"Science was able to make great progress in the 20th century because sexism ensured that at least half of its’ best and brightest talent was retained at the ‘lab bench’ where the useful work was done."

Prove it.

GeorgeWolff on Jul 8 2009, 05:42 AM said:

Who said this? the radical feminists? and the meaning is not very clear and sounds even sarcastic....is it sexism or laws againts sexism? and who're the best and brightest left on the bench? the women after the men had been "promoted" to managerial/PI position instead of still doing the actual hands- on labour or or is it vice versa? we need the original article George....and what do you want proven? that women scientists had indeed contributed to the progeress of science in the 20th century?

PS...found the Bill Bryson (mis) quote in this thread...perhaps DRT can link us from which article/source it was taken from.........

Or perhaps I should just shoot myself in the foot and retire witless from the debate before I get killed.
The misquote comes from “A short history of nearly everything”. Bill Bryson was referring to a specific discovery (I forget which) so the generalisation is mine; made after an irritable week taking a visiting postdoc through some assays while his wife, who was obviously more talented and asked all the relevant questions, was taking the backseat to her husband’s career . I think it is more ironic than sarcastic, the general theme of the book seemed to be.... if you want to do great science don’t get promoted.

DRT on Jul 8 2009, 11:35 PM said:

Don't shoot yourself yet DRT, cos you've got some proving to do ...of course now it's more obvious the ironic tone. But I guess this theme of not getting promoted is not gender-related, eh? So how could you get us all excited about this...he probably didn't even pinpoint that it was a women's issue....

So let me ask you two things, GeorgeWolff

1. Do you think that women are inferior scientists to men?

2. Do you think being a parent makes a person an inferior scientist?

I understand you can't answer the question.

Oh, and to your suggested ad hominem:

1) I don't care.
and
2) I don't care.

huh? C'mon George...leelee didn't use any ad homs...her questions are fair......but had she called you a sexist, misogynist, male chauvinist dinosaur then you can cry fowl... she didn't...you're the first one to ask for proof and now suddenly you don't care......let's all lighten up and cool down.....there should be stats on this...I'm gonna check out the women's sites- they should be very unbiased...

casandra on Jul 9 2009, 01:50 PM said:

Found the original. Fancy sending me off to find the library; that large empty building that no one uses any more.

pg 116
“Hubble's luck was to come along soon after an ingenious woman named Henrietta Swan Leavitt had figured out a way to find . Leavitt worked at the Harvard College Observatory as a computer, as they were known. Computers spent their lives studying photographic plates of stars and making computations - hence the name. It was little more than drudgery by another name, but it was as close as women could get to real astronomy at Harvard – or indeed, pretty much anywhere - in those days. The system, however unfair, did have certain unexpected benefits: it meant that half the finest minds available were directed to work that would otherwise have attracted little reflective attention and it ensured that women ended up with an appreciation of the fine structure of the cosmos that often eluded their male counterparts.”

-DRT-

I can't see how anything in my post was a personal attack against you, GeorgeWolff, as casandra said, they were fair and genuine questions. However, if you misunderstood the tone of my post, then for that I apologise.

-leelee-

DRT on Jul 9 2009, 09:18 PM said:

casandra on Jul 9 2009, 01:50 PM said:

Don't shoot yourself yet DRT, cos you've got some proving to do ...of course now it's more obvious the ironic tone. But I guess this theme of not getting promoted is not gender-related, eh? So how could you get us all excited about this...he probably didn't even pinpoint that it was a women's issue....

Found the original. Fancy sending me off to find the library; that large empty building that no one uses any more.

pg 116
“Hubble's luck was to come along soon after an ingenious woman named Henrietta Swan Leavitt had figured out a way to find . Leavitt worked at the Harvard College Observatory as a computer, as they were known. Computers spent their lives studying photographic plates of stars and making computations - hence the name. It was little more than drudgery by another name, but it was as close as women could get to real astronomy at Harvard – or indeed, pretty much anywhere - in those days. The system, however unfair, did have certain unexpected benefits: it meant that half the finest minds available were directed to work that would otherwise have attracted little reflective attention and it ensured that women ended up with an appreciation of the fine structure of the cosmos that often eluded their male counterparts.”

So you got the book...hmm... I must commend you then for a job well done...actually, I think that the library is now the place to be if you wanna get a decent or shld I say power nap...thanks DRT....and he was indeed referring to women as the half with the finest minds..hah...that's not new... ....so what were the guys doing while the women were engaged in such tedious computational tasks?

-casandra-

Pages: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next