well be reading an Islamic report concerning Jewish abuses.
Learn what actual Science looks like; specifications of control groups, methodology, significant error boundaries, sample group size, similarity compliance standard,…
And in the long run, all that “report” cowshit said was that WE want more PEOPLE in Science and thus WE WANT even WOMEN laboring in Science. They know that they can’t control all beliefs, who to love and hate, if they don’t control the women too.
None of it is anything close to actual Science.
Well, I will back off on some of that. They did finally offer a link and download of their requisite “science sounding” “Standards and Methods” pdf. And that document immediately reminded me of a recent suit between a landlord and HUD in Oregon. HUD had gone through what that document describes as;
“the general methodological approach used in correspondence test audit research, typically used in field studies of discrimination”.
Many Oregon landlords were being sued by HUD for discrimination. Due to a friend of mine demanding the raw data (left out of this report also), it was found that HUD had committed fraud due to the way the data was interpreted. Bias a prejudice was being used by the data research contractor while choosing whether bias and prejudice was indicated by the data (and blatantly so because the data was not to ever be seen). Although they had gone to great lengths to hide the raw data from ever being read by anyone via copyright and proprietary laws, my friend managed to get a hold of it anyway. The research company was immediately fired and the local HUD supervisor removed from post (no doubt merely shifted over to another). But the report read exactly like the one they are showing, giving very “science-sounding” figures and terms. But in the long run, only the raw data shows who is lying or being bias when it comes to reports on lying or bias.
Many of the recent hoaxes concerning shootings have been discovered to be fraudulent merely by examination of the raw data, the films. The mainstream media reports always show the minimum and select amounts of film so as to frame the case they want the public to believe. It is exactly the same as having the referees of a football game choose which video scenes are to be reviewed in order to verify a call. It is exactly the same as having only police officers choose which video of a crime investigation are to be seen by the public, and why many people are now being arrested for having a video phone around police activity.
Public fraud is the rule and standard in America, not the exception. One doesn’t ask the Devil for accurate statistics.
And still;
You can get a better idea of an unbrainwashed human by changing. Unfortunately for true study there just are not enough humans raised in a nonsocietal environment. Changing ways and attitude can give glimpses and probable ideas through action and reaction.
James, by your posts I am getting the ide that you put the male ego before humanity. Science and others won’t be harmed by more entering those fields even if they are average minds. Highly intelligent to genius can and do get their mind’s set into one idea and way. This is hinders science and other fields. Competition and collaboration with more minds opens paths that might otherwise not be seen.
Maybe science does need more women, I don’t know. One thing I do know for sure is that the care profession needs more men. Where I work it is something like 95% women, and that can get quite tiresome at times…
Lady K, who told you what makes Science work? Who? When?
If you said that Science needs far less “ego”, I would certainly agree. Ego certainly does hinder Science and other fields. In some regards it also helps, but that is contingent on how the ego issues are handled.
“A story was told of stagnate minds, so we want change.”
Or was it;
“We want change, so we told a story of stagnate minds”?
James, I am fifty years old. Hon, I retain data not names or times. If I were in my twenties I could answer those questions, now, I would just be bullshitting.
I do understand fundamentals and procedures. I actually have to for my job. Half veterinary, half science and half nanny for different species. I can’t tell you specifics of how I know how to use data, as I said its been decades.
Ego can be vital I agree. Hesitation and capitulation, can create wrong, false and bad results. Mental strength is needed and control along with a good education. Women can fit as easily as males. Societal programming is what keeps certain careers dominated by males or as Maia pointed out ,by females.
Do girls really prefer dolls or do they accept the toys because that is all that is offered and the parental expectations of enjoyment push that girl to play with dolls? Same with boys and toy cars. I got dolls and such crap. It upset my mother that I preferred my brother’s toys. Erector sets, Lincoln Logs, Tinker toys, etc. My mom finally gave up, hugged me and took me out of dresses. I wore blue jeans and T shirts after that except for special occasions. I eventually found the best of both worlds through my parents support. I have two highly intelligent sisters that did not have such interests. They stuck with traditional through their own choice. Wether it was to please others or themselves, I do not know, we are not that close.
My point : allow for choice and support it. Hormones are the other big stumbling block to choices.
So you are saying that women can be trained (and they are being trained) to be as egotistical as males (called “vain”).
So the bottom line is that “We” sexists and racists (also mentioned in the report) want Science to have more of “our kind” included and payed more than would normally be paid. And how again does this benefit Science? Diversity of thought?
For sake of diversity of thought, Science is to pay extra for sexists and racists to diversify and obfuscate Science, meaning of course that the masses will pay for Science to be more confused and confusing.
The “Science community” (the Secular Vatican) resolves issues by majority vote. They don’t know how to resolve issues based on reasoning and in fact have been strongly persuaded to avoid attempting it. Adding more sexists, racists, and egotists will certainly further ensure that reasoning has nothing to do with Science. So the result is that what “Science says” ends up being a lowest common denominator theory, not the best available theory. So when Science includes more sexists and racists, what “Science says” ends up being more of what sexists and racists would want it to say.
And you claim that Science needs that?
And that the masses should pay sexists and racists extra to help it happen.
And you might want to note who it is that comes up with those procedures and fundamental principles that you retain so well. The female makes a very attentive technician, far better than most males (I have hired and fired both), but a seriously lousy theorist, architect, or engineer.
Despite current mindsets, Science is NOT merely statistics, math, nor the lowest common denominator theory.
James, are you ranting just at me or others included? I must ask because you are bellowing about things you and I have not discussed.
As far as male vs female on theory , engineering etc. Dude, did you miss the part about toys??? Had my parents done as most parents do, I would only have dolls, housekeeping toys.
Boy toys are about questing, thinking, designing etc. Crucial ages are influenced by input. Gender does influence to a point but, not as much as society memes would lead us to believe.
The rest of your rant feels directed elsewhere. I will adress it if you meant it to be what you and I have been discussing. Cuz I think you might be too emotional or close, some things you said makes little sense.
James,
“In a randomized double-blind study (n = 127), science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student—who was randomly assigned either a male or female name—for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student. Mediation analyses indicated that the female student was less likely to be hired because she was viewed as less competent.”
Are you suggesting this is a lie? Or that such a simple study doesn’t provide a simple, irrefutable answer? Something else entirely?
I’m mystified. Your contributions to this thread are completely off the wall. What’s up?
Jane Goodall, one of my heros, on women in science:
What are the needs of Science?
What is its purpose?
Science has one true purpose and several subpurposes.
Its true purpose is to understand. Other purposes are health, money and becoming.
It needs curiosity, open minds, discipline, time, cooperation, ethics, education and minds.