7 ms·

Summary: Woman contributes to mathematics; can't find appropriate academic position because she isn't a man. As far as the article goes there is a bit about h

by LanceH 7y ago

Summary: Woman contributes to mathematics; can't find appropriate academic position because she isn't a man. As far as the article goes there is a bit about her contribution which is over inflated to, "reshaped maths". This is used as a jumping off point to talk about how she can't find the same work her male counterparts would, skills being equal. Finding out that professors were mostly men in the early to mid 20th century is hardly noteworthy but the article spends some time on it. Finally a bit of commentary by the author about missed opportunities because people other than white men have ideas, too. The last seems to be the point, but it reads as an attempt to find misery and highlight it, rather than perhaps remembering the woman and her contribution. The contribution the author is really interested in is the failure and the opportunity it presents to make a trite statement about equality of opportunity. All with a click bait title.

whatshisface 7y ago
If the BBC is trying to build a case that female mathematicians were treated poorly 70 years ago compared to their male counterparts, they would somehow need to show that there wasn't a similar supply of men who made an obscure but significant contribution only to get coldly treated by the establishment (somehow I think there's no shortage). We must be careful to not fall prey to example-ism, building cases out of salient examples instead of evenly sampled trends.
- jordigh 7y ago
  Let's not fall into denialism here. There's absolutely no doubt that being a Jewish woman mathematician in the 1930s was doubly difficult than being a male Jewish mathematician -- double the discrimination. Calling Geiringer's situation "example-ism" is up there with doubting the sky is blue because I said I saw blue skies in Italy one time.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    I have never seen any evidence that women were discriminated against in 1930s mathematics other than specific stories about women being treated coldly by the establishment. I have certainly never seen anyone compare their cold treatment to the ambient coldness. Look at it this way. If I told you every time a coin came up heads, how many reports would it take for you to conclude that it was biased? The right answer is "the conclusion may never be reached," because I'm not allowing you to tally up the number of times it came up tails. Likewise, despite the huge number of stories about women being denied appointments despite having made significant contributions, no conclusion can be drawn until there is some indication that the effect is unique to women. Another important point is that even if the 1930s were awful and sexist, there may have been islands of relatively fair people. So in the interest of remembing them as they deserve, it is best to check each social group individually for evidence of their bad behavior, so that you don't end up remembering the one admissions committee that wasn't sexist as just another bias enforcement team.
    - elliekelly 7y ago
      > I have never seen any evidence that women were discriminated against in 1930s mathematics other than specific stories about women being treated coldly by the establishment. So you've seen no evidence of discrimination... other than specific stories of discrimination? What do you think discrimination in academia looks like? A giant sign on the front door of the university that says "NO GIRLS ALLOWED"? Geiringer was the first woman professor of Mathematics in Germany but she probably wasn't the first woman in Germany who was qualified to hold that position.
      - whatshisface 7y ago
        There is no number of specific stories that should convince anyone, unless there is also some indication that they are being evenly sampled! You would have to compare all of the stories of men who were denied appointments to make a conclusion. To get a probability from a count, you have to divide by something.
        Voloskaya 7y ago
        I mean, isn't the fact that there were virtually no women in academia back in the time a convincing enough proof in itself that there was, indeed, discrimination?
        whatshisface 7y ago
