http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/why-are-there-still-so-few-women-in-science.html?hp&_r=1&
This is written by a woman and its supposed to be a scathing example about how there are not many women in science and math.
It is a singularly awful article.
Because its written by a woman about science and math!?!?!
NO.
BECAUSE THE LOGIC OF THE ARTICLE IS DREADFUL. And that's being kind.
Her logic is just this: there are not more women scientists and mathematicians because people, when surveyed, still have trouble seeing women as legitimate professionals in those fields.
That means relatively nothing. I personally know two women with Math degrees. I personally know 2 men with math degrees. If women almost NEVER received math degrees, it would be a small miracle (but possible) for someone to know the same amount of people, in each gender, with math degrees.
The point being women get plenty of science degrees IN SPITE OF people seeing that as bizarre.
Then the author tries to blame the lack of women TRYING to get math and science degrees on people not seeing them as math and science people.
This is backwards.
First off, women do get math and science degrees - just not at the same rate men do. Is this because of natural aptitude? Is this because of women's personal preference? Is this because people don't see women as math and science folks?
All of the above.
So let's assign weight to each of the three causes we have presumed to affect the outcome of our little experiment (SO few women in math and science).
Aptitude - I have no empirical data here so I really don't know. but I give this 20% of the cause - I saw plenty of girls in school who were very good in math and science in school.
Magical distraction/derailment - This is the author's favorite - that women don't go into math and science because they're not "expected to." Because women do not see themselves as mathematicians or scientists, so therefore the cannot be them. 20% of the cause - MAX 20%, maybe less. We have more women in college and grad school than we do men. So women see no barriers to higher education, but some "thing" magically stops themselves from entering math and science? No. they stop themselves from entering math and science. Its not aptitude.
Personal preference: 60% of the cause. Maybe closer to 80% (making the above causes 10% each). I'm a smart guy. I love art and architecture. I've been called a sharp dresser. If I really tried hard, I could work in fashion. But I don't. Why? Aptitude? Nope - in fact, studies have shown many people do things they are inherently not talented in. Someone/thing derailing me? No; although many straight men ARE probably derailed because they are seen as gay otherwise and straight men hate that - this can NEVER be brought up as an excuse though - men get no excuses. So what's the reason? BECAUSE I DON'T CARE ABOUT FASHION. I notice it. I've appreciated it. But its not what I want to do with my life. I don't think about it all that much. I don't try at it. I simply don't really care about it. There is someone holding me back from doing it - ME!!!!!
Ever meet a woman waxing rhapsodically about MATH and science? Not really. Not often. Most women WOULD RATHER care about something else. Like fashion. Art. Literature. Marketing. Whatever. Not Math and Science. Fck, I really don't care about math and science. My love is elsewhere. THIS, research has shown time and time again, is the bulk of the cause behind what people do.
Do you know who Marie Curie is? She was born in 1967. I imagine if the world is out to get women in 2013, then in the 1970s and 80s women were all but shit on in Math class, right? She won the Nobel price in Physics AND CHEMISTRY. What a miracle, eh?
Oh wait, that's wrong.
You see Marie Curie was born in 1867. EIGHTEEN SIXTY SEVEN. That's 146 years ago. Two lifetimes.
She also won the Elliott Cresson Medal, Davy Medal, Matteucci Medal, John Scott Legacy Medal and Premium, Benjamin Franklin Medal.
HOW COULD SHE DO THAT!?!?!?! SHE WAS WONDER-WOMAN!!!!!
No. She was just some girl who loved science and math and didn't hold herself back.
And the MALE-DOMINATED, EVIL WORLD that refused to recognize women as scientists went ahead and gave her not one, BUT TWO Nobel prizes.
Whups.
I guess the men forgot to ignore her for being a woman and couldn't help but notice she was brilliant.
But don't tell that to the NYTimes. Women don't achieve because of men. And that is the only possible explanation. Cuz the world is full of men and men are evil. So be sure to listen to them and not think. Its worked wonders. It really has.
No comments:
Post a Comment