Women in Physics

  • Imagine you are sipping tea or coffee while discussing various issues with a broad and diverse network of students, colleagues, and friends brought together by the common bond of physics, graduate school, and the physics GRE.

User avatar
Andromeda
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 3:17 pm

Women in Physics

Postby Andromeda » Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:50 am

Hi all,

This is a tangent from another thread and I thought this could make for an interesting discussion. :wink: Two questions for everyone- a. what is the m/f ratio in your department (country would be helpful too, if you're international) and b. why do you think physics is still such a male-dominated field? (Astronomy is too, of course, but IRC it's 25% women whereas physics is closer to 20%.)

Regarding a., I was the only woman of ~10 physics majors in my year, though there were four others in some of our "hybrid" physics majors (we have an astronomy department, biophysics, etc). Year below me is a little better, probably just above 20%... As for my second question I have strong opinions on this that I don't want to immediately taint the discussion with, so I'll post 'em later. Cheers! :D

abeboparebop
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 11:26 am

Re: Women in Physics

Postby abeboparebop » Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:10 am

4ish female physics majors out of a class of about 12-15... 8 out of 65 grad students... 3 out of 38 faculty members... 1 out of 30 or so research scientists. Female physics majors typically make up 20% of graduates, I'd say. Pretty dismal overall, I'd say, but I don't really know how that stacks up.

coconut
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 1:33 am

Re: Women in Physics

Postby coconut » Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:50 am

Btw, the APS has compiled data on how female friendly graduate institutions are. Right now they have 169 institutions listed, and they ask each graduate program the following questions:

1. How many tenure-track or tenured faculty -- male/female?
2. How many graduate students ? -- male/female?
3. Is there a family leave policy for graduate students? If so, describe.
4. Is there family health insurance available for graduate students? Is it included in the stipend?
5. In a paragraph, please describe why someone applying to graduate school who is interested in a female-friendly department should choose your institution.

For the responses from the graduate programs:
http://www.aps.org/programs/women/femal ... /index.cfm

PoincareSection
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:00 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby PoincareSection » Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 pm

This is soooo depressing and my biggest nightmare: http://chronicle.com/news/article/5781/ ... rimination

User avatar
WontonBurritoMeals
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:43 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby WontonBurritoMeals » Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:24 pm

Weird that they reffer to her as Ms. Towns... It seems like it implies that she's unmarried but wanted to avoid the stigma awkwardly. Why not just refer to her as Towns?

My mom had the opposite thing in law school when she had me: She came back after like two days (weekend?, not sure) and the professor was like: You sure you don't need more time?

Really bizzare. How can you deny someone maternity leave like that? It's just one of those things that I can't begin to understand in any meaningful way.

May the wind be always at your back,
-WontonBurritoMeals

PoincareSection
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:00 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby PoincareSection » Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:24 am

I hate to say this, but what horrifies me more is that she ended up teaching high school after a postdoc.

mhazelm
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 3:33 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby mhazelm » Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:47 am

ooh, I want in on this thread. Sorry, this is long, but I think it's a fascinating question.

My department has surprisingly many women. And for some reason, we women tend to do very, very well here. I'm not sure what the M/F ratio is, but I know that there are at least 3 of us graduating this year, and another 3-6 in the next 2 years. There's probably a bunch of freshman women I don't know yet. It's still something like 75-85% male, but I think we do okay.

It's a bit sadder on the faculty side; not a single professor is female, though we have a female lecturer (she only lectures a 1000-level astronomy class, so I never had any classes from her or have even ever seen her).

Why do I think physics is male dominated? Lots of reasons, but for one thing, from the moment we're born boys wear blue and get "boy" toys while girls wear pink and get "girl" toys. That's obviously not the whole picture; from the evolutionary standpoint, I think women and men are fundamentally different in their thought patterns. But I think that people's notions of boy and girl toys has a large influence on us at a young age. Toys like legos foster spatial skills, while dolls foster interpersonal skills. By the time kids go to school (after a few years of these toys and home-stereotype reinforcement), the boys might already outperform girls because of their exposure to the spatial-skill toys. Studies have also shown that girls who are not interested in math or science by the end of their general education (10-12 grade) tend not to approach it later. So there's a critical phase where the interest/skill can develop, it seems (and I'm sure there are exceptions to this).

