Re: Female scientists 'undervalued'

From: Jo Schaper (joschapern4ospam_at_2socketdot.no5net)
Date: 02/23/05 

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:07:54 -0600

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

> In article <cvffab$e7o$1@info4.fnal.gov>,
> EjP <noname@hackers.are.bad> wrote:
>
>>jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>In article <cvcvpf$i7q$1@info4.fnal.gov>,
>>> EjP <noname@hackers.are.bad> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>I thought it was odd that the article focused on how women *feel* about
>>>>their chances of being promoted rather than giving statistics about
>>>>whether they actually *get* promoted.
>>>
>>>
>>>Exactly. And this was reported to be spawned by scientists.
>>>So much for their scientific training. I don't know who keeps
>>>stirring this pot, but whoever is doing this has a hidden agenda
>>>of female removal from the science biz.
>>>
>>
>>My suspicion is that the original plan was to write an article
>>showing that women were discriminated against, but the statistics
>>didn't back that up, so they resorted to feelings.
>
>
> Of course. It also smacks of a liberal arts educational background.

Hey! I resemble that remark! There is nothing wrong with a rigorous
liberal arts education, or for that matter, with conducting a study in
which self-assessment of prospects is examined, and compared to how
those prospects are actually achieved. "Liberal Arts Education" does not
necessarily equate to 'fuzzy thinking' and it gets old to hear that
equation being made. I've heard enough equally fuzzy thinking from some
of the so-called scientists around here...the only difference I've ever
noted is that liberal arts fuzzy thinking tends to be so broad as to be
meaningless, whereas scientific fuzzy thinking tends to err on the
narrow-minded side.

The emphasis on 'touchy-feely' in this thread may actually be an
unconscious artifact of British language differences, and not be 'real'
at all. The report came from the BBC. If you have ever listened to BBC
news, you will note that BBC broadcasting has a 'style' which is much
different than US reportage. The word 'feel' in British English is often
used as a synonym for believe or considered opinion, and does not
necessarily imply an emotional reaction devoid of thought--it is so used
to a lesser extent in the US. But since this study is a survey of
opinion vs statistical reality, this word is likely a precise rendering
of the author's intent, differentiating statistics from reported
perception.

Anyone who seriously argues that women have achieved numerical parity in
science academia (especially the physical sciences) need only do a
statistical study of faculty by gender, promotional or tenure status to
see this is not so. However, unlike many of these studies, I think the
reason is complex, and not attributable entirely to genetics,
educational, social, economic or psychological factors, but an interplay
of all five, as well as simple career decision making on the part of the
women involved.

Jo

Quantcast