people often claim that greater variance in mathematical ability accounts for lower numbers of women in high level scientific positions. this is doesn't match the data: one can't mathematically fit a gaussian curve to explain the distributions. thus the supposed scientific explanation for why women are underrepresented is actually faulty science.
likewise, genetic explanations cannot account for the recent and rapid ascendancy of woman in such technical areas (though we have a long way to go). participation at the highest levels of academic competition has increased dramatically.
given the holes in these, and other, explanations, it is both scientifically and morally irresponsible to posit innate differences as the governing factors. yet despite these arguments, many people still feel they have the station to proclaim some scientific basis for what would otherwise be evidence of continued unequal opportunity.
the scientific claims of a human group's inferiority must withstand scientific scrutiny far beyond that expected in physics for, say, proving faster than light neutrinos. yet the scientific rigor of studies of human inferiority is actually far below that of physics. i ascribe the difference to politics.
an actual big problem preventing women from advancing: being successful, as a woman, is anticorrelated with being liked. this is far from the fault of men alone -- it is a pervasive cultural bias.
see Sheryl Sandberg's TED Talk: why we have too few women leaders.
likewise, academic success among some african american communities is occasionally dismissed as 'acting white.' social pressure is a powerful, powerful thing.
people often claim that greater variance in mathematical ability accounts for lower numbers of women in high level scientific positions. this is doesn't match the data: one can't mathematically fit a gaussian curve to explain the distributions. thus the supposed scientific explanation for why women are underrepresented is actually faulty science.
likewise, genetic explanations cannot account for the recent and rapid ascendancy of woman in such technical areas (though we have a long way to go). participation at the highest levels of academic competition has increased dramatically.
given the holes in these, and other, explanations, it is both scientifically and morally irresponsible to posit innate differences as the governing factors. yet despite these arguments, many people still feel they have the station to proclaim some scientific basis for what would otherwise be evidence of continued unequal opportunity.
the scientific claims of a human group's inferiority must withstand scientific scrutiny far beyond that expected in physics for, say, proving faster than light neutrinos. yet the scientific rigor of studies of human inferiority is actually far below that of physics. i ascribe the difference to politics.
an actual big problem preventing women from advancing: being successful, as a woman, is anticorrelated with being liked. this is far from the fault of men alone -- it is a pervasive cultural bias.
see Sheryl Sandberg's TED Talk: why we have too few women leaders.
http://blog.ted.com/2010/12/21/why-we-have-too-few-women-lea...
likewise, academic success among some african american communities is occasionally dismissed as 'acting white.' social pressure is a powerful, powerful thing.