Also, society pushes these stereotypes on us constantly: pop music, reality TV shows, other TV series, many of them are all about women being seductresses, rather than smart women with depth. To a young person, I think the media often sends the message that we are valued (as women) when we have perfect, skinny, tan model bodies with perfect make-up, and we can attract men. There is often not much depth to this picture. I have never turned on my TV and seen a reality show about who can survive Jackson's E&M for the longest (hehehe), it's usually about who can "win the man", or look better. So young women are not inclined to approach the sciences, because it isn't "cool" or "attractive" and society has taught them that this is what's important. It's a bit sad sometimes to think that we (women) fought for years to get the vote and for the ability to pursue careers, but that almost a century later, it's still all about attraction and being seductive, rather than having intellectual freedom... to me it doesn't seem that we've come so far from the 1930s and 40s yet, as a whole (many, many women have, of course, I'm just generalizing).

Also, another reason (I think) is physics the way that it is taught. Many, many studies have shown that women tend (on average) to think more verbally, men more visually. But the entire subject of physics has been dominated by men, and their teaching mechanisms, for years. So, who's to say that the methods of approaching the various subjects could be changed in a way that would be more stimulating to women? But it's hard to really say if there's a better way to approach the subject, or if it would make a tangible difference.

It's also a bit daunting to think that you might have little support on issues like child-rearing, and also might have to wait a while longer (till after grad school, etc.) to start a family (not that we HAVE to wait...). From what I've read, it sounds like most women who are professors still end up doing most of the child-rearing, even if they are full-time workers. It is very hard to maintain a clean household, healthy and happy children, and write papers on quantum gravity at the same time. But I do think that this issue is being addressed, for the most part (I don't expect any big problems, personally).

Anyways, this post is ridiculously long. Please keep in mind that all of this is just my opinion. There are exceptions to every reason I've posted (as there always are), and it's a complex issue. And I don't mean to say that we haven't accomplished a lot in the last hundred years, just that I still feel worried that my nieces want to wear make-up rather than learn in school, and they're elementary school age!).

And hey, if anyone wants to start a reality TV show with me, I have several ideas:

"American Physicist" (auditions with Maxwell's equations, perturbation theory and special relativity derivations)
"Are you as smart as a physics graduate student?" (teeheehee)
"Extreme Math Makeover: Replace all those vectors with tensors!"
"Who wants to be a theoretical physicist?" (prize is a research grant instead of $1 million)
and the best of all, ETS's new GRE offering:
"Fear Factor ETS Edition: The Physics GRE". You have to sit in a claustrophobia inducing box while answering rapid-fire physics questions in under 1.7 minutes each. If you win, you get into graduate school.

User avatar
twistor
Posts: 1531
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:47 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby twistor » Tue Jan 27, 2009 11:50 am

But it's hard to really say if there's a better way to approach the subject, or if it would make a tangible difference.


Based on the long string of shitty professors that I've had in recent years I should say I'm surprised anyone is learning physics.

valkyrie
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 11:50 am

Re: Women in Physics

Postby valkyrie » Tue Jan 27, 2009 1:27 pm

mhazelm wrote: My department has surprisingly many women. And for some reason, we women tend to do very, very well here.


The Physics department here has roughly 20% females I think, but in the (much, much smaller) Astrophysics department, we've actually had more female than male undergrads for a few years now. (Probably for several reasons - the astro department is small, very friendly, and also a lot more flexible than physics (so we get the people who are interested in interdiciplinary things like science policy or science education), and astronomy is obviously the most interesting branch of physics, anyways. :) ) But there does seem to be a mechanism at work that in a department with many women, women students feel comfortable and do well, and that in turn attract more women students.

(The opposite is probably true to some extent, too. I'd be skeptical to join a department with no female faculty, or maybe even a research group with no female students or postdocs working in it.)