        Discrimination on the part of gatekeepers isn't the only thing that can keep minorities out. A culture that tells them not to try doing it because it isn't their assigned role, a fear of being the only one of their group among a majority of another group, and earlier discrimination that prevents them from getting qualifications but isn't the fault of the gatekeeper could all be responsible. Given the information I know and what has been brought up in this discussion, University mathematicians could have been perfectly willing to hire women.
        Voloskaya 7y ago
  - fmajid 7y ago
    An interesting comparison would be with Srinivasa Ramanujan. Male but non-white, and from a poor background. Also Emmy Noether, also Jewish, German and female, whose contributions to both mathematics and physics are much more significant, fundamental even. Also, I doubt her being Jewish was a factor of academic discrimination, as opposed to the more general Nazi persecution she endured. We're not talking about Moses Mendelssohn breaking through glass ceilings in the 18th Century but the 20th by when Jewish intellectuals like Hilbert or Einstein (or more controversially, Fritz Haber) held a commanding place in science and academia.
dadarepublic 7y ago
Questions, questions... >"there is a bit about her contribution which is over inflated" Why do you diminish this woman contributions to mathematics? >"to make a trite statement about equality of opportunity" Are you saying equal opportunity is trite? Or are you saying an article that gives context why equal opportunity might be important is trite? Your comment seems dismissive and full of bias.
- BeetleB 7y ago
  I think you completely didn't get the point of his comment. Say you are a woman and you made an important contribution to mathematics. Now would you want it such that every article written about you did not focus on your achievement, but instead focused on your inability to get an academic position? Lots of people know the work of Emmy Noether. Do they know know it only because she managed to get academic positions? Had she never got one do you think it would be appropriate to know she was a genius, but never talk about her contributions?
  - dadarepublic 7y ago
    I think I did and from the way the commenter doubled down without acknowledging his disrespect of Hilda's contributions, I'd say my take was spot on. I'd say you missed the bias in his comment. Had he been more altruistic in his take, I'd say you gave thoughtful feedback.
    - BeetleB 7y ago
      OK - Let me respond to your original comment: LanceH said: > there is a bit about her contribution which is over inflated to which you said: > Why do you diminish this woman contributions to mathematics? LanceH didn't. He acknowledges her contributions elsewhere in the comment. He is saying that characterizing it as "reshaping mathematics" is likely an exaggeration. At the very least, the BBC article doesn't give an indication of how she did this, and doesn't back the stance. Even a great contribution to the theory of plasticity is not one that reshapes mathematics. It's an extraordinary claim. While in academia, I worked with people who made incredible contributions to a sub-sub discipline of physics. Within the sub-sub discipline they are recognized as the leaders/pioneers of the field. Yet they are unknown to most physicists, and no one (including they themselves) would dare make a claim that they "reshaped physics". Mathematics is a broader discipline and it takes even more to reshape it than it does physics. LanceH said: > to make a trite statement about equality of opportunity To which you responded: > Are you saying equal opportunity is trite? LanceH wasn't. What was being said is that writing an article pointing out how few opportunities women had at the time is trite (definition: "boring from much use : not fresh or original"). If they want to write yet another article documenting this, that is fine. But they should title the article to reflect it. A famous blind programmer once complained of the same phenomenon: That articles written about him focus more on his blindness than on his achievements. I don't know how Hilda would feel about this article, but I would not be happy if I made an achievement and all that is written about me is related to my gender/race/disability and not the work I've done.

