And it doesn’t help a bit to mention that trying to work under such circumstances reminds you of certain episodes of The Red Green Show. http://www.redgreen.com/
Ugh, the New York Times’s habit of putting *anything* to do with women in Fashion & Style is really annoying.
As for this report, the results aren’t surprising but I think I’ll join you in cautious optimism. At least the ingrained sexist culture in SET is being talked about.
I was on the phone with a speech coach today and she asked, “Is it true?” And I said, “Yeah, it pretty much is…” But I’m with ya…if we’re talking about it, hopefully that means things will change.
When I first started in chemistry very many years ago, women in the lab were a novelty. Now, men who stayed in are now management. I would bet that things get better when they retire and younger men and women take over. At the end of my time a Monsanto, women were being “push up the ladder” to make quotas. those women are the ones with a shot a senior management and can make a real change.
[...] is a sentence from here, via Feminist Chemists, who posted the following: This is a great article from New Scientist, which summarizes years of [...]
[...] Intelligence can be Improved with Memory Training – A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that fluid intelligence, which was previously believed to be an immutable trait, can now be increased with memory exercises. … [...]
This study proves what we feminists said 35 years ago: girls can achieve at the same levels as boys providing they’re encouraged to study. It’s why we fought so hard for Title IX: equal opportunities in public education for girls and boys. Math isn’t hardwired into the brain of either males or females. I lament the generations of girls who lost out because of stereotypes.
I believe you’ll find that Title IX does apply equally to academics and sports. It just doesn’t cover teachers – only students. When it passed parents of girls were forced to insist that school districts ensure equal treatment in classrooms as well as on the playing field.
I recall being publicly shellacked by the local athletic director back in 1973 for suggesting that funding should be expended equally for girls’ sports but academics never seemed to rise to the public debate. Still we monitored our schools to ensure that our daughters received equal treatment.
Sad that it has taken 35 years for acknowledgment that we were right to do so.
A day or so ago someone on twitter linked an article lauding the top male technology bloggers. A few of them I know and love, but it still made the hair on the back of my neck bristle because where the heck were the women? Your field sounds as complicated for women as technology professions. Thanks, very well written points.
Caution. These white men are like a drowning person. In their struggle to keep their boy’s club alive they will likely take us down with them if we expend any energy to save them. Let them drown!
And then there are a few years of post docs, where the power structure is little different. I think the real problem, however, is that funding is so screwed up. So fix that, and the other problems might sort out a bit more faciley.
The more general quote, “U.S. chemical companies need more engineering and science graduates than the country’s universities are turning out” , is pure B.S. I’ve been reading this crap from the Chemical industry for 40 years, but hardly have ever met a chemist who wasn’t under employed. The basic economic lot of chemists has steadily declined for 40 years. If there ever were a real shortage, then people would be making better salaries, in real terms, not worse ones
Yes larry p, you make a good point and I have edited the piece to remove that quote. The idea that we need more science graduates doesn’t correlate at all with my observations of out-of-work Ph.D.s
[...] you are woman and just work hard, you will get what you deserve based upon your merit. (See also previous post regarding gender bias in assessments of postdoctoral fellowships [...]
[...] it is clear from McCain’s responses that he did not even read the report “Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering,” compiled by the National Science Foundation. He instead argues that we need more money [...]
The more general quote, “U.S. chemical companies need more engineering and science graduates than the country’s universities are turning out” , is pure B.S. I’ve been reading this crap from the Chemical industry for 40 years, but hardly have ever met a chemist who wasn’t under employed. The basic economic lot of chemists has steadily declined for 40 years. If there ever were a real shortage, then people would be making better salaries, in real terms, not worse ones
Yes larry p, you make a good point and I have edited the piece to remove that quote. The idea that we need more science graduates doesn’t correlate at all with my observations of out-of-work Ph.D.s
The more general quote, “U.S. chemical companies need more engineering and science graduates than the country’s universities are turning out” , is pure B.S. I’ve been reading this crap from the Chemical industry for 40 years, but hardly have ever met a chemist who wasn’t under employed. The basic economic lot of chemists has steadily declined for 40 years. If there ever were a real shortage, then people would be making better salaries, in real terms, not worse ones
Yes larry p, you make a good point and I have edited the piece to remove that quote. The idea that we need more science graduates doesn’t correlate at all with my observations of out-of-work Ph.D.s
I saw an article in Science recently about this subject. These jokers never give up do they? They are determined not to let some girls be smarter than them. Cowards.
I saw an article in Science recently about this subject. These jokers never give up do they? They are determined not to let some girls be smarter than them. Cowards.
That's great. As usual, “organic,” “natural,” and “free-range” don't really mean anything.