User avatar
twistor
Posts: 1531
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:47 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby twistor » Tue Jan 27, 2009 1:51 pm

Your department sounds very enticing.

User avatar
grae313
Posts: 2297
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 8:46 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby grae313 » Tue Jan 27, 2009 4:12 pm

twistor wrote:Your department sounds very enticing.


I knew it! twistor is a woman!

User avatar
twistor
Posts: 1531
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:47 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby twistor » Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:44 pm

You also sound very enticing.

User avatar
grae313
Posts: 2297
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 8:46 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby grae313 » Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:41 pm

twistor wrote:You also sound very enticing.



I knew it! twistor is a lesbian!

User avatar
twistor
Posts: 1531
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:47 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby twistor » Thu Jan 29, 2009 12:58 am

I think some girl-on-girl action would really spice up this forum.

User avatar
grae313
Posts: 2297
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 8:46 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby grae313 » Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:17 pm

twistor wrote:I think some girl-on-girl action would really spice up this forum.


Come to mamma


Image

User avatar
dlenmn
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby dlenmn » Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:03 pm

Good grief!

User avatar
quizivex
Posts: 1029
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:13 am

Re: Women in Physics

Postby quizivex » Sat Jan 31, 2009 4:02 pm

mmmmmmmmm luscious... Looks like something you'd see on a Spencer's greeting card.

I think the best way to increase the number of females in a physics department is not to simply admit more of them, but to make sure it takes them 8 times as long to finish. :lol: (Again, please don't hate me, I'm not advocating this method... it's just the easiest solution mathematically.)

User avatar
grae313
Posts: 2297
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 8:46 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby grae313 » Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:12 pm

dlenmn wrote:Good grief!


It's amazing what you get when you google image search "ugly girl"

"fugly girl" also works quite well.



OH TWISTOR!!! WHERE ARE YOU?!!

User avatar
twistor
Posts: 1531
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:47 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby twistor » Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:09 pm

Sorry.

I was rubbing one out to your picture.

Now that I'm done, I'm noticing that your eye avatar and the eye color in your picture seem to be in disagreement....

User avatar
Helio
Posts: 809
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:11 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby Helio » Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:31 pm

twistor wrote:Sorry.

I was rubbing one out to your picture.

Now that I'm done, I'm noticing that your eye avatar and the eye color in your picture seem to be in disagreement....


not just that there is less go a bag under it as well

User avatar
quizivex
Posts: 1029
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:13 am

Re: Women in Physics

Postby quizivex » Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:37 pm

twistor wrote:I was rubbing one out to your picture.

Now that I'm done, I'm noticing that your eye avatar and the eye color in your picture seem to be in disagreement....

There is no disagreement! The eyes look the same color to me. I think what you observed was an illusion caused by the cum you squirted on the headshot photo... Due to diffraction you only observed part of the spectrum of the original eye color you see in the avatar.

Hmm I might as well grab some canola oil and test it myself...

User avatar
twistor
Posts: 1531
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:47 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby twistor » Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:02 pm

I thought it might be a relativistic shift due to the fact that I was rocking back and forth really fast while masturbating, but then I took a second look. grae313 has green eyes but the runway model in the photo has blue eyes.

astrofan
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:55 am

Re: Women in Physics

Postby astrofan » Tue Feb 03, 2009 2:30 am

twistor wrote:I thought it might be a relativistic shift due to the fact that I was rocking back and forth really fast while masturbating, but then I took a second look. grae313 has green eyes but the runway model in the photo has blue eyes.


Interesting conversations you all have here in the physics lounge, though I sorta feel bad because it was a serious topic.

A friend of mine tried to incorporate relativity into a pick up line (with the aid of some vodka) at a party. Ended up with a slap across the face.

Edit: this conversation is particularly funny since grae has posted pics of herself, which both quiz and twist commented on...
Last edited by astrofan on Tue Feb 03, 2009 3:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
quizivex
Posts: 1029
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:13 am

Re: Women in Physics

Postby quizivex » Tue Feb 03, 2009 2:48 am

Ah yes, well back to the topic... here's the PPPL grad program, and out of the 29 students in this pic I count a whopping 3 females.

