We dont care that you landed a spacecraft on a comet, you shirt is misogynist!

Turjan said:

It shows that the general statement is garbage.

Click to expand...

“Women are under-represented in the sciences.” That is the statement, which is a true/false proposition. Here is the data from UNESCO:

http://www.uis.unesco.org/ScienceTechnology/Pages/women-in-science-leaky-pipeline-data-viz.aspx

Shouting "garbage" and snidely misrepresenting my position as "Your answer seems to be the lack of fashion sense among physicists", is a weak substitute for an argument.

lackblogger said:

It is a shame your hatred for me blinds you from furthering your understanding of Gender Studies… if you are going to do this on every topic I post to I think I shall be having my own grounds for a claim of harassment…

Click to expand...

Turning up in the middle of a thread where we are trying to have a reasonable debate about feminist issues, and posting a picture of Ideal Home? That's trolling, and I called you on it. That is not harrasment.

Ripper said:

“Women are under-represented in the sciences.” That is the statement, which is a true/false proposition. Here is the data from UNESCO:

http://www.uis.unesco.org/ScienceTechnology/Pages/women-in-science-leaky-pipeline-data-viz.aspx

Click to expand...

I said that the statement masks the problem. You seem to lose our topic out of your sight. The statement is garbage as it's a specific problem of certain fields, and it has nothing to do with the job level the OP deals with.

Ripper said:

Shouting "garbage" and snidely misrespresenting my position as "Your answer seems to be the lack of fashion sense among physicists", is a weak substitute for an argument.

Click to expand...

It's trying to get you to lose your tunnel vision. If you want to bring women into physics, you have to change something at the school level. The rest of this thread is nothing like smoke grenades that are completely beside the point.

Why do young women of 18 years of age love everything "bio" (they are the majority in those sciences) but hate everything "physics"?

Ripper said:

Turning up in the middle of a thread where we are trying to have a reasonable debate about feminist issues, and posting a picture of Ideal Home? That's trolling, and I called you on it. That is not harrasment.

Click to expand...

Oh right, Gender Studies is trolling... well, glad we sorted that one one out...

Turjan said:

I said that the statement masks the problem. You seem to lose our topic out of your sight. The statement is garbage as it's a specific problem of certain fields, and it has nothing to do with the job level the OP deals with.

Click to expand...

As we discussed, we had moved on to a more general question about the merits of political correctness. I made a long and nuanced post defending it. The one thing you pulled out of that to take issue with was the statement about the numbers of women in science generally, which is provably correct. And what you said is that the statement was "garbage".

If you want to turn to a deeper examination of why it's true, and what are the factors, and how it relates to the OP, that's something different. I don't think I've lost sight of anything.

Ripper said:

As we discussed, we had moved on to a more general question about the merits of political correctness.

Click to expand...

Well, I guess a non-answer is also an answer.

But yeah, political correctness* is good to hide what people really think. They can express the latter at the voting booth. We'll see how this will work out.

*which should not be mixed up with general politeness, which I'm all for.

Turjan said:

Well, I guess a non-answer is also an answer.

Click to expand...

What is it that you want me to answer? You mean this.

"Why do young women of 18 years of age love everything "bio" (they are the majority in those sciences) but hate everything "physics"?

Well, that question contains two of your own assertions, that: women of 18 years of age love everything "bio" but hate everything "physics". I think that's a bit of an unscientific presumption, when all we can really say is that women seem to be choosing one over the other, for reasons unknown.

Why are they doing that - I really don't know, and I expect it's a complex situation. But, all I've suggested is that if women appear not to be attracted to science in the same numbers as men, then perhaps having the most prominent science representative of the day wearing a lingerie catalogue might not be the best way to encourage them.

I think that's a fairly reasonable thought. I don't have to take ownership of solving the problem after saying so.

Turjan said:

But yeah, political correctness is good to hide what people really think. They can express the latter at the voting booth. We'll see how this will work out.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry that's all you got from what I was trying to say.

