| |
| |
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/26/2009 6:04:52 PM |
^^^^aanecdotal? Like I need to post a study on here that woman suck at math....lol. Get real. Some things are totally obvious.
Well, your complete lack of ability to reason logically seems rather obvious.
And just think..... his inability to reason logically can be formulated in a mathematical equation to boot.
 | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/26/2009 6:14:16 PM | | You ladies shouldn't get all hurt and need to criticize just because you aren't good at math. I don't go around arguing that I can have babies, and woman are about as good at math as I am at getting pregnant. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/26/2009 8:22:26 PM |
The reason is because men are better at math - period. Anecdotal because it is a survey of a handful of women in 1 individual's school. Clearly not someone who understands what a scientific study would be. Maybe you have an equally anecdotal response for the statistics in msg 108 which suggests that women are far better than your anecdotal observation would suggest. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/26/2009 8:34:21 PM | You ladies shouldn't get all hurt and need to criticize just because you aren't good at math. I don't go around arguing that I can have babies, and woman are about as good at math as I am at getting pregnant. I'm not hurt, but I think you are. Being able to do a mathematical equation is not the only use of logic, and if you think it is, you are again thinking illogically. The head of our math department is a woman who has been a math professor for about 20 years. I myself teach rhetoric and epistemology. Your patronizing, misogynistic thinking is a prime example of not thinking logically. If you do some research into statistics, you will find we are not unique as women in such positions. Therefore, the capability of women to do math really isn't in question. The reason why they are not as numerous in the fields of math and sciences is the question in this thread. You are not answering it with anything but emotional, reactionary responses. As well, you are clearly unable to argue logically if you need almost immediately in a debate to resort to Ad hominem attacks. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/26/2009 9:02:13 PM | Nothing ad hominem about it. My school was only 3 examples (3 classes). You can go to any college in the country and the advanced math classes will be predominantly men. Don't take the fact that women aren't as good at math as a personal attack, it's just the way it is.
You're being illogical when you say that by pointing that out, that it means I hate women. I never said I hated the math challenged gender. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/26/2009 9:10:20 PM | Your perspective and attitude shows a dislike and lack of respect for women, as well as suggesting a fear of them--misogyny. And I think you need to look up the definition of Ad hominem.
I am not taking anything as a personal attack. Another illogical conclusion on your part.
I am questioning your reasoning. Why is it not possible for you to understand that?
Now name calling too ('math challenged')?
I wouldn't be so tough on you as to the lack of logic in the points you are trying to make, except for the fact that you specifically said that men think logically and women think intuitively. That statement is a fallacy. Essentially, as far as I can tell, all the points you are making in this discussion are fallacious. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/26/2009 9:51:30 PM |
I am not taking anything as a personal attack. In stating this, I was referring to your position on women as being capable of doing math as well as men. I don't take that personally: I challenge the logic of your position. Your Ad hominen attack has to do with my being a woman and is a red herring: not responding to the argument but, instead, implying my argument is not valid because of my gender. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/27/2009 5:48:10 AM |
For all of the noise, young women are going into some sciences. Women earn 46% of biology Ph.D.s. They fill more than half of incoming medical school classes. It's just that their proportion in pure physical sciences, while rising, remains low. But physics isn't tougher than biophysics, which suggests that these choices have little to do with aptitude or confidence. In fact, studies suggest girls simply don't view pure math and physics as practical or varied enough to justify the slog to professorship.
The term 'Numeracy Gender Gap' refers to the discrepancies in attitude, skills, and mathematical behaviors between males and females. In today's information, problem solving world, mathematical skills and ability are critical to success. Unfortunately, research and statistics provide evidence supporting the existence of a gender gap in mathematics. It is well documented that girls are underrepresented in college majors, advanced degree programs and careers related to mathematics. Although females tend to be better than their counterpart males in mathematics classes, they continue to score lower on tests including the SATs. However, the gap is beginning to narrow. In the beginning of the 1980s, standardized test scores showed that girls were significantly behind in math. Results from 1996 national assessment tests show 17-year-old boys lead girls by only five points in math. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/27/2009 7:03:23 AM |
Results from 1996 national assessment tests show 17-year-old boys lead girls by only five points in math.