Image I have no clue what the reasons are for the imbalance. It's probably been discussed before and there probably are concrete reasons. But what really blows my mind is how nearly every male student I've met in the department is married, engaged or has a gf. It's shocking not only due to the obvious lack of opportunities to meet women on a daily basis in this field, but also since most of them met the women during undergrad, and actually imported them to grad school.

User avatar
Helio
Posts: 809
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:11 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby Helio » Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:24 am

I am just speaking from experience here, but the biophysics crowd has a lot more women than the regular physics. I dunno why that is, but from the all 8 biophysics people I know a whupping 2 are men. I dunno if anybody has had the same experience.

On the flip side... there were 4 undergraduate women in physics conference on MLK weekend with over 400 participants. Still a small number but way up from the years before. I am SPS Vice President at my school, so I had to come

User avatar
twistor
Posts: 1531
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:47 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby twistor » Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:40 am

quizivex wrote:Ah yes, well back to the topic... here's the PPPL grad program, and out of the 29 students in this pic I count a whopping 3 females.


The real issue is the number of Asians and the fact that they are racistly grouped together.

astrofan
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:55 am

Re: Women in Physics

Postby astrofan » Tue Feb 03, 2009 2:11 pm

I am sure I will take heat for this, but this US male has to disagree with much of mhazlem's post. Take a look at this article in the times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/science/15tier.html

Applying Title IX to science seems like it would be bad for a lot of fields, but I guess that’s what is required to take federal money. As long as they plan on enforcing Title IX in psychology as well as physics, I think its all fair (see article). However, I am pretty sure that the government forcing Titile IX compliance in psychology (that is, cutting jobs for women in the field) would be severely protested. Not really sure what the argument would be, but someone will think of one.

On to her post.

mhazelm wrote:
That's obviously not the whole picture; from the evolutionary standpoint, I think women and men are fundamentally different in their thought patterns.



Careful now; that type of talk can get you into a lot of trouble. Ask Lawrence H. Summers. Before he was a key leader of Obama’s transition team, he had to resign as president of Harvard for suggesting that the thought patterns of men and women might be different. Dangerous territory to step into; no geneticist would dare touch that one with a ten foot pole. I am surprised no one took offense.

mhazelm wrote:Also, society pushes these stereotypes on us constantly: pop music, reality TV shows, other TV series, many of them are all about women being seductresses, rather than smart women with depth. To a young person, I think the media often sends the message that we are valued (as women) when we have perfect, skinny, tan model bodies with perfect make-up, and we can attract men. There is often not much depth to this picture. I have never turned on my TV and seen a reality show about who can survive Jackson's E&M for the longest (hehehe), it's usually about who can "win the man", or look better.


This argument really irritates me. Do you think that it is not the same thing for men? The media sends the same message to men as women; perhaps not as strong to men, but it is there. Both my male and female friends who were scientists/engineers and attractive had no problem hooking up or getting a gf/bf. The ones that were not didn’t.

It is not cool, at any level of education, to be a physicist. Most people (men and women) do not find the subject very interesting. Moreover, most physicists do not make a lot of money, which, in my experience, is not a turn on for women.

Also, one of the hottest girls I have ever seen is an astrophysicist. Before astrophysics, she was a model. Is she a "role model" or part of the media’s attempt to force women to look beautiful?

mhazelm wrote:
So young women are not inclined to approach the sciences, because it isn't "cool" or "attractive" and society has taught them that this is what's important. It's a bit sad sometimes to think that we (women) fought for years to get the vote and for the ability to pursue careers, but that almost a century later, it's still all about attraction and being seductive, rather than having intellectual freedom... to me it doesn't seem that we've come so far from the 1930s and 40s yet, as a whole (many, many women have, of course, I'm just generalizing).


The New York Times article I posted says, "They [women] earn the majority of doctorates in both the life sciences and the social sciences". Care to rethink your statement?