Aubrielle said:

The feminists and feminist allies (however you identify) have made some amazing points, as well as the people with professionalism and common sense.

But what I want to know is - and completely without BS or pretense -

…exactly why did the OP start a thread for this? As in, why did he really do it?

Did he do it to make a joke out of feminism?

Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with normal feminism. The shirt was made by a woman in the first place. While i wouldnt wear it, all it has is "Bond"ish poses of the same woman it seems. Perhaps she is a comic book character?

It is however about crazy radical feminism which we are seeing more and more of today. I find it disturbing. Especially considering how a big advance in science is undermined by something so petty.

Damian said:

It is however about crazy radical feminism which we are seeing more and more of today. I find it disturbing. Especially considering how a big advance in science is undermined by something so petty.

Click to expand...

Oh, so like…actual radical feminism??

Why didn't you say so? They are a nasty sort, and I don't see how they do anyone any good.

Edit: And I don't know how much of it you've seen, but the way I see it, they're a fringe movement and they always will be. Every group has their crazy minority, and feminists have theirs too. ^.^

Ripper said:

What is it that you want me to answer? You mean this.

"Why do young women of 18 years of age love everything "bio" (they are the majority in those sciences) but hate everything "physics"?

Well, that question contains two of your own assertions, that: women of 18 years of age love everything "bio" but hate everything "physics". I think that's a bit of an unscientific presumption, when all we can really say is that women seem to be choosing one over the other, for reasons unknown.

Click to expand...

My statement was obviously somewhat hyperbolic and not using scientific language, but that's actually what the studies point to. Women's expectations and role models are already mostly formed very early, in kindergarten and at school. You can read in some of the relevant studies where even scientist parents themselves observe this with their daughters. Physics is "unwomanly". That's a learned role model, especially in countries like the US, that has to be actively worked against at highschool to encourage women to go into physics.

And talking about assertions, don't say "all we can really say" when you actually mean "all you can really say". If you ask scientists of both genders, why women prefer biology (where they are the majority) to physics (where every fifth doctorate is by a woman), lack of existing mentors is the leading reason (more than 30% of scientists of both genders say that), followed by stated preference (40% of male and less than 30% of female scientists say that). Minor reasons stated are natural ability (only 10-15% of graduate students and postdocs of both genders mention that, but practically none of the professors) and gender discrimination (less than 10% of grad students and postdocs of both genders say that, but nearly a quarter of female full professors). The latter result was unfortunately not corrected for age, given that there's a natural age curve involved in the study subjects. I hope it just means the roadblocks have been moved away now.

Ripper said:

Why are they doing that - I really don't know, and I expect it's a complex situation. But, all I've suggested is that if women appear not to be attracted to science in the same numbers as men, then perhaps having the most prominent science representative of the day wearing a lingerie catalogue might not be the best way to encourage them.

Click to expand...

Funny enough, it might actually have the opposite effect. The main image problem physicists have is to be recognized as human beings.

Ripper said:

I think that's a fairly reasonable thought.

Click to expand...

I believe you that you think that, but I don't think it's a well thought out position.

Aubrielle said:

Every group has their crazy minority...

Click to expand...

That's indeed some universal truth.

Turjan said:

And talking about assertions, don't say "all we can really say" when you actually mean "all you can really say…"

Click to expand...

No. If arguing about something logically, when one says “all WE can say about XYZ”, this means “all that we can reasonably state from the evidence before us”. It clearly does not mean “there is no possibility of anyone among us suggesting more evidence.”

You state that a significant reason for women's low representation specifically in physics is “stated preference”, but that doesn't tell us anything very useful in the context of this argument. Imagine, for a moment, that we know that all women are terrified of top hats, and that all physicists wear them at all times. Women would then self-select not to go into physics. One could then say that women are not represented in physics simply because they don't like it, and they choose freely to avoid it.

But the fact of self-selection tells us nothing except that it is a free choice rather than a gun to the head. We still have to unpack the reasons for that choice to understand the problems. To imply "it's just stated preference" is a cop out.

