7 ms·

> Are there not any young women born as genius? Mathematics and mathematical physics have many accounts of brilliant female mathematicians. The first computer

by lutusp 13y ago

> Are there not any young women born as genius? Mathematics and mathematical physics have many accounts of brilliant female mathematicians. The first computer programmer was a woman (Ada Lovelace: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace), at a time when programming was almost purely mathematical. In spite of serious obstacles throughout history, examples abound. My favorite contemporary example: https://www.physics.harvard.edu/people/facpages/randall https://www.physics.harvard.edu/people/facpages/randall Quote: "Professor Lisa Randall studies theoretical particle physics and cosmology at Harvard University. Her research connects theoretical insights to puzzles in our current understanding of the properties and interactions of matter. She has developed and studied a wide variety of models to address these questions, the most prominent involving extra dimensions of space."

nickthemagicman 13y ago
Only 5% of nobel prizes have gone to women, and this includes literature and peace prizes. I'm sure if you narrow it to pure STEM it's much lower. Men have invented every major technological advance in history. If you look outside your window all the roads, all the buildings, cars, aeroplanes, cell phones, etc. All men. My theory is not that women are dumber, it's that the fight for survival is not there for women. They can just have a man pay their bills in exchange for sex. Actually by seizing that advantage it makes women seem actually smarter..... and they live longer too.
- yetanotherphd 13y ago
  Wild speculation that {women|older people|Black people} are inherently less inclined/capable in a field, is baseless discrimination. Wild speculation that {men|younger people|White people} are inherently less inclined/capable in a field, is stimulating discussion. Just a heads up for when the downvotes come.
  - pikachu_is_cool 13y ago
    It's funny how so many of these HNers are so quick to jump the gun and join the "women are oppressed" circlejerk, and when someone disagrees, they call THEM sexist. Do you all not remember high school? Don't you remember wondering why all the girls go for the football jocks and musicians? Don't fool yourself; engineers are boring. Engineering is isolating. That's why there are barely any female engineers. You don't see people wondering why there aren't as many male kindergarten teachers.
    - nickthemagicman 13y ago
      Thank you! I'm literally trying to base my theories on facts, not sexism or anything. In modern times women OUTNUMBER men in college yet the ration of women to men in STEM is abysmally low. This isn't sexism this is factual. I'm trying to find an explanation besides: 'Science is filled with sexist pigs so that's why women avoid it.' I'm just finding it harder to agree with the 'women are victims' stance the more I critically think about the situation.
      - pikachu_is_cool 13y ago
        In my opinion, if you agree with the 'women are victims' stance with regards to STEM, then you are sexist. It's basically a backhanded way of saying men are superior to women, when most women simply are just not interested in the field. People seem to forget that men and women are fundamentally different. They have different interests and different goals in life. There is nothing wrong with that, and it doesn't need to be "fixed". Here's a fact for you: There's tons of evidence in the testimony of MtF and FtM transgender people. A lot of MtFs simply lose interest in the sciences when they go on hormones.
- aestra 13y ago
  One of the stupidest comments I've seen on HN. The Nobel Prize is well known for being sexist. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130519-women-scientists-overlooked-dna-history-science/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130519-women... >Men have invented every major technological advance in history. One counter example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper Actually http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/15_most_important_women_tech_history http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/15_most_important_... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women_in_mathematics_worldwide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women_in_mathematic... Sexism is still alive and well http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/2012/09/23/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/201... >But in a groundbreaking study published in PNAS last week by Corinne Moss-Racusin and colleagues, that is exactly what was done. On Wednesday, Sean Carroll blogged about and brought to light the research from Yale that had scientists presented with application materials from a student applying for a lab manager position and who intended to go on to graduate school. Half the scientists were given the application with a male name attached, and half were given the exact same application with a female name attached. Results found that the “female” applicants were rated significantly lower than the “males” in competence, hireability, and whether the scientist would be willing to mentor the student. The scientists also offered lower starting salaries to the “female” applicants: $26,507.94 compared to $30,238.10. We are not talking about equality of outcomes here; this result shows bias thwarts equality of opportunity.