Someone asked why biophysics has more women; this article explains that, as biology is a female dominated field, it makes sense that biophysics would be too. 70% of the psychology field is female; that is a huge discrepancy! It seems to me that women do have intellectual freedom in this country, but choose the life sciences instead of physics/engineering (from article, "Dr. Lubinski and Dr. Benbow concluded that adolescents’ interests and balance of abilities — not their sex — were the best predictors of whether they would choose an 'inorganic' career like physics".). Just wondering, does equality mean that women and men must be equally represented in every field? Is it okay that psychology is female dominated?

mhazelm wrote:
Also, another reason (I think) is physics the way that it is taught. Many, many studies have shown that women tend (on average) to think more verbally, men more visually. But the entire subject of physics has been dominated by men, and their teaching mechanisms, for years. So, who's to say that the methods of approaching the various subjects could be changed in a way that would be more stimulating to women? But it's hard to really say if there's a better way to approach the subject, or if it would make a tangible difference.


You are probably right with this. However, as I have just pointed out, physics is not alone in this problem. Maybe psychology works the same way in keeping men out. If the majority of students prefer a teaching style, than that’s the one they are going to go with.

mhazelm wrote:
It's also a bit daunting to think that you might have little support on issues like child-rearing, and also might have to wait a while longer (till after grad school, etc.) to start a family (not that we HAVE to wait...).


I will agree with your point about maternity leave; that was messed up. I some how doubt that most colleges are run this way, especially after she won the lawsuit. I know that the place I work at is very good about giving maternity leave. Just to throw this out there, what about the fathers? Clearly they do not go through the same physical/emotional strain of child birth, but most couples share the duties of taking care of the new baby. Men also want to spend time with their kids. They don’t need to be home all day, but perhaps allowing for a reduced work schedule would be nice for some time after child birth. Not that it matters; I feel like this type of "paternity leave" would be impossible to expect from any empolyer.

kaosgrace
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 4:19 am

Re: Women in Physics

Postby kaosgrace » Tue Feb 03, 2009 2:44 pm

On expecting paternity leave from an employer:
http://www.catalyst.org/publication/240/family-leave-us-canada-and-global
76 weeks in Sweden, 58 of which are at a minimum of 80% of full pay. Even in Canada, fathers get 37 weeks sort-of-unpaid (funded by employee insurance). Not that any economy in the world is thriving at the moment, but those two are doing darn well all things considered. Maybe we should...but no, the U.S. is the bestest country in the world.

On women and different thought patterns: Nobody took offense here because a) nobody here is the president of a major research university who has a great deal of influence in hiring policies and sets the tone for faculty, and b) on the whole it's probably true, although that doesn't necessarily mean that either thought pattern is more or less capable of producing good work in any particular field. I'd venture to say that most of the women (like most of the men, but to a greater extent) who enter into physics or engineering as a career have fundamentally atypical thought patterns anyway. The problem lies not in acknowledging the differences, but in allowing them to colour our views of individual people.

astrofan
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:55 am

Re: Women in Physics

Postby astrofan » Tue Feb 03, 2009 3:11 pm

kaosgrace wrote:On expecting paternity leave from an employer:
On women and different thought patterns: Nobody took offense here because a) nobody here is the president of a major research university who has a great deal of influence in hiring policies and sets the tone for faculty, and b) on the whole it's probably true, although that doesn't necessarily mean that either thought pattern is more or less capable of producing good work in any particular field. I'd venture to say that most of the women (like most of the men, but to a greater extent) who enter into physics or engineering as a career have fundamentally atypical thought patterns anyway. The problem lies not in acknowledging the differences, but in allowing them to colour our views of individual people.


a. how do you know nobody here is the president of a major research university?
b. Agree completely, my point was that mhazelm's post was similar to what Summers said. The only difference you seem to bring up is president vs. student. I live on the east coast; when Summers said that, the protesters came out in full force. I asked one of the protesters what the problem was, and she responded by saying that the "thought patterns" in men and women were not different. Trust me when I say, some people do take offense.