Also, the lack of mentors does not tell us much besides the fact that we need more women in physics.

You also state:

“Women's expectations and role models are already mostly formed very early, in kindergarten and at school.”

Yes, and don't you think the imagery they see every day, including the bikini babes on the rocket scientist's shirt would count towards that, as part of the aggregate?

“even scientist parents themselves observe this with their daughters. Physics is "unwomanly". That's a learned role model”

Yes, and do you think the images displayed, particularly by the most admired people in society, might play some small part in forming these models in their mind?

“especially in countries like the US, that has to be actively worked against at highschool to encourage women to go into physics.”

No argument there.

“The main image problem physicists have is to be recognized as human beings.”

I assume this is a joke?

Ripper said:

No. If arguing about something logically, when one says “all WE can say about XYZ”, this means “all that we can reasonably state from the evidence before us”. It clearly does not mean “there is no possibility of anyone among us suggesting more evidence.”

Click to expand...

You accused me of using unscientific assertions while using a faulty generalization as retort. If you have any interest in the topic gender and the sciences, you would know that your statement is off.

Ripper said:

But the fact of self-selection tells us nothing except that it is a free choice rather than a gun to the head. We still have to unpack the reasons for that choice to understand the problems. To imply "it's just stated preference" is a cop out.

Click to expand...

Yup, but those studies exist. You just have to read them.

Ripper said:

Also, the lack of mentors does not tell us much besides the fact that we need more women in physics.

Click to expand...

That's the banal explanation. No, it means that you have to put disproportionally more women into mentoring positions in physics in order to change the numbers, otherwise it will stay a chicken and egg problem.

Ripper said:

“The main image problem physicists have is to be recognized as human beings.”

I assume this is a joke?

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. Even within the scientific community, physicists feel often ostracized. As the field seems to attract many individuals with rudimentary or even lacking social skills (the field has quite a high share of "high-functioning autists"), they have to work to get rid of the "weird" label. One of my physicist colleagues tried with the "Flirt harder - I'm a physicist" shirt. Which, in it's glorious double meaning, should tell you all you need regarding your question.

That's why I think that shirt from the OP might actually have a positive effect regarding women and physics. While it doesn't help the "all physicists are awkward" stereotype, it helps with the "all physicists are autists" one.

Turjan said:

You accused me of using unscientific assertions while using a faulty generalization as retort.

Click to expand...

Please explain the faulty generalization you refer to.

Turjan said:

That's the banal explanation.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is a banal explanation, and banality has nothing to do with its validity.

Turjan said:

“the field has quite a high share of "high-functioning autists"

Click to expand...

Do you have some evidence for this? Bear in mind that the suggestion that autists may enjoy physics does not logically confirm the statement that a high proportion of physicists are autists.

Now, looking at your central argument:

“… they have to work to get rid of the "weird" label … That's why I think that shirt from the OP might actually have a positive effect regarding women and physics. While it doesn't help the "all physicists are awkward" stereotype, it helps with the "all physicists are autists" one.”

There are several problems with this.

“it doesn't help the 'all physicists are awkward' stereotype.”

It is not correct to say that society believes ALL physicists are awkward. Secondly, this is not a stereotype. 'The awkward physicist' would be one stereotype, and let's agree that this exists.

“all physicists are autists.”

That is not a popular misconception. But, here is the main problem with your argument:

“That's why I think that shirt from the OP might actually have a positive effect regarding women and physics.”

This requires the assumption that, if such perceptions exist, women must be disproportionately negative in their response to the “weird” and “awkward”, compared to men, otherwise it would not be a factor in their underrepresentation. Why should we believe this is the case? Is this not a large assumption about women?

Also, by stating that the shirt might actually have a positive impact on women's perceptions and acceptance of physics, you necessarily concede that the shirt has the potential to affect attitudes.

If only he had worn his other shirt with little green martians on it, everyone would have laughed and thought how fitting. Instead, he went with the cosmic space babe.

The Rosetta mission is indeed a remarkable feat and being a GNC designer myself, I am somewhat envious at the people who had the opportunity to work in such project .