Something doesn't have to be organic to be food. Even so, about everything we eat is organic anyways, if you go by it's actual chemical definition. Brian Dunning of Skeptoid.com points us to how all a producer has to do to earn his “free range” badge is to let turkeys or chickens walk a certain amount, even if it's still not a humane amount. Californians just voted to let chickens turn around in their cages. But they still urinate and defecate on each other enough that they get skin infections and eye infections that end up closing them with scarring.
Some people into “organic food” or “raw food” insist that cooking food makes it inorganic, showing that most people, especially organic foodies, don't know what 'organic' means.
Let's review what an organic compound is. Ever take o-chem in college? Organic chemistry is the study of carbon compounds, and organic compounds are those formed by living organisms, with molecules containing two or more carbon atoms, linked by carbon-carbon bonds. These can be double bonds, where the carbon atoms share 4 electrons, or in the case of saturated fatty acids, they can be single bonds, where the carbon atoms share two electrons, and the other electrons are shared with bonded hydrogen atoms. Breaking these bonds would, in effect, make an organic compound non-organic.
So really, the claim being made by the raw food people is that cooking breaks those carbon-carbon bonds. You would have to really, really cook your food to break these bonds. Carbon-carbon bonds will begin to break at temperatures above 750 Fahrenheit, or about 400 Celsius. So if you cook your food in a ceramics kiln, then yes, it is possible to chemically change it into a non-organic compound. But if you're looking for it to happen at regular cooking temperatures, well then, you need to retake your o-chem.
As for “natural,” well hey, plenty of poisons and venoms are natural. Are they still good? What isn't natural would have to be supernatural. Are you into ghost livestock?
What really saddens me is that a lot of fellow feminists I know are into woo-woo and the organic food industry. It's pretty hard to talk to them about it as a skeptic as most Skeptics are total misogynists.
Sigh.
There are only two reasons for the better treatment of animals: to stop feeding bloodlust for the torture of other animals and act humanely, and to make it possible to cut down on antibiotics so that we don't render them useless too soon. The only other thing wrong with our food industry is our ludicrous dependence on corn. Anything manages to wipe our corn or bees and this country is in big trouble.
That's great. As usual, “organic,” “natural,” and “free-range” don't really mean anything.
Something doesn't have to be organic to be food. Even so, about everything we eat is organic anyways, if you go by it's actual chemical definition. Brian Dunning of Skeptoid.com points us to how all a producer has to do to earn his “free range” badge is to let turkeys or chickens walk a certain amount, even if it's still not a humane amount. Californians just voted to let chickens turn around in their cages. But they still urinate and defecate on each other enough that they get skin infections and eye infections that end up closing them with scarring.
Some people into “organic food” or “raw food” insist that cooking food makes it inorganic, showing that most people, especially organic foodies, don't know what 'organic' means.
Let's review what an organic compound is. Ever take o-chem in college? Organic chemistry is the study of carbon compounds, and organic compounds are those formed by living organisms, with molecules containing two or more carbon atoms, linked by carbon-carbon bonds. These can be double bonds, where the carbon atoms share 4 electrons, or in the case of saturated fatty acids, they can be single bonds, where the carbon atoms share two electrons, and the other electrons are shared with bonded hydrogen atoms. Breaking these bonds would, in effect, make an organic compound non-organic.
So really, the claim being made by the raw food people is that cooking breaks those carbon-carbon bonds. You would have to really, really cook your food to break these bonds. Carbon-carbon bonds will begin to break at temperatures above 750 Fahrenheit, or about 400 Celsius. So if you cook your food in a ceramics kiln, then yes, it is possible to chemically change it into a non-organic compound. But if you're looking for it to happen at regular cooking temperatures, well then, you need to retake your o-chem.
As for “natural,” well hey, plenty of poisons and venoms are natural. Are they still good? What isn't natural would have to be supernatural. Are you into ghost livestock?
What really saddens me is that a lot of fellow feminists I know are into woo-woo and the organic food industry. It's pretty hard to talk to them about it as a skeptic as most Skeptics are total misogynists.
Sigh.
There are only two reasons for the better treatment of animals: to stop feeding bloodlust for the torture of other animals and act humanely, and to make it possible to cut down on antibiotics so that we don't render them useless too soon. The only other thing wrong with our food industry is our ludicrous dependence on corn. Anything manages to wipe our corn or bees and this country is in big trouble.
Enough with the anachronistic judgements on historical figures! why should bad history be any more acceptable than bad science? Darwin and Einstein made mistakes. Is anybody seriously contending that they aren't titans of science? Applying contemporary feminist theory to Aristotle,let alone blaming him for contemporary sexism in science,makes about as much sense as the phlogiston theory does to an analytical chemist!