On the other hand, these are the same people that think Title IX should only be applied to male dominated fields.

mhazelm
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 3:33 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby mhazelm » Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:48 am

@ astrofan -

you make some very good points. Don't worry, no heat here.. I'm adiabatic. :)

As a scientist I like to collect as much evidence as possible when presented with a problem, and I can see now that my logic was a bit shortsighted; indeed, men also must face media stereotypes, and they must face teaching methods in fields where women dominate. Of course, almost all academic fields were dominated by men if you go back more than 100 years, so that skews the education thing a bit. But yes, I should have considered your points, and I find them to be quite valid.

Now, as for the comment about men and women being fundamentally different, I expected to take heat on that as well. I am a woman, and know perfectly well that I am quite capable of doing physics; my point was not that women and men cannot do science equally well. What I meant was that it is possible that women are less predisposed to liking physics. It may be true, it may not be true, and I am NOT assigning any sort of probability to the statement. I am simply stating that it is a non-zero possibility. I don't really believe it, either, but as a scientist, I think it is important to examine all the possibilities, whether we like them or not. I must conclude that from the evolutionary standpoint we are different. I don't agree with Lawrence Summers, either; his idea seemed to be that women are less capable than men in physics, and that's not at all what I said _ I just said we think differently. Plenty of evidence supports this claim, and believe it or not, plenty of people do study differences between the male and female mind.

Anyway, I don't want to start a fight. Heaven knows I support women in physics (or else I wouldn't be here). I just like to discuss the possible reasons for the lack of us, and I try to do it without emotion, simply listing the possibilities and giving my opinion.

Another thing is that I grew up in the center of Utah, in a city that can be one of the most perverse places in the US to be if you're a woman (depends on who you are and what you believe, obviously). The local culture (in the places in Utah that I grew up and lived) strongly emphasizes the patriarchal family, where the woman's duty is solely to raise children and support the man; the male role is considerably more powerful than the female role here. It can be very oppressive. My mother, who was raised within the dominant religion, was harshly criticized for taking a physics class in her 20s, instead of staying home with her kids, and most of my friends from high school already have one kid (starting on their 2nd now, at age 21-22) and were discouraged from science. Utah women tend to have less higher education than their counterparts (see http://www.iwpr.org/States2004/PDFs/Utah.pdf) and face other issues stemming from the male-dominant roles in society here. There are lots of interesting papers on this, though I don't really want to start a fight with anyone about the religion here, so I won't go into it. PM me if you're curious, but otherwise I won't go into it.

Conclusion: I'm pretty sure I have a skewed view of things because I've only lived here, and seen the way it is for many women here. And thus I apologize if I've offended anyone with my opinion.

User avatar
grae313
Posts: 2297
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 8:46 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby grae313 » Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:38 pm

twistor wrote:I thought it might be a relativistic shift due to the fact that I was rocking back and forth really fast while masturbating, but then I took a second look. grae313 has green eyes but the runway model in the photo has blue eyes.


damn, by the time I get back all the excitement's died down...

Actually, my eyes are blue just like in my picture that is clearly me beyond any shadow of a doubt that I posted earlier...

Image

it's just that the lighting adds a yellow tint in the avatar pick



And just because I feel bad for trying to derail this thread, here's my tired opinion on this tired topic:


Men and women are different. No ***. We are different physically, we are different mentally. I think that society has a huge influence, but if we could neutralize that influence magically, men would still score better *ON AVERAGE* on math/spatial tests. My mom scored 172 on the math/quantitative/spatial reasoning portion of an IQ exam when she was 14.

There are exceptions to every rule.

There's more to being a great scientist than scoring well on tests.

Biophysics and chemistry don't require the same types of intelligences that physics requires, and they lead to careers which still fit into our society's feminine model: healthcare, life sciences, etc. Physicist doesn't fit in that model. Yet. I stayed away from life sciences--"soft sciences" if you will--because I thought they were "girly."

astrofan wrote:This argument really irritates me. Do you think that it is not the same thing for men? The media sends the same message to men as women; perhaps not as strong to men, but it is there. Both my male and female friends who were scientists/engineers and attractive had no problem hooking up or getting a gf/bf. The ones that were not didn’t.


Try making a list with two columns, in one put adjectives that you would associate with "female", in the other put adjectives that you associate with "male."