As for the shirt in question, I consider the article to be stupid and ridiculous. Although I do think that he showed some lack of social intelligence if you wear that while being filmed.

A *real* and more worrisome example of sexism is the following. A female colleague of mine, in another section, has both a management and technical role in a security system for high speed trains. They were in negotiations to sell this system to a Middle Eastern country and she told me that they explicitly demanded that women were not allowed to be present at meetings nor allowed to sign official documents. In comparison, the shirt issue is simply a 1st world problem lacking a true sense of perspective, in my view at least.

I quite agree. Silly, disproportionate hyperbole I think I called it.

Asdraguuhl said:

A *real* and more worrisome example of sexism is the following. A female colleague of mine, in another section, has both a management and technical role in a security system for high speed trains. They were in negotiations to sell this system to a Middle Eastern country and she told me that they explicitly demanded that women were not allowed to be present at meetings nor allowed to sign official documents. In comparison, the shirt issue is simply a 1st world problem lacking a true sense of perspective, in my view at least.

Click to expand...

That is sick, and I think I can agree with you.

I know that decent people have to call out sexism wherever it presents itself, but as I've gotten a little older I've learned that one has to choose their battles. Nobody can fight everything at once, because they'll drown.

I have no idea why this story made headlines…I'm personally a lot more excited about new scientific breakthroughs than some dude wearing a shirt that makes him look like a loser.

I think a broader focus and taking on real problems is what everyone here can agree on.

I think radfems need to remember the tale of the Boy Who Cried Wolf…

Ripper said:

This requires the assumption that, if such perceptions exist, women must be disproportionately negative in their response to the “weird” and “awkward”, compared to men, otherwise it would not be a factor in their underrepresentation. Why should we believe this is the case? Is this not a large assumption about women?

Click to expand...

This got also addressed in this study with scientists from biology and physics. Even women scientists (still) seem to care more about social aspects than their male counterparts. Extremely awkward behavior is quite common in sciences. You have to be quite tolerant of all sorts of behaviors that are not exactly permissible in polite society in order to stay there.

Ripper said:

Also, by stating that the shirt might actually have a positive impact on women's perceptions and acceptance of physics, you necessarily concede that the shirt has the potential to affect attitudes.

Click to expand...

I "conceded" this point already on the first page. I even used the exact same word that Aubrielle used just now in the post before me: the shirt makes him look like somewhat of a loser (see post #19). But at least he looks approachable, which is already something.

Could I firstly ask you to answer two neglected points from my last post? What is the faulty generalization you say I made, and can you provide some support for your assertion that the field of physics has "quite a high share of high-functioning autists"? I think this is reasonable to ask for, since you are making quite a lot of claims about women and physicists here.


I see what you posted in comment #19:

"I said I thought the shirt was tacky, as it makes the guy look a bit desperate and like somewhat of a loser. The joke's on him."

That didn't make it very clear that you agreed that the shirt could have an impact on women's impression of physics. It certainly doesn't make it clear that you think it could have a positive effect on women's impression of the "social aspects" of physics, which is what you now suggest. It contradicts it

Let's get down to the nub of our disagreement, then.

When I said:

“if women appear not to be attracted to science in the same numbers as men, then perhaps having the most prominent science representative of the day wearing a lingerie catalogue might not be the best way to encourage them."

You replied:

“I believe you that you think that, but I don't think it's a well thought out position”

But in your later post you say:

"That's why I think that shirt from the OP might actually have a positive effect regarding women and physics. While it doesn't help the "all physicists are awkward" stereotype, it helps with the ‘all physicists are autists’ one. "

Now,

1) Why should we believe that people think "all physicists are autists"?

2) If such a belief exists - that physicists are autistic - why would a shirt that "makes the guy look a bit desperate and like somewhat of a loser" help to persuade women differently? Surely that appearance would fit the stereotypical view of an autistic.

3) Given that we both suggest that the shirt could influence people's perception of physics, can you explain why your proposed positive effect is reasonable, while mine is not?