There are plenty of ideas that pervade modern thought, whose roots can be found in ancient, outdated philosophy. Often times, erroneous ideas, such as the specific brand of sexism that Aristotle peddled, survive for years and people lose track of where they came from. People will then think there is some validity to the erroneous thought because they have heard it said for so long. Therefore, it is highly valuable to trace such thoughts to their origins. By doing that, we can invalidate the thought and reveal that it is simply an error that has been repeated enough times that people think it is a fact.
You seem to think it is implausible that historical figures would leave ideological legacies which can still be seen in today's society? What about the historical figures of Jesus, Mohammad, and the Buddha? Despite the age of their philosophies, these figures continue to be THE most influential philosophers on modern thought. Should we ignore the effects of religion too, just because it happened a long time ago?
There are plenty of ideas that pervade modern thought, whose roots can be found in ancient, outdated philosophy. Often times, erroneous ideas, such as the specific brand of sexism that Aristotle peddled, survive for years and people lose track of where they came from. People will then think there is some validity to the erroneous thought because they have heard it said for so long. Therefore, it is highly valuable to trace such thoughts to their origins. By doing that, we can invalidate the thought and reveal that it is simply an error that has been repeated enough times that people think it is a fact.
You seem to think it is implausible that historical figures would leave ideological legacies which can still be seen in today's society? What about the historical figures of Jesus, Mohammad, and the Buddha? Despite the age of their philosophies, these figures continue to exert incredible influence on modern thought. Should we discount the powerful influence of religion too, just because it happened a long time ago?
Her passion and dedication to her field are of utmost contribution to the contemporary x-ray crystallography methods. Such a heroine to admire that kept like-minded people inspired.
Her passion and dedication to her field are of utmost contribution to the contemporary x-ray crystallography methods. Such a heroine to admire that kept like-minded people inspired.
My opinion is am going to obama. Because i hope he will improve the women status in engineering, science and other field since he has two daughters.. home school
My opinion is am going to obama. Because i hope he will improve the women status in engineering, science and other field since he has two daughters.. home school
I have to agree with Raymond. As a FEMALE statistics professor at an ivy league university, I have read that very article. Machin and Pekkarinen compiled the results and documented statistical analyses that were both sound and conservative. The fact remains that boys did show the greatest variance. As far as the article being “sexist,” I believe that your agenda is more damaging than any reasearch on intellectual and congnitive subjects. What comes most quickly to mind is that you are “crying wolf” … and someday, nobody will listen. You should focus your agenda on articles that truly demand attention, rather than simply utilising your Medline, Ovid, or other literature search tools looking for keywords. You need to *think* before you write another letter to a journal. Better yet, why not perform this research yourselves and show those women haters how a “feminist” would do things. Your article is yet another epic “fail” for women's initiatives in science.
Marilyn, I really question if you are really who you say you are. Your IP address is identical to Raymond's IP address. Hmmm… I guess when you concocted this false identity to try to really show us up, you didn't think we feminist chemists were smart enough to know what IP addresses are! You are busted!
Don't come back. You don't meet the intelligence quota to comment here. I mean, really, what kind of idiot doesn't realize that when they post hateful anti-woman comments on a site using different names from the same IP address- that they won't get caught? Amateur.
As others have explained before me – “The test is wrong” is not a valid scientific argument unless you provide a mathematical, statistical or objective explanation attesting the fact the particular analysis used in the relevant publication is indeed flawed.
Further, in your letter you state several factors which may play a role in the nature of the findings. Notwithstanding, in the context of the education system, culture (reality in general) , the data shows there is a larger variance for boys in that test score compared to girls. This fact is unchanged unless , and objectively speaking, if the other parameters you mentioned really do play a role, the test should prove the null hypothesis. Since both boys and girls took the same test, and a statistically significant difference was noted – there is clearly something to this. A bad test will output random results and have no statistical differences.
We didn't say “the test was wrong,” we said “the test was irrelevant.” And yes, the variance on standardized test scores is irrelevant to achievement, according to the references I cited. What is the point of doing statistics on tests which have no relation to reality? (rhetorical question, you don't need to answer).
Marilyn, I question if you are really who you say you are. Your IP address is identical to Raymond's IP address. Hmmm… I guess when you concocted this false identity to try to really show us up, you didn't think we feminist chemists were smart enough to know what IP addresses are! You are busted!
Don't come back. You don't meet the intelligence quota to comment here. I mean, really, what kind of idiot doesn't realize that when they post hateful anti-woman comments on a site using different names from the same IP address- that they won't get caught? Amateur.
As others have explained before me – “The test is wrong” is not a valid scientific argument unless you provide a mathematical, statistical or objective explanation attesting the fact the particular analysis used in the relevant publication is indeed flawed.
Further, in your letter you state several factors which may play a role in the nature of the findings. Notwithstanding, in the context of the education system, culture (reality in general) , the data shows there is a larger variance for boys in that test score compared to girls. This fact is unchanged unless , and objectively speaking, if the other parameters you mentioned really do play a role, the test should prove the null hypothesis. Since both boys and girls took the same test, and a statistically significant difference was noted – there is clearly something to this. A bad test will output random results and have no statistical differences.
We didn't say “the test was wrong,” we said “the test was irrelevant.” The variance on standardized test scores is irrelevant to achievement, according to the references we cited. What is the point of doing statistics on tests which have no relation to reality? (rhetorical question, you don't need to answer).
We can do statistical analyses on all kinds of irrelevant data sets and publish the trends that we see. That is easy to do. The hard part is finding the most relevant data set to analyze.
It appears that the men who decided to conduct this research had an agenda going in. How else would they get such a study funded? I can just imagine their grant proposal. “Boys are better than girls at math, we can prove it.” And some slobbering government official dude thought, “yeah, that’s awesome, here’s some money.”
These men are so afraid of losing their power. And they are losing it. Little by little, and there is NOTHING they can do about it!
The comments by the feminists here = “Epic Fail” If your son scores higher than your daughter in math… It is assumed that the father is at fault and all men should pay,
“Get yer pitchforks girls, we havin us an old fashioned witch hunt”
It just so happens my wife is very good at math, and as a result of her tutoring, my son has very high scores. A 4th grade boy doing calculus is in my opinion… insanely amazing.
But when he’s older it wont count, because feminists will view him as self serving male first…right?
Or …it doesn’t count because I oppressed my wife into knowing all this on purpose before we met, and got married to her and forced her to teach my son so that I could undermine feminist authority…right?
Its hilarious how lolfeminism implodes in on itself, when one woman decides to do the right thing for a member of the male gender.
Ash, it is amazing how your attempt to construct a logical counterargument implodes in on itself. Your inept rambling has nothing to do with this post, but we will not delete it because it makes us laugh.
[...] Feminist Chemists cites a brand-new study by the American Mathematical Society: In elementary school, girls do as well as or better in math than boys. In middle school, girls with an inclination for math begin to lose interest and fall behind, mostly due to peer pressure and societal expectations. Throughout middle and high school, social stigma and lack of appropriately challenging educational opportunities for the mathematically precocious becomes a hard reality in most American schools. Consequently, gifted girls, even more so than boys, often camouflage their mathematical talent to fit in well with their peers. [...]
There is no reason a pregnant woman cannot participate in a postdoc; Universities have both an ethicall and a legal obligation to provide a safe working environment for each of their employees. There are many engineering controls and other work practices changes that can lessen potential exposure.
It is true that, legally, a University can't discriminate against hiring a woman because she is pregnant. However, what we have seen is that most research advisors would not willingly hire a pregnant postdoc. In fact, we have been told that many PhD advisors tell women they cannot work in their group if they become pregnant. So, research professors have a history of doing illegal things.
Also, a University cannot ethically let a woman expose herself to harmful chemicals in the lab while pregnant. At the University where one of us did our PhD work, several female graduate students became pregnant and spent the majority of their pregnancies out of the lab, writing reviews and whatnot. Some could spend limited time in the lab wearing full bunny suits, but even then their exposure to chemicals had to be very limited.
Maybe if a woman was in the field of theoretical chemistry, she would be fine. But if she is in organic or inorganic chemistry, she will have a very difficult time being in the lab. Our understanding from our industry contacts is that pregnant women are usually given desk assignments, away from the bench, during their pregnancies. Neither the company, nor the woman, wants to take that risk.
If any readers have observed different practices, please share them with us. We would like to know. We are speaking from our combined experiences and knowledge.
This post was mentioned on Twitter by PolymerPhD: Is a PhD in science worth the investment anymore? Maybe not: http://tinyurl.com/ygy7rgq (via @feministchemist)…
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Abhishek Tiwari, Elif, Angela Alexander, Feminist Chemist, Joerg Kurt Wegner and others. Joerg Kurt Wegner said: Liked "RT @feministchemist: Is a PhD in science worth the investment anymore? Maybe not: http://tinyurl.com/ygy7rgq" http://ff.im/eK145 [...]
April 5th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
I’m glad you’re enjoying Women in Science. Thanks for the link!
May 13th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Saw your comment on Zuska’s page and had to come over. Welcome to the Blogosphere! Have you heard of the Scientiae Carnival yet? Last week I hosted the May Carnival at my blog (Here: http://flickamawa.wordpress.com/2008/05/07/may-scientiae-carnival-career-paths-perspective-and-changing-self-image/)
The carnival site is here: http://scientiae-carnival.blogspot.com/
May 16th, 2008 at 1:31 am
Thanks for your incredible questions and answers! (Hope you wont mind the link to and blogroll of your post and blog now at my blog).