....


go ahead, try it...

























Society forces roles on each gender, and life can be painful for anyone whose nature is contrary to those molds. However, I would argue that the adjectives most people would put in the "male" column tend to have more positive connotations, and refer to more valued traits than for the "female" column. I bet many of the "female" words you listed to which you would assign a positive feeling have to do with attractiveness, sexuality, or beauty. I have never felt that the typical female role, or the feminine identity, is particularly valued in this country, but I guess that's a different conversation.

User avatar
Helio
Posts: 809
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:11 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby Helio » Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:26 pm

grae313 wrote:
twistor wrote:I thought it might be a relativistic shift due to the fact that I was rocking back and forth really fast while masturbating, but then I took a second look. grae313 has green eyes but the runway model in the photo has blue eyes.


damn, by the time I get back all the excitement's died down...

Actually, my eyes are blue just like in my picture that is clearly me beyond any shadow of a doubt that I posted earlier...

Image

it's just that the lighting adds a yellow tint in the avatar pick


Well at least twister has new material to satisfy his needs

User avatar
twistor
Posts: 1531
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:47 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby twistor » Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:20 pm

If you think eyes alone do it for me...

you're absolutely right.


bbl...

astrofan
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:55 am

Re: Women in Physics

Postby astrofan » Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:12 pm

@mhazelm
That is what I thought you were saying, and interest level is clearly different for men and women (whether biological or socail, men seem to be more interested in the field). Just wasn't sure, and it could be taken in a different way like below:

grae313 wrote:
Men and women are different. No ***. We are different physically, we are different mentally. I think that society has a huge influence, but if we could neutralize that influence magically, men would still score better *ON AVERAGE* on math/spatial tests.

There are exceptions to every rule.



I am not saying I agree or disagree, but this sounds exactly like Summers. Again, I point out that you can't say that to just anyone. There are a lot of people that would be offended by that statement.

Oh and I agree about standardized tests, too bad grad schools can't agree. Acording to ETS, I am an idiot.

grae313 wrote:Try making a list with two columns, in one put adjectives that you would associate with "female", in the other put adjectives that you associate with "male."

....

go ahead, try it...

Society forces roles on each gender, and life can be painful for anyone whose nature is contrary to those molds. However, I would argue that the adjectives most people would put in the "male" column tend to have more positive connotations, and refer to more valued traits than for the "female" column. I bet many of the "female" words you listed to which you would assign a positive feeling have to do with attractiveness, sexuality, or beauty. I have never felt that the typical female role, or the feminine identity, is particularly valued in this country, but I guess that's a different conversation.


Wow, this is getting way to theoretical for me. I was responding to the tired arguement that only women feel pressure to conform. There are some bad adjectives for men too: shovanistic, egotisitical, and greedy.

Again, physics is not cool for anyone to pursue. We all sacrifice because we love physics, stop telling me how easy it is for men. Plus, I think you are missing the point. Keep telling me about how the "man", the media, and societal norms are negative towards women and specifically toward education. I will keep telling you that is irrelevent. I will keep pointing you to the scientific evidence that women, on average, are better educated and more involved in science. Even if you are right, what does it matter; how much are women being "kept down"? If there is a problem with the lack of women in physics, there is the same problem with a lack of men in psychology. Can men blame society for that?

User avatar
Helio
Posts: 809
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:11 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby Helio » Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:48 pm

twistor wrote:If you think eyes alone do it for me...

you're absolutely right.


bbl...


just watch out for the screen this time... your LCD might break

mhazelm
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 3:33 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby mhazelm » Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:05 pm

Well, actually, grae313 summed it all up in this sentence:
There are exceptions to every rule.


Because, it's true. We can never actually generalize all men and all women into any category, ever. So in some sense it is irrelevant to even bother discussing it.