  - yetanotherphd 13y ago
    It's also possible that the scientists correctly infer that, even conditional on having the same resume, female applicants were overall of a lower quality. The study doesn't prove whether this disadvantage comes from people discriminating against women merely because they are women, or people correctly identifying that the women on average perform worse, even given the same resumes. It is still possible that given full information about the candidate, (not just the resume), women would not be disadvantaged.
    - 13y ago
- EdwardCoffin 13y ago
  Hedy Lamarr [1] co-invented frequency hopping, the foundation of modern spread-spectrum communications technology (Wifi, Bluetooth among others) Marie Curie [2] was awarded two Nobel prizes. Emmy Noether [3] is known as the mother of modern algebra, a pretty important field, and part of the foundation of many applications today. Some others of interest are Rosalind Franklin [4], Beatrice Schilling [5], and Barbara Liskov [6] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatrice_Shilling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatrice_Shilling [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Liskov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Liskov
  - nickthemagicman 13y ago
    Ok now go look at the 800ish men who have won Nobel prizes. That's a ratio of 100 to 1. Now go look at the leaders in philosophy, business, politics,and basically every major field ever. There will be the few women chestnuts but the ratio will be the same. But go look in homeless shelters. Also mostly men. Women have resource aquisition built into their bodies so they're never at the bottom but they also don't have that drive to ascend to the top.
    - EdwardCoffin 13y ago
      I'm having a really hard time convincing myself that you are not trolling here. > they also don't have that drive to ascend to the top Do you have any idea of what kind of barriers were in the way of those female prize winners and other academics like Marie Curie and Emmy Noether? They not only had to be world class in their fields, but had to do all their work in the face of constant sexist resistance. Look at what Curie and Noether had to put up with. They only got recognized for their achievements when a lot of their colleagues petitioned for their recognition. Noether had to lecture under an assumed name, for instance. If it hadn't been for the pressure exerted by some of their sympathetic peers, we might not know about their achievements as being THEIR achievements. Look at Rosalind Franklin, unrecognized for a long time and still mostly unrecognized. Do you think that they are the only ones, that there were not other women whose achievements were basically usurped by male colleagues, something possible due to the sexist environment they had to contend with? You are maintaining that if women were as capable as men, they'd be equally represented, and are completely denying the remarkable barriers that they have to simultaneously overcome, and when we point to some women who managed to be world class in the face of these recognized barriers you claim that they are just outliers. First you say everything of importance has been done by men, and when counterexamples are pointed out you dismiss them as irrelevant. You are clearly a fanatic, nothing we can say will convince you otherwise. I am not actually responding in order to convince you of anything, just to refute your claims for anyone who might read this in the future.
- judk 13y ago
  My theory is that male behavior and attitudes are so repugnant that most women just stay away.
  - nickthemagicman 13y ago
    One more for the 'women are victims' circle jerk!
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  NickTheMagicMan, I have a magic trick to request of you. Do you think you can you guess what it is?
  - nickthemagicman 13y ago
    Lol to jump on the gravy train and accept that women are repressed in contradiction to the facts?
    - moocowduckquack 13y ago
      No, that wasn't it at all. You obviously aren't a very good magician.
      - nickthemagicman 13y ago
        How do YOU explain why the ratio of women to men in STEM fields is abysmally low? Because STEM is filled with 'sexist pigs' so women avoid it? Or because women are wired differently?
        EdwardCoffin 13y ago
        How long have you been in the STEM field? I've got 25 years. My observation is that the field is in fact fairly filled with sexist pigs.
- j2kun 13y ago
  Pssst. This is HN, not reddit.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    Based on the sexist replies in this thread, I would have a hard time distinguishing the two.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