May 17th, 2008 at 5:33 am
And it doesn’t help a bit to mention that trying to work under such circumstances reminds you of certain episodes of The Red Green Show. http://www.redgreen.com/
LOL
May 18th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Ugh, the New York Times’s habit of putting *anything* to do with women in Fashion & Style is really annoying.
As for this report, the results aren’t surprising but I think I’ll join you in cautious optimism. At least the ingrained sexist culture in SET is being talked about.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
I was on the phone with a speech coach today and she asked, “Is it true?” And I said, “Yeah, it pretty much is…” But I’m with ya…if we’re talking about it, hopefully that means things will change.
June 21st, 2008 at 3:26 pm
When I first started in chemistry very many years ago, women in the lab were a novelty. Now, men who stayed in are now management. I would bet that things get better when they retire and younger men and women take over. At the end of my time a Monsanto, women were being “push up the ladder” to make quotas. those women are the ones with a shot a senior management and can make a real change.
June 21st, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Aristotle also thought the earth was immobile because he was too lazy to go out and experiment
July 5th, 2008 at 7:54 am
[...] is a sentence from here, via Feminist Chemists, who posted the following: This is a great article from New Scientist, which summarizes years of [...]
July 14th, 2008 at 5:12 am
[...] Intelligence can be Improved with Memory Training – A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that fluid intelligence, which was previously believed to be an immutable trait, can now be increased with memory exercises. … [...]
July 26th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
This study proves what we feminists said 35 years ago: girls can achieve at the same levels as boys providing they’re encouraged to study. It’s why we fought so hard for Title IX: equal opportunities in public education for girls and boys. Math isn’t hardwired into the brain of either males or females. I lament the generations of girls who lost out because of stereotypes.
July 27th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
I believe you’ll find that Title IX does apply equally to academics and sports. It just doesn’t cover teachers – only students. When it passed parents of girls were forced to insist that school districts ensure equal treatment in classrooms as well as on the playing field.
I recall being publicly shellacked by the local athletic director back in 1973 for suggesting that funding should be expended equally for girls’ sports but academics never seemed to rise to the public debate. Still we monitored our schools to ensure that our daughters received equal treatment.
Sad that it has taken 35 years for acknowledgment that we were right to do so.
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:17 pm
A day or so ago someone on twitter linked an article lauding the top male technology bloggers. A few of them I know and love, but it still made the hair on the back of my neck bristle because where the heck were the women? Your field sounds as complicated for women as technology professions. Thanks, very well written points.
October 24th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Caution. These white men are like a drowning person. In their struggle to keep their boy’s club alive they will likely take us down with them if we expend any energy to save them. Let them drown!
October 25th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
And then there are a few years of post docs, where the power structure is little different. I think the real problem, however, is that funding is so screwed up. So fix that, and the other problems might sort out a bit more faciley.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Agreed that women should be better represented.
The more general quote, “U.S. chemical companies need more engineering and science graduates than the country’s universities are turning out” , is pure B.S. I’ve been reading this crap from the Chemical industry for 40 years, but hardly have ever met a chemist who wasn’t under employed. The basic economic lot of chemists has steadily declined for 40 years. If there ever were a real shortage, then people would be making better salaries, in real terms, not worse ones
November 17th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Yes larry p, you make a good point and I have edited the piece to remove that quote. The idea that we need more science graduates doesn’t correlate at all with my observations of out-of-work Ph.D.s
November 17th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
[...] you are woman and just work hard, you will get what you deserve based upon your merit. (See also previous post regarding gender bias in assessments of postdoctoral fellowships [...]
November 17th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
[...] it is clear from McCain’s responses that he did not even read the report “Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering,” compiled by the National Science Foundation. He instead argues that we need more money [...]
November 17th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Agreed that women should be better represented.
The more general quote, “U.S. chemical companies need more engineering and science graduates than the country’s universities are turning out” , is pure B.S. I’ve been reading this crap from the Chemical industry for 40 years, but hardly have ever met a chemist who wasn’t under employed. The basic economic lot of chemists has steadily declined for 40 years. If there ever were a real shortage, then people would be making better salaries, in real terms, not worse ones
November 17th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Yes larry p, you make a good point and I have edited the piece to remove that quote. The idea that we need more science graduates doesn’t correlate at all with my observations of out-of-work Ph.D.s
November 17th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Agreed that women should be better represented.
The more general quote, “U.S. chemical companies need more engineering and science graduates than the country’s universities are turning out” , is pure B.S. I’ve been reading this crap from the Chemical industry for 40 years, but hardly have ever met a chemist who wasn’t under employed. The basic economic lot of chemists has steadily declined for 40 years. If there ever were a real shortage, then people would be making better salaries, in real terms, not worse ones
November 17th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Yes larry p, you make a good point and I have edited the piece to remove that quote. The idea that we need more science graduates doesn’t correlate at all with my observations of out-of-work Ph.D.s
November 18th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Christina is on fire!
November 18th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Christina is on fire!
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Seriously? I thought he was gone for good. >:(
Siberia would be too kind. Leave him in Alaska, and hope he's mistaken for a wolf?
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Seriously? I thought he was gone for good. >:(
Siberia would be too kind. Leave him in Alaska, and hope he's mistaken for a wolf?
December 4th, 2008 at 5:56 am
Has read with the pleasure, very interesting post, write still, good luck to you!
December 4th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
I saw an article in Science recently about this subject. These jokers never give up do they? They are determined not to let some girls be smarter than them. Cowards.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
I saw an article in Science recently about this subject. These jokers never give up do they? They are determined not to let some girls be smarter than them. Cowards.
December 15th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
HA!!
That's great. As usual, “organic,” “natural,” and “free-range” don't really mean anything.
Something doesn't have to be organic to be food. Even so, about everything we eat is organic anyways, if you go by it's actual chemical definition. Brian Dunning of Skeptoid.com points us to how all a producer has to do to earn his “free range” badge is to let turkeys or chickens walk a certain amount, even if it's still not a humane amount. Californians just voted to let chickens turn around in their cages. But they still urinate and defecate on each other enough that they get skin infections and eye infections that end up closing them with scarring.
Some people into “organic food” or “raw food” insist that cooking food makes it inorganic, showing that most people, especially organic foodies, don't know what 'organic' means.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4019
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4030
As for “natural,” well hey, plenty of poisons and venoms are natural. Are they still good? What isn't natural would have to be supernatural. Are you into ghost livestock?
What really saddens me is that a lot of fellow feminists I know are into woo-woo and the organic food industry. It's pretty hard to talk to them about it as a skeptic as most Skeptics are total misogynists.
Sigh.
There are only two reasons for the better treatment of animals: to stop feeding bloodlust for the torture of other animals and act humanely, and to make it possible to cut down on antibiotics so that we don't render them useless too soon. The only other thing wrong with our food industry is our ludicrous dependence on corn. Anything manages to wipe our corn or bees and this country is in big trouble.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:47 am
HA!!
That's great. As usual, “organic,” “natural,” and “free-range” don't really mean anything.
Something doesn't have to be organic to be food. Even so, about everything we eat is organic anyways, if you go by it's actual chemical definition. Brian Dunning of Skeptoid.com points us to how all a producer has to do to earn his “free range” badge is to let turkeys or chickens walk a certain amount, even if it's still not a humane amount. Californians just voted to let chickens turn around in their cages. But they still urinate and defecate on each other enough that they get skin infections and eye infections that end up closing them with scarring.
Some people into “organic food” or “raw food” insist that cooking food makes it inorganic, showing that most people, especially organic foodies, don't know what 'organic' means.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4019
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4030
As for “natural,” well hey, plenty of poisons and venoms are natural. Are they still good? What isn't natural would have to be supernatural. Are you into ghost livestock?
What really saddens me is that a lot of fellow feminists I know are into woo-woo and the organic food industry. It's pretty hard to talk to them about it as a skeptic as most Skeptics are total misogynists.
Sigh.
There are only two reasons for the better treatment of animals: to stop feeding bloodlust for the torture of other animals and act humanely, and to make it possible to cut down on antibiotics so that we don't render them useless too soon. The only other thing wrong with our food industry is our ludicrous dependence on corn. Anything manages to wipe our corn or bees and this country is in big trouble.
December 19th, 2008 at 6:50 am
There are still high paying jobs on certain job sites –
http://www.linkedin.com (professional networking)
http://www.careerbuilder.com (keyword job search)
http://www.realmatch.com (matches jobs based on skills)
good luck to those looking.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:47 am
Enough with the anachronistic judgements on historical figures! why should bad history be any more acceptable than bad science? Darwin and Einstein made mistakes. Is anybody seriously contending that they aren't titans of science? Applying contemporary feminist theory to Aristotle,let alone blaming him for contemporary sexism in science,makes about as much sense as the phlogiston theory does to an analytical chemist!
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:45 pm
There are plenty of ideas that pervade modern thought, whose roots can be found in ancient, outdated philosophy. Often times, erroneous ideas, such as the specific brand of sexism that Aristotle peddled, survive for years and people lose track of where they came from. People will then think there is some validity to the erroneous thought because they have heard it said for so long. Therefore, it is highly valuable to trace such thoughts to their origins. By doing that, we can invalidate the thought and reveal that it is simply an error that has been repeated enough times that people think it is a fact.
You seem to think it is implausible that historical figures would leave ideological legacies which can still be seen in today's society? What about the historical figures of Jesus, Mohammad, and the Buddha? Despite the age of their philosophies, these figures continue to be THE most influential philosophers on modern thought. Should we ignore the effects of religion too, just because it happened a long time ago?
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:45 pm
There are plenty of ideas that pervade modern thought, whose roots can be found in ancient, outdated philosophy. Often times, erroneous ideas, such as the specific brand of sexism that Aristotle peddled, survive for years and people lose track of where they came from. People will then think there is some validity to the erroneous thought because they have heard it said for so long. Therefore, it is highly valuable to trace such thoughts to their origins. By doing that, we can invalidate the thought and reveal that it is simply an error that has been repeated enough times that people think it is a fact.
You seem to think it is implausible that historical figures would leave ideological legacies which can still be seen in today's society? What about the historical figures of Jesus, Mohammad, and the Buddha? Despite the age of their philosophies, these figures continue to exert incredible influence on modern thought. Should we discount the powerful influence of religion too, just because it happened a long time ago?
March 16th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
looks disgusting how our brain
March 24th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Your field sounds as complicated for women as technology professions. Thanks, very well written points.
April 18th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Her passion and dedication to her field are of utmost contribution to the contemporary x-ray crystallography methods. Such a heroine to admire that kept like-minded people inspired.
April 18th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Her passion and dedication to her field are of utmost contribution to the contemporary x-ray crystallography methods. Such a heroine to admire that kept like-minded people inspired.
April 28th, 2009 at 10:45 am
My opinion is am going to obama. Because i hope he will improve the women status in engineering, science and other field since he has two daughters..
home school
April 28th, 2009 at 10:59 am
In future the chemists will get a very good offer and employment..May be much more that i hope so..
home school
April 28th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
My opinion is am going to obama. Because i hope he will improve the women status in engineering, science and other field since he has two daughters..
home school
April 28th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
In future the chemists will get a very good offer and employment..May be much more that i hope so..
home school
May 10th, 2009 at 1:08 am
Get over yourselves and know when you are conquered.
May 10th, 2009 at 1:45 am
I have to agree with Raymond. As a FEMALE statistics professor at an ivy league university, I have read that very article. Machin and Pekkarinen compiled the results and documented statistical analyses that were both sound and conservative. The fact remains that boys did show the greatest variance. As far as the article being “sexist,” I believe that your agenda is more damaging than any reasearch on intellectual and congnitive subjects. What comes most quickly to mind is that you are “crying wolf” … and someday, nobody will listen. You should focus your agenda on articles that truly demand attention, rather than simply utilising your Medline, Ovid, or other literature search tools looking for keywords. You need to *think* before you write another letter to a journal. Better yet, why not perform this research yourselves and show those women haters how a “feminist” would do things. Your article is yet another epic “fail” for women's initiatives in science.
May 10th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Marilyn, I really question if you are really who you say you are. Your IP address is identical to Raymond's IP address. Hmmm… I guess when you concocted this false identity to try to really show us up, you didn't think we feminist chemists were smart enough to know what IP addresses are! You are busted!
Don't come back. You don't meet the intelligence quota to comment here. I mean, really, what kind of idiot doesn't realize that when they post hateful anti-woman comments on a site using different names from the same IP address- that they won't get caught? Amateur.
May 10th, 2009 at 10:28 am
As others have explained before me – “The test is wrong” is not a valid scientific argument unless you provide a mathematical, statistical or objective explanation attesting the fact the particular analysis used in the relevant publication is indeed flawed.
Further, in your letter you state several factors which may play a role in the nature of the findings. Notwithstanding, in the context of the education system, culture (reality in general) , the data shows there is a larger variance for boys in that test score compared to girls. This fact is unchanged unless , and objectively speaking, if the other parameters you mentioned really do play a role, the test should prove the null hypothesis. Since both boys and girls took the same test, and a statistically significant difference was noted – there is clearly something to this. A bad test will output random results and have no statistical differences.
May 10th, 2009 at 10:31 am
We didn't say “the test was wrong,” we said “the test was irrelevant.” And yes, the variance on standardized test scores is irrelevant to achievement, according to the references I cited. What is the point of doing statistics on tests which have no relation to reality? (rhetorical question, you don't need to answer).
May 10th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Marilyn, I question if you are really who you say you are. Your IP address is identical to Raymond's IP address. Hmmm… I guess when you concocted this false identity to try to really show us up, you didn't think we feminist chemists were smart enough to know what IP addresses are! You are busted!
Don't come back. You don't meet the intelligence quota to comment here. I mean, really, what kind of idiot doesn't realize that when they post hateful anti-woman comments on a site using different names from the same IP address- that they won't get caught? Amateur.
May 10th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
As others have explained before me – “The test is wrong” is not a valid scientific argument unless you provide a mathematical, statistical or objective explanation attesting the fact the particular analysis used in the relevant publication is indeed flawed.
Further, in your letter you state several factors which may play a role in the nature of the findings. Notwithstanding, in the context of the education system, culture (reality in general) , the data shows there is a larger variance for boys in that test score compared to girls. This fact is unchanged unless , and objectively speaking, if the other parameters you mentioned really do play a role, the test should prove the null hypothesis. Since both boys and girls took the same test, and a statistically significant difference was noted – there is clearly something to this. A bad test will output random results and have no statistical differences.
May 10th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
We didn't say “the test was wrong,” we said “the test was irrelevant.” The variance on standardized test scores is irrelevant to achievement, according to the references we cited. What is the point of doing statistics on tests which have no relation to reality? (rhetorical question, you don't need to answer).
We can do statistical analyses on all kinds of irrelevant data sets and publish the trends that we see. That is easy to do. The hard part is finding the most relevant data set to analyze.
May 11th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
It appears that the men who decided to conduct this research had an agenda going in. How else would they get such a study funded? I can just imagine their grant proposal. “Boys are better than girls at math, we can prove it.” And some slobbering government official dude thought, “yeah, that’s awesome, here’s some money.”
These men are so afraid of losing their power. And they are losing it. Little by little, and there is NOTHING they can do about it!
July 15th, 2009 at 10:38 am
The comments by the feminists here = “Epic Fail” If your son scores higher than your daughter in math… It is assumed that the father is at fault and all men should pay,
“Get yer pitchforks girls, we havin us an old fashioned witch hunt”
It just so happens my wife is very good at math, and as a result of her tutoring, my son has very high scores. A 4th grade boy doing calculus is in my opinion… insanely amazing.
But when he’s older it wont count, because feminists will view him as self serving male first…right?
Or …it doesn’t count because I oppressed my wife into knowing all this on purpose before we met, and got married to her and forced her to teach my son so that I could undermine feminist authority…right?
Its hilarious how lolfeminism implodes in on itself, when one woman decides to do the right thing for a member of the male gender.
July 18th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Ash, it is amazing how your attempt to construct a logical counterargument implodes in on itself. Your inept rambling has nothing to do with this post, but we will not delete it because it makes us laugh.
August 20th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Does she have boyfriend ?
October 12th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
[...] Feminist Chemists cites a brand-new study by the American Mathematical Society: In elementary school, girls do as well as or better in math than boys. In middle school, girls with an inclination for math begin to lose interest and fall behind, mostly due to peer pressure and societal expectations. Throughout middle and high school, social stigma and lack of appropriately challenging educational opportunities for the mathematically precocious becomes a hard reality in most American schools. Consequently, gifted girls, even more so than boys, often camouflage their mathematical talent to fit in well with their peers. [...]
November 25th, 2009 at 2:22 am
[...] Feminist Chemists via Konstantinos [...]
November 27th, 2009 at 12:37 am
[...] Feminist Chemists » Blog Archive » New ACS President [...]
January 23rd, 2010 at 9:24 pm
There is no reason a pregnant woman cannot participate in a postdoc; Universities have both an ethicall and a legal obligation to provide a safe working environment for each of their employees. There are many engineering controls and other work practices changes that can lessen potential exposure.
January 23rd, 2010 at 9:41 pm
It is true that, legally, a University can't discriminate against hiring a woman because she is pregnant. However, what we have seen is that most research advisors would not willingly hire a pregnant postdoc. In fact, we have been told that many PhD advisors tell women they cannot work in their group if they become pregnant. So, research professors have a history of doing illegal things.
Also, a University cannot ethically let a woman expose herself to harmful chemicals in the lab while pregnant. At the University where one of us did our PhD work, several female graduate students became pregnant and spent the majority of their pregnancies out of the lab, writing reviews and whatnot. Some could spend limited time in the lab wearing full bunny suits, but even then their exposure to chemicals had to be very limited.
Maybe if a woman was in the field of theoretical chemistry, she would be fine. But if she is in organic or inorganic chemistry, she will have a very difficult time being in the lab. Our understanding from our industry contacts is that pregnant women are usually given desk assignments, away from the bench, during their pregnancies. Neither the company, nor the woman, wants to take that risk.
If any readers have observed different practices, please share them with us. We would like to know. We are speaking from our combined experiences and knowledge.
January 23rd, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by PolymerPhD: Is a PhD in science worth the investment anymore? Maybe not: http://tinyurl.com/ygy7rgq (via @feministchemist)…
January 24th, 2010 at 1:58 am
[...] Tweets about this great post on TwittLink.com [...]
January 24th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Abhishek Tiwari, Elif, Angela Alexander, Feminist Chemist, Joerg Kurt Wegner and others. Joerg Kurt Wegner said: Liked "RT @feministchemist: Is a PhD in science worth the investment anymore? Maybe not: http://tinyurl.com/ygy7rgq" http://ff.im/eK145 [...]