Sorry I got carried away in my last post. It is so nice to procrastinate homework. Oh, and astrofan, don't feel bad, by ETS standards, I have the intelligence of a small white mouse. Or maybe a fly. Somewhere in that range. :roll:

User avatar
Helio
Posts: 809
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:11 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby Helio » Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:25 pm


astrophysicist2b
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 4:14 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby astrophysicist2b » Sat Feb 14, 2009 3:03 pm

interesting. I know these are small number statistics, but two of the very successful female astro professors I know have husbands who work from home and can take care of their kids. it seems to be quite difficult to have two full-time parents in academia, although some people manage to pull it off.

User avatar
twistor
Posts: 1531
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:47 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby twistor » Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:18 pm

If women start doing physics full-time they won't have time to clean the house and watch the kids, and that is unacceptable.

User avatar
grae313
Posts: 2297
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 8:46 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby grae313 » Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:59 pm

twistor wrote:If women start doing physics full-time they won't have time to clean the house and watch the kids, and that is unacceptable.


Absolutely. I'm glad you understand.

User avatar
Helio
Posts: 809
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:11 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby Helio » Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:50 pm

grae313 wrote:
twistor wrote:If women start doing physics full-time they won't have time to clean the house and watch the kids, and that is unacceptable.


Absolutely. I'm glad you understand.


well we might pitch in and buy you this one:

http://www.tshirthell.com/funny-shirts/ ... he-kitchen

User avatar
grae313
Posts: 2297
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 8:46 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby grae313 » Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:16 pm

Helio wrote:
grae313 wrote:
twistor wrote:If women start doing physics full-time they won't have time to clean the house and watch the kids, and that is unacceptable.


Absolutely. I'm glad you understand.


well we might pitch in and buy you this one:

http://www.tshirthell.com/funny-shirts/ ... he-kitchen



ROTFL !!!! ImageImageImage I LOVE IT! I need that shirt!

User avatar
twistor
Posts: 1531
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:47 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby twistor » Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:41 pm

Only if you do a good job on your chores.

User avatar
Helio
Posts: 809
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:11 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby Helio » Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:44 am

twistor wrote:Only if you do a good job on your chores.


1. Clean the lab
2. Make dinner for the group


that should be a good start

intrepede
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 5:25 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby intrepede » Fri Feb 27, 2009 5:32 pm

I think there isn't a problem with women in physics. There is a problem with ACTUALLY hot women in REAL physics. I have never met a attractive girl who was actually good at actual phyiscs.

Question: Where is my hot 20 something year old phyicist with big *** who knows GR and likes to party in short dresses on the weekend? Answer: She doesn't exist.

Why? Because hot women apparently suck at real physics and math. We have tons of females in my school and they are either good looking and stupid or not hot and kind of smart.

Seriously, why do people have a problem with women just being worse than men at real science and math? Because evidence suggests that they are... or at least the hot ones, and really, what else matters?

babazula
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:59 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby babazula » Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:10 am

Image

Mina Aganagic... She is a HOT woman in REAL physics..
http://math.berkeley.edu/~mina/Mina.htm

intrepede
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 5:25 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby intrepede » Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:41 am

babazula wrote:Image

Mina Aganagic... She is a HOT woman in REAL physics..
http://math.berkeley.edu/~mina/Mina.htm



No, she really isn't. I meant ACTUAL Hot. Not Physics Hot. People in physics forget that. Just because she is not that old or fat doesn't make her hot guys.

User avatar
trani
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 1:04 am

Re: Women in Physics

Postby trani » Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:19 pm

intrepede wrote:Question: Where is my hot 20 something year old phyicist with big *** who knows GR and likes to party in short dresses on the weekend?


Answer: They are hiding from YOU.

User avatar
dlenmn
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby dlenmn » Sat Feb 28, 2009 2:01 pm

dumbass wrote:I have never met a attractive girl who was actually good at actual phyiscs.


I bet she is good at physics...

User avatar
Helio
Posts: 809
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:11 pm

Re: Women in Physics

Postby Helio » Sat Feb 28, 2009 2:42 pm

dlenmn wrote:
dumbass wrote:I have never met a attractive girl who was actually good at actual phyiscs.


I bet she is good at physics...


thank your for proofing him wrong... some people just really need a reality check at times

http://www.nerdgirls.com/




Return to “Physics Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests