casandra on Jul 10 2009, 01:25 PM said:

In the library??
Remember the time when researching a topic involved looking up the index of every journal in turn.

Wrong casandra - leelee's question were pure ad hominem - ignoring the question (for which data could have been offereed pro or con) and probing the nature of the questioner. Her comments were a whining demonstration of female chauvinism and no more justified than the opposite. I'll ask if leelee wouldn't rather be barefoot and pregnant and if she thinks women can compete in the lab and then suggest we all "lighten up" after the usual distaff outrage.

GeorgeWolff on Jul 10 2009, 07:28 AM said:

Hi George....if it's just probing/divining the other's intent- that's still not considered ad hom and esp not "pure"....it could even provide a backdrop for the discussion itself...besides, you also ignored her questions so would you admit committing the same fallacy...perhaps it would be better if you make clear your position on this and hence justify your asking her/us to prove that the women scientists had indeed contributed to the progress of science (or not, as also implied by your tone and line of questioning)...or are you one of these guys who's just interested in having an argument for the pure art of argumentation and not really on the position/side of the fence one is in?

It's ad hominem as it questions motivation of the individual asking the question without addressing it in the least manner - as is your "one of those guys" who enjoys argument for argument sake.

Again - I asked for proof that the following was true.
"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."

Seeing nothing but ad hominem responses from the distaff side, I'll close my participation in this discusion.

GeorgeWolff on Jul 11 2009, 10:58 AM said:

But what exactly was your participation, if I may ask, without being accused of resorting to ad hom ...to ask us to prove what was not even claimed by any of us but was quoted from Bryson? And when leelee asked you questions in return
(just so you can clarify your position), you then refused on the ground that she used ad hom? And I had to google what "distaff" meant- really George...you're such a picky customer ....this is not exactly to prove anything but it is an interesting read..a bit dated too but at least it has some stats that can be checked out...job discrimination.....there's something there about women in science and technology...

DRT on Jul 9 2009, 11:44 PM said:

hmmm...I bet they'd already discovered power naps at that time...or weren't they checking out the stars (as well as the "computers") plus all the catalogue numbers....

I'm not sure I understand why you are so upset that I didn't answer your question, GeorgeWolff. And in the interest of peace and in the hope that no hard feelings will be harboured I will again offer my apology if you feel my line of questioning was inappropriate.

In answer to your question about my personal life choices, no I would not rather be "barefoot and pregnant" as you so eloquently put it. But when the time comes for me to decide if I wish to start a family or not, I will make sure that I am working in an environment that recognises that I have a lot to offer to my lab and allows me the flexibility to be a parent whilst not having to give up my love of science.

And on a final note, yes I do think that women can compete in the lab, I don't think that gender even comes in to ones ability to do good science.

leelee on Jul 13 2009, 04:46 AM said:

To put some more oil in the fire of this discussion I have to ask you the following:

Is it possible that there are less women in science because they are less assertive?

I have noticed that a lot of women seem to be more shy , lacking the "bad ass" attitude and thus not being able to get far in research.

I ask this because during my school time I have noticed that a lot of the women of my class were affraid to ask teachers certain things or even during a practical course they didnt even dare to ask where certain equipment was etc...

what is is your opinion on this? (or any female opinion, reading this)

pito on Jul 13 2009, 11:45 PM said:

I would not agree to that. They also have inquisitive mind as much as men have just that the field of interest might be different.

Bigger question is : are there really less women in science?

Remembering my school/college days, they were as (or sometimes even more) attracted to science. Boys were more into Physics and Chemistry while girls more into Biology. Even in biology, girl only wanted Botany while boys preferred Zoology. Even the staff in my school reflected the same pattern. All the staffs in Botany were female (except one who was just there for something even he did not understand) and in zoology, all the teaching staffs were men.

I guess animal experiments keep them away from biomedical research. Botany forum should have more women.

Nabi on Jul 13 2009, 05:41 PM said:

Eum, my experiences do disagree with this.

you say that there are more women in botany? I went to a "botany" school ( dont know how to say this really, but it was a school specialised in botany) and all the staff were male! Ex 2 womens and one of that womens was specialised in cows lol
Another point: the studies to become a vet: almost all women! Especially in the small animals direction or the horses. Farming animals are more boys
During my schooltime and practical lessons I noticed often that girls were more affraid to ask things, they lacked a certain attitude to ask or do things.

Example on what I mean with missing a certain assertiveness: I was once working with a girl and she needed something , but didnt know where it was. I noticed that she wasnt working anymore, but just sitting there and I asked why she stopped and she said: I need this, but do not know where it is.
I simply stood up, went to a person that worked at the lab and asked him: where is this and .... he told me where it was and I gave it to the girl...
After a while, I asked why she didnt ask it herself and her answer was: I just waited till our supervisor passed by , so I could ask him. I do not know the other people here and do not want to disturb them.


I have plenty of examples like this. I used to ask teachters questions that the girls had , but didnt dare to ask.
And I have had this many times.
They never dared to open their mouth.


I am not saying they are worse in science or that they do not have a certain interest or whatever , but I am stating that a lot of women are more scared, less "agressive" and thus less likely to get somewhere.

I think if you do not dare to open your mouth sometimes you lose oppertunities.