by LanceH 7y ago

whatshisface 7y ago

If the BBC is trying to build a case that female mathematicians were treated poorly 70 years ago compared to their male counterparts, they would somehow need to show that there wasn't a similar supply of men who made an obscure but significant contribution only to get coldly treated by the establishment (somehow I think there's no shortage). We must be careful to not fall prey to example-ism, building cases out of salient examples instead of evenly sampled trends.

jordigh 7y ago
Let's not fall into denialism here. There's absolutely no doubt that being a Jewish woman mathematician in the 1930s was doubly difficult than being a male Jewish mathematician -- double the discrimination. Calling Geiringer's situation "example-ism" is up there with doubting the sky is blue because I said I saw blue skies in Italy one time.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  I have never seen any evidence that women were discriminated against in 1930s mathematics other than specific stories about women being treated coldly by the establishment. I have certainly never seen anyone compare their cold treatment to the ambient coldness. Look at it this way. If I told you every time a coin came up heads, how many reports would it take for you to conclude that it was biased? The right answer is "the conclusion may never be reached," because I'm not allowing you to tally up the number of times it came up tails. Likewise, despite the huge number of stories about women being denied appointments despite having made significant contributions, no conclusion can be drawn until there is some indication that the effect is unique to women. Another important point is that even if the 1930s were awful and sexist, there may have been islands of relatively fair people. So in the interest of remembing them as they deserve, it is best to check each social group individually for evidence of their bad behavior, so that you don't end up remembering the one admissions committee that wasn't sexist as just another bias enforcement team.
  - elliekelly 7y ago
    > I have never seen any evidence that women were discriminated against in 1930s mathematics other than specific stories about women being treated coldly by the establishment. So you've seen no evidence of discrimination... other than specific stories of discrimination? What do you think discrimination in academia looks like? A giant sign on the front door of the university that says "NO GIRLS ALLOWED"? Geiringer was the first woman professor of Mathematics in Germany but she probably wasn't the first woman in Germany who was qualified to hold that position.
    - whatshisface 7y ago
      There is no number of specific stories that should convince anyone, unless there is also some indication that they are being evenly sampled! You would have to compare all of the stories of men who were denied appointments to make a conclusion. To get a probability from a count, you have to divide by something.
      - Voloskaya 7y ago
        I mean, isn't the fact that there were virtually no women in academia back in the time a convincing enough proof in itself that there was, indeed, discrimination?
        whatshisface 7y ago
        Discrimination on the part of gatekeepers isn't the only thing that can keep minorities out. A culture that tells them not to try doing it because it isn't their assigned role, a fear of being the only one of their group among a majority of another group, and earlier discrimination that prevents them from getting qualifications but isn't the fault of the gatekeeper could all be responsible. Given the information I know and what has been brought up in this discussion, University mathematicians could have been perfectly willing to hire women.
        Voloskaya 7y ago
- fmajid 7y ago
  An interesting comparison would be with Srinivasa Ramanujan. Male but non-white, and from a poor background. Also Emmy Noether, also Jewish, German and female, whose contributions to both mathematics and physics are much more significant, fundamental even. Also, I doubt her being Jewish was a factor of academic discrimination, as opposed to the more general Nazi persecution she endured. We're not talking about Moses Mendelssohn breaking through glass ceilings in the 18th Century but the 20th by when Jewish intellectuals like Hilbert or Einstein (or more controversially, Fritz Haber) held a commanding place in science and academia.

dadarepublic 7y ago

Questions, questions... >"there is a bit about her contribution which is over inflated" Why do you diminish this woman contributions to mathematics? >"to make a trite statement about equality of opportunity" Are you saying equal opportunity is trite? Or are you saying an article that gives context why equal opportunity might be important is trite? Your comment seems dismissive and full of bias.

BeetleB 7y ago
I think you completely didn't get the point of his comment. Say you are a woman and you made an important contribution to mathematics. Now would you want it such that every article written about you did not focus on your achievement, but instead focused on your inability to get an academic position? Lots of people know the work of Emmy Noether. Do they know know it only because she managed to get academic positions? Had she never got one do you think it would be appropriate to know she was a genius, but never talk about her contributions?
- dadarepublic 7y ago
  I think I did and from the way the commenter doubled down without acknowledging his disrespect of Hilda's contributions, I'd say my take was spot on. I'd say you missed the bias in his comment. Had he been more altruistic in his take, I'd say you gave thoughtful feedback.
  - BeetleB 7y ago
    OK - Let me respond to your original comment: LanceH said: > there is a bit about her contribution which is over inflated to which you said: > Why do you diminish this woman contributions to mathematics? LanceH didn't. He acknowledges her contributions elsewhere in the comment. He is saying that characterizing it as "reshaping mathematics" is likely an exaggeration. At the very least, the BBC article doesn't give an indication of how she did this, and doesn't back the stance. Even a great contribution to the theory of plasticity is not one that reshapes mathematics. It's an extraordinary claim. While in academia, I worked with people who made incredible contributions to a sub-sub discipline of physics. Within the sub-sub discipline they are recognized as the leaders/pioneers of the field. Yet they are unknown to most physicists, and no one (including they themselves) would dare make a claim that they "reshaped physics". Mathematics is a broader discipline and it takes even more to reshape it than it does physics. LanceH said: > to make a trite statement about equality of opportunity To which you responded: > Are you saying equal opportunity is trite? LanceH wasn't. What was being said is that writing an article pointing out how few opportunities women had at the time is trite (definition: "boring from much use : not fresh or original"). If they want to write yet another article documenting this, that is fine. But they should title the article to reflect it. A famous blind programmer once complained of the same phenomenon: That articles written about him focus more on his blindness than on his achievements. I don't know how Hilda would feel about this article, but I would not be happy if I made an achievement and all that is written about me is related to my gender/race/disability and not the work I've done.