Yeah, cause these days 17 year olds are still only adding fractions. I'm talking about the hard mathematics, like trig and calculus. Go to any college advanced math class in the country and it's over 80% male. | |
|
| |
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/27/2009 7:54:35 AM | ^^^No, just reading this thread is reaffirming the fact that a woman's role is that of homemaker and nurturer and their minds are not naturally geared to logic or problem solving. Furthermore, there have ALWAYS been SOME women that are capable of math, just like there are some men with great feminine qualities.
If you want to think that our only differences are between our legs, you're only hurting yourself. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/27/2009 9:44:22 AM | Obviously tbuddha is a troll just wanting to wind people up. I'm amazed at how easily people can get into arguments based upon a complete lack of information.
xzanthius - do you have sources for your quotes?
For the OP - check out the British actress Victoria Gould. A possible role model for your daughters - she also happens to teach and research mathematics at York University.
Complexities: Women in Mathematics edited by Bettye Anne Case and Anne M. Leggett is a fascinating book which chronicles the successes and tribulations of women in mathematics - and hint at the prejudices which have done more than anything to discourage women from careers in mathematics. Given the unjustified prejudice, thinly disguised as facts presented in this thread, there is obviously still a long way to go before women may feel comfortable embarking on careers in fields where such Neanderthal notions persist. You can read extracts from the book on Amazon.com.
A recent Swedish study (http://www.springerlink.com/content/k45v371528425n54/) has the following to say:
The statistical data shown here confirm again a well-known picture of women’s unequal participation in mathematics and related fields. They also show that there has been almost no change over time in the situation in mathematics. It is very serious that in women’s participation in mathematics education there is no positive development worth mentioning
About 20% of British University math lecturers are women. One common comment from women is that they are put off by the competitive, macho nature of mathematics research. Once again suggesting that it may be the attitude rather than the opinions expressed by tbuddha which may be the greater problem. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/27/2009 10:34:27 AM | ^^^blah, blah, blah....
Look, the only reason there are that many female math teachers are because women tend to be teachers more. Let's not get into socialist Britain where that number has been beefed up with satisfying quotas. I'm sure the level of math proficiency in that dismal country is dropping as a result.
I'm not a troll, just completely over with the feminism. When I meet a woman that can solve the equations I was at 17, I'll be impressed. So far, I've only met men that were as smart as me in math and for some reason a lot of the most brilliant math minds I have met have been Indian men. Maybe because they still embrace traditional gender roles and aren't trying to fool themselves about women's math abilities.
The only "men" that think women have logical abilities equal to men are the ones that haven't excelled much and are a sad result of feminism. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/27/2009 2:23:50 PM | I agree that there must be a biological factor (amungst many others).
I would propose that males have a tendency to seek mastery at one thing (or more but one at a time) in an instinctive bid to dominate the field (fellow men).
I would also propose that females have a tendency to seek proficiency at many things in a bid to have the best possible options available to her.
I am refering to gross tendencies and primal, subconscious drive.
Now we need to remember that we are talking about a single factor in the whole equation which leads to the present statistics in # of phd.s handed out to males and to females. We also have to understand that there are many other, quite possibly more important aspects to consider.
Biology and the responsibility of gestating the human race.
Social Expectations (quite possibly merited) to then be the primary caregiver of the next generation.