by lutusp 13y ago

nickthemagicman 13y ago

Only 5% of nobel prizes have gone to women, and this includes literature and peace prizes. I'm sure if you narrow it to pure STEM it's much lower. Men have invented every major technological advance in history. If you look outside your window all the roads, all the buildings, cars, aeroplanes, cell phones, etc. All men. My theory is not that women are dumber, it's that the fight for survival is not there for women. They can just have a man pay their bills in exchange for sex. Actually by seizing that advantage it makes women seem actually smarter..... and they live longer too.

yetanotherphd 13y ago
Wild speculation that {women|older people|Black people} are inherently less inclined/capable in a field, is baseless discrimination. Wild speculation that {men|younger people|White people} are inherently less inclined/capable in a field, is stimulating discussion. Just a heads up for when the downvotes come.
- pikachu_is_cool 13y ago
  It's funny how so many of these HNers are so quick to jump the gun and join the "women are oppressed" circlejerk, and when someone disagrees, they call THEM sexist. Do you all not remember high school? Don't you remember wondering why all the girls go for the football jocks and musicians? Don't fool yourself; engineers are boring. Engineering is isolating. That's why there are barely any female engineers. You don't see people wondering why there aren't as many male kindergarten teachers.
  - nickthemagicman 13y ago
    Thank you! I'm literally trying to base my theories on facts, not sexism or anything. In modern times women OUTNUMBER men in college yet the ration of women to men in STEM is abysmally low. This isn't sexism this is factual. I'm trying to find an explanation besides: 'Science is filled with sexist pigs so that's why women avoid it.' I'm just finding it harder to agree with the 'women are victims' stance the more I critically think about the situation.
    - pikachu_is_cool 13y ago
      In my opinion, if you agree with the 'women are victims' stance with regards to STEM, then you are sexist. It's basically a backhanded way of saying men are superior to women, when most women simply are just not interested in the field. People seem to forget that men and women are fundamentally different. They have different interests and different goals in life. There is nothing wrong with that, and it doesn't need to be "fixed". Here's a fact for you: There's tons of evidence in the testimony of MtF and FtM transgender people. A lot of MtFs simply lose interest in the sciences when they go on hormones.
aestra 13y ago
One of the stupidest comments I've seen on HN. The Nobel Prize is well known for being sexist. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130519-women-scientists-overlooked-dna-history-science/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130519-women... >Men have invented every major technological advance in history. One counter example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper Actually http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/15_most_important_women_tech_history http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/15_most_important_... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women_in_mathematics_worldwide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women_in_mathematic... Sexism is still alive and well http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/2012/09/23/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/201... >But in a groundbreaking study published in PNAS last week by Corinne Moss-Racusin and colleagues, that is exactly what was done. On Wednesday, Sean Carroll blogged about and brought to light the research from Yale that had scientists presented with application materials from a student applying for a lab manager position and who intended to go on to graduate school. Half the scientists were given the application with a male name attached, and half were given the exact same application with a female name attached. Results found that the “female” applicants were rated significantly lower than the “males” in competence, hireability, and whether the scientist would be willing to mentor the student. The scientists also offered lower starting salaries to the “female” applicants: $26,507.94 compared to $30,238.10. We are not talking about equality of outcomes here; this result shows bias thwarts equality of opportunity.
- yetanotherphd 13y ago
  It's also possible that the scientists correctly infer that, even conditional on having the same resume, female applicants were overall of a lower quality. The study doesn't prove whether this disadvantage comes from people discriminating against women merely because they are women, or people correctly identifying that the women on average perform worse, even given the same resumes. It is still possible that given full information about the candidate, (not just the resume), women would not be disadvantaged.
  - 13y ago
EdwardCoffin 13y ago
Hedy Lamarr [1] co-invented frequency hopping, the foundation of modern spread-spectrum communications technology (Wifi, Bluetooth among others) Marie Curie [2] was awarded two Nobel prizes. Emmy Noether [3] is known as the mother of modern algebra, a pretty important field, and part of the foundation of many applications today. Some others of interest are Rosalind Franklin [4], Beatrice Schilling [5], and Barbara Liskov [6] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatrice_Shilling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatrice_Shilling [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Liskov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Liskov
- nickthemagicman 13y ago
  Ok now go look at the 800ish men who have won Nobel prizes. That's a ratio of 100 to 1. Now go look at the leaders in philosophy, business, politics,and basically every major field ever. There will be the few women chestnuts but the ratio will be the same. But go look in homeless shelters. Also mostly men. Women have resource aquisition built into their bodies so they're never at the bottom but they also don't have that drive to ascend to the top.
  - EdwardCoffin 13y ago
    I'm having a really hard time convincing myself that you are not trolling here. > they also don't have that drive to ascend to the top Do you have any idea of what kind of barriers were in the way of those female prize winners and other academics like Marie Curie and Emmy Noether? They not only had to be world class in their fields, but had to do all their work in the face of constant sexist resistance. Look at what Curie and Noether had to put up with. They only got recognized for their achievements when a lot of their colleagues petitioned for their recognition. Noether had to lecture under an assumed name, for instance. If it hadn't been for the pressure exerted by some of their sympathetic peers, we might not know about their achievements as being THEIR achievements. Look at Rosalind Franklin, unrecognized for a long time and still mostly unrecognized. Do you think that they are the only ones, that there were not other women whose achievements were basically usurped by male colleagues, something possible due to the sexist environment they had to contend with? You are maintaining that if women were as capable as men, they'd be equally represented, and are completely denying the remarkable barriers that they have to simultaneously overcome, and when we point to some women who managed to be world class in the face of these recognized barriers you claim that they are just outliers. First you say everything of importance has been done by men, and when counterexamples are pointed out you dismiss them as irrelevant. You are clearly a fanatic, nothing we can say will convince you otherwise. I am not actually responding in order to convince you of anything, just to refute your claims for anyone who might read this in the future.
judk 13y ago
My theory is that male behavior and attitudes are so repugnant that most women just stay away.
- nickthemagicman 13y ago
  One more for the 'women are victims' circle jerk!
moocowduckquack 13y ago
NickTheMagicMan, I have a magic trick to request of you. Do you think you can you guess what it is?
- nickthemagicman 13y ago
  Lol to jump on the gravy train and accept that women are repressed in contradiction to the facts?
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    No, that wasn't it at all. You obviously aren't a very good magician.
    - nickthemagicman 13y ago
      How do YOU explain why the ratio of women to men in STEM fields is abysmally low? Because STEM is filled with 'sexist pigs' so women avoid it? Or because women are wired differently?
      - EdwardCoffin 13y ago
        How long have you been in the STEM field? I've got 25 years. My observation is that the field is in fact fairly filled with sexist pigs.
j2kun 13y ago
Pssst. This is HN, not reddit.
- lutusp 13y ago
  Based on the sexist replies in this thread, I would have a hard time distinguishing the two.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]