Cultural Factors. We can't forget history (when did women get the right to vote in your country?) Psychology was crazy about women for a long time (crazy crazy zap zap...).  Just a few generations before that it was (evil evil burn burn)
Educational Factor. It could very well be that our educational ideals favour one learning style over another. (favor linear thinking over a more holistic approach)
I'm sure that there are a whole host of other factors. I certainly wouldn't downplay the Cultural factor... it's what's allowed the % of women earning phds in science to jump in just a short period of time. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/27/2009 6:03:17 PM |
You ladies shouldn't get all hurt and need to criticize just because you aren't good at math. I don't go around arguing that I can have babies, and woman are about as good at math as I am at getting pregnant.
A wee bit of hyperbole on your part, wouldn't you say?
Actually, I'm online looking for the thread with the math problems. I wanted to go back to see how to calculate the area of a lens to figure out the problem with the goat on the island. A couple of you here took the time to calculate that out (including a "woman"...GASP!), so I just thought I'd ask, did they delete that thread? I can't find it. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/27/2009 6:23:14 PM | Okay tbuddha. I'll bite.
You said this:
Like I need to post a study on here that woman suck at math....lol. Get real. Some things are totally obvious.
Then you said this:
You ladies shouldn't get all hurt and need to criticize just because you aren't good at math. I don't go around arguing that I can have babies, and woman are about as good at math as I am at getting pregnant.
And then you said this:
You can go to any college in the country and the advanced math classes will be predominantly men
Please note the word PREDOMINANTLY.
And also this:
Go to any college advanced math class in the country and it's over 80% male.
If you are going to take an all or nothing attitude, at least maintain the grace of being consistent. If ALL women suck at math, how do you explain the twenty percent?
Your position would have been more clearly stated, if you said something to the affect of "Some women suck at math", or even "The majority of women suck at math". (Not that I agree with this statement. However, if one is making such broad sweeping statements, one should support it with facts. Otherwise, stick to the the nouns and adjectives in order to support a "disclaimer" statement .)
The only "men" that think women have logical abilities equal to men are the ones that haven't excelled much and are a sad result of feminism.
Not even going to bother. I post this for reasons of posterity.
And then you have this in your profile:
I try to learn more and be a better person every day.
If you cannot see the incongruency, I cannot be bothered.
I am making a scathing reply. I don't do it often. When I am ignorant (which is often) of something, I try to ask questions so that I can learn more and be a better person.
I am not coming from a place of moral superiority, but rather from one of indignation. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/27/2009 6:37:00 PM | | ^^^^Diva I love how your mind works, and think you can out think most people in the room. I hope that he was joking. But in his "defense" he said that women were merely in math class not good at them. Before I get flamed, just pointing out what he said not agree with him. Tbuddah, I have worked with many women in Aviation. They excel in the science of medicne "nursing" prodomently which requires a lot of math for dosages. My last primary care physican was a woman. Let's get real, I would say that women are in math and sciences but, the are in the empathatic hard sciences. I would challenge anyone here to take a nursing course and hold the opinion women aren't in the sciences. Oh as I stated earlier on this thread they are in biotech, and information technologies. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/27/2009 7:40:43 PM | gadget,....youre always to the rescue.. The majority of women in society are nurses or in some of type of nursing job which requires nothing but math and science constantly and in split seconds where there is no time for analyzation til after the fact..too bad a man was the one to call this out (no offense)..its refreshing..really!
and i do love how my Divas's mind works too!!!
much love honey! My hero! | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/27/2009 8:02:17 PM | Gadget...you know how I respect your opinion...
However...
He said:
When I went to school, Calc 1 had about 4-5 girls in the class, all but one dropped out. In Calc 2, only one lady who was in her 60s took the class, and did quite good. By the time I got to Calc 3 - all men.
You said:
that women were merely in math class not good at them.
I get the insinuations, but can't quite follow the reasoning...
Then you said:
just pointing out what he said not agree with him.
And then you said:
I have worked with many women in Aviation. They excel in the science of medicne "nursing" prodomently which requires a lot of math for dosages
You are kidding me...right? It doesn't take Math skills to read an M.D.'s prescription and follow it accordingly. It doesn't take "Math" skills to read a label, on a drug, and provide the correct dosage.
It takes reading skills.
You contradict yourself, by stating:
I have worked with many women in Aviation.
And then:
My last primary care physican was a woman. Let's get real, I would say that women are in math and sciences but, the are in the empathatic hard sciences.
Aviation? Hard Sciences? Empathetic sciences?
I would challenge anyone here to take a nursing course and hold the opinion women aren't in the sciences.
I agree. However, apparently A&P, (in regards to this thread) might possibly not be held as a legitimate science...
Oh as I stated earlier on this thread they are in biotech, and information technologies.
Direct contradiction. Please explain to me, how this is an empathetic science?
And Nova...I think it was deleted...I can't find it either. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/27/2009 8:08:00 PM | I'm not joking. I referenced a girl I know that is now an engineer at Northrup Grumman. She was in my Calc 2 class. She was the brightest female math student I've ever known, and I had to tutor her so she could pass.
I've never met a woman with the math/logic/problem solving skills of me or my colleagues. I'm sure there are plenty of women better than a lot of men at math, but the brightest female is still not going to be as proficient as the brightest man, nor is the average female as good at math as the average man.
Don't take it so personal. It's not like guys are out there saying, "She's really hot, but, I just can't date a chick that can't even handle derivatives." We couldn't care less how good at math you are, and that's probably part of the reason women aren't good at it. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/27/2009 8:24:20 PM | Wow...I am feeling a little bit scrappy tonight...
but the brightest female is still not going to be as proficient as the brightest man
Proficient at what? Math? Science? Do you understand the distinction between the two and their mutual interdependence? And the relevance of non-gender input?
I've never met a woman with the math/logic/problem solving skills of me or my colleagues.
Somehow, I find this hard to believe...I am not saying that I am one of those women, but I have encountered women on these forums that might possibly put you to shame...and then there is my daughter who will probably take Advanced Calculus by the 11th grade...
We couldn't care less how good at math you are, and that's probably part of the reason women aren't good at it.
*Sigh*...posterity reasons...so far your logic is flawed. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/27/2009 8:34:36 PM | Biotech is what I would call an empahatic science because it is about finding cures to pathogens.
Empathic sciences are one that deal with healing or overall betterment of the human condition. Medicine, Biology, Chemistry (depending on branch)
An RN needs to know how to do the dosage calculations. It is part of the circula. Esp. on an IV drip. Too much too soon, can kill someone. I know this from Combat life saver. You mention Anatomy and Phys. but what about microbiology and the other science based courses. So yes math is important. Sorry you're just wrong on this one. I took a semester of nursing before comming to the realization it wasn't for me.
I was responding to what you quoted tbuddha said. Sorry, I'm not buying his arguement either. I can explain the Calc percentage. It may have nothing to do with skill but major. Heck, unless you're going into Engineering or Physics you don't need calc three. Even in Engineering it is questionable. And the fact that some girls didn't think that they could pass the course doesn't mean that they weren't good at it. It could be for various reasons. Freshmen, that wanted a math core course but didn't like it. Some had a more difficult semester then orginally planed therefore withdrew to save GPA and will retake at a later date etc. Your example doesn't hold up.
Aviation is not empathic science. Just some personal experience. I should have put that in another sentence. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 8/27/2009 8:53:34 PM | Wow...I am feeling REALLY scrappy tonight!
Empathic sciences are one that deal with healing or overall betterment of the human condition. Medicine, Biology, Chemistry (depending on branch)
Don't most sciences strive for the "betterment" of human the condition? Even pure research?
An RN needs to know how to do the dosage calculations. It is part of the circula. Esp. on an IV drip. Too much too soon, can kill someone. I know this from Combat life saver. You mention Anatomy and Phys. but what about microbiology and the other science based courses. So yes math is important.
I was being facetious...
Aviation is not empathic science.
Really? How so? | |
|
Home
login 
