The Problem With Female Scientists In Labs

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Really? This is a controversy? The guy is 72 and probably amazed women aren't still barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen making their man a sandwich. ;)

“Let me tell you about my trouble with girls,” Mr. Hunt told an audience on Monday at the World Conference of Science Journalists in South Korea. “Three things happen when they are in the lab: You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them they cry.”
Click to expand...
 
I work in the tech industry and I can tell you a girl that is "less then hot" (to put it nicely) will be treated like royalty just because the selection is so few.

I usually leave women at work alone just because they get enough attention from everyone else. But I have gone through the exact pattern described in the quote. Some of it was excellent and some of it nearly cost me my career.
 
So don't buy your meat where you make your bread. Gee, never would have thought of that.:rolleyes:
 
Women are distractingly sexy in public...I keep running into signposts. I think they should wear some type of head to toe covering, or at least be separated into their own markets and such. I'm sure they'd love it!
 
TwistedAegis said:
Women are distractingly sexy in public...I keep running into signposts. I think they should wear some type of head to toe covering, or at least be separated into their own markets and such. I'm sure they'd love it!
Click to expand...

:D :D :D
 
I've been having trouble at home with this very thing. I hardly get anything done because I'd rather be hanging out with my wife... drat...
 
TwistedAegis said:
Women are distractingly sexy in public...I keep running into signposts. I think they should wear some type of head to toe covering, or at least be separated into their own markets and such. I'm sure they'd love it!
Click to expand...

Speaking objectively, a higher percentage of women than men can be seen wearing skin tight clothing in public.
I understand 'skin tight' is not the perfect way of determining what would classify as "sexy" clothing, but it is much easier to clearly define and identify.


Not that any of this should really be an issue in the lab...Everyone should just wear lab coats!
 
Kueller said:
Speaking objectively, a higher percentage of women than men can be seen wearing skin tight clothing in public.
I understand 'skin tight' is not the perfect way of determining what would classify as "sexy" clothing, but it is much easier to clearly define and identify.
Click to expand...

And as a straight man, I'm damn glad of it.
 
So a really old guy who probably had a huge population of men compared to women in his field at whatever school he went to, says something, which might not even be a sexist attack but because he wasn't really thinking too much about how he was saying it got taken as such.

And this is tech news how? Because people used twitter to shoot back?
 
Kueller said:
Speaking objectively, a higher percentage of women than men can be seen wearing skin tight clothing in public.
Click to expand...
Picked up my nephews from school the other day, 2/3 of all the boys there were wearing those skin tight Emo jeans. Times, they are a changin'.

And that is the first and last time I post on the Internet about looking at teenage boys in tight jeans.
cageymaru said:
You mean Yoga pants?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wngsO-Z4n7A

Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rly...gsO-Z4n7A&annotation_id=annotation_1624555519
Click to expand...
I like how those dudes were staring at another man's ass, then they want to beat him up.
 
He does not agree with our narrative, stone him. That does seem to be the way of it these days.
 
nilepez said:
I think you're thinking of 90 year olds. 72 is kinda young to think so little of women in the lab.
Click to expand...

4x9YKfE.png


WERNSTUM!
 
The dude said "my trouble with girls". If he had said "the trouble with girls", then yes, backlash away. But there's no need to be hating on the guy for relating his own personal experiences from another era.
 
Rather than rehabilitation or reconcilliation we go for firing. Rather than progression I am seeing the beginings of a new witch hunt.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBiS4qTsjCg

If you want to see Milo smackdown on why this guys comments were correct, straight out of the feminist's mouth across from him where she herself says that "Women need to be supported more" even if they fail etc, and that women don't do well in a competitive atmosphere etc and you need to do away with it.

Which is, sadly, the very definition of sexism, that you need to give special priorities to different sexes.
 
http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...tories-about-misogyny-when-they-lose-debates/

And as expected, she doubles down and claims the field is "incredibly sexist" and she's dealing with tons of "Misogyny" when there isn't any. Which just again confirms what Tim Hunt is complaining about where she wants special exceptions and cries wolf when something isn't going her way.

IE - I'm very much for equality, but women like Grossman don't care about equality, they want exceptions that benefit only their gender, not help both.
 
nilepez said:
I think you're thinking of 90 year olds. 72 is kinda young to think so little of women in the lab.
Click to expand...
Very. a 72-year-old would have still been attending university throughout the 60s - and not the 1860s. While that doesn't preclude being an old-school sexist, age by itself is a lousy excuse...especially for a guy married to a prominent immunologist.

Even geniuses can be assholes. Just don't let him be in charge of any personnel.
 
I'm a Medical Technologist, I work in a medical lab in a hospital. There are 55 staff members. Only 10 are male. Of that 10, 3 are gay. Really.
 
rigurat said:
.........There are 55 staff members. Only 10 are male. Of that 10, 3 are gay. Really.
Click to expand...

I'm a tradesman/draftsman/cad operator/cnc operator/cnc programer. i work in metal fabrication in a shed. There are ~55 staff members. Only 3 are FEmale. Of that 3, 1 should be gay and the other two are taken, one of which is the only remotely desireable one.

When do i start work at yours? :(
 
Based on my observations of how my female coworkers are treated and stories and first hand observations of how my fiancee and her colleagues are treated, I would say these women are spot on.

Most of you neck beards would wet your pants if even a mildly attractive STEM career woman asked you for the time of day, only for you to go home an masturbate furiously afterwards.
 
westrock2000 said:
I usually leave women at work alone just because they get enough attention from everyone else. But I have gone through the exact pattern described in the quote. Some of it was excellent and some of it nearly cost me my career.
Click to expand...

QFT... unfortuantely.
 
ShamisOMally said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBiS4qTsjCg

If you want to see Milo smackdown on why this guys comments were correct, straight out of the feminist's mouth across from him where she herself says that "Women need to be supported more" even if they fail etc, and that women don't do well in a competitive atmosphere etc and you need to do away with it.

Which is, sadly, the very definition of sexism, that you need to give special priorities to different sexes.
Click to expand...

This is the statement so often ignored that needs to be understood. For that matter it applies to the whole racial thing as well. We could just boil it down to the following; The Definition of discrimination (sex, race or religion) is the treating of another group "Differently". So no having special rules for other groups isn't the solution, the solution is to eliminate special rules and then deal with individuals who discriminate against a specific group.

I find it absolutely sad that as a white male I have to utterly avoid working with women 1 one 1 in the work place out of fear that crossing paths with the wrong one would result in me having to prove my innocence instead of her having to prove her claim. I have told more young guys than I can count to avoid dating co workers at all costs and unfortunately I've seen more of them instantly fired because they didn't listen.
 
Twitter is outraged, the best strategy is to ignore twitter for a few hours while they choose something else to be outraged about.
 
I spend about 50 hours a week in a lab, and out of about 30 researchers I work with 7 are female. Not once have I seen a female researcher cry from criticism of her work. Get defensive? Yes, but that's human nature. There are a few that date within the workplace, but that's basically any professional environment. You kinda need a man (well most of the time) to make that happen. So obviously there's a problem with men in labs.:D

We did have one that was hired under some very dubious circumstances, but that's generally an entirely different conversation. She was fired after she was caught stealing lab equipment.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
Twitter is outraged, the best strategy is to ignore twitter for a few hours while they choose something else to be outraged about.
Click to expand...

I would argue that the best strategy is just to ignore twitter all together.

Nothing of any value ever gets said on there. (How could it, with that character limit?)
 
Grahamkracka said:
There are a few that date within the workplace, but that's basically any professional environment. You kinda need a man (well most of the time) to make that happen. So obviously there's a problem with men in labs.:D
Click to expand...

Yep, takes two to tango.

That being said, any romantic involvement at work is highly inappropriate.

Any person of the opposite sex (or smae sex if that is your thing) is off limitd., noatter how they look or whether they are involved with someone.

If they have any involvement with your company (even if it is in a far away different department, or a vendor or supplier), any involvement at all, they are off limits.

It's best to think of the people you work with as robots, not as men or women. Then you'll never get into trouble :p
 
sfsuphysics said:
And this is tech news how?
Click to expand...

Because I posted it.

So you think women in STEM careers (or lack of them) hasn't been a topic of discussion in tech news for the last few years?

MrCaffeineX said:
The real question is who let them out of the kitchen in the first place ;)
Click to expand...

I was going to write that in the original post to be funny but I figured someone would post it in the comments ;) Thank you sir!

nilepez said:
I think you're thinking of 90 year olds. 72 is kinda young to think so little of women in the lab.
Click to expand...

My point wasn't that it was excusable or acceptable, because it's not. My point is that old people say weird shit because they were raised in the 40s & 50s. I just don't see the outrage over something the guy said he experienced in his lab days.
 
Steve said:
So you think women in STEM careers (or lack of them) hasn't been a topic of discussion in tech news for the last few years?
Click to expand...
Honestly, the lack of female scientists correlates with the lack of female graduates that actually hack it in universities and get degrees in the first place.

And if we are talking about science, we should probably examine it scientifically as an alien would do, and look beyond culture and see if there are generalities that may explain a statistical discrepancy when looking at large groups of people.

Generally speaking, we now know as a statistical fact that taller people tend to be more intelligent, on average, than shorter people. Again, this is talking about generalities that are true comparing large groups, and of course this doesn't apply to any particular individual. We know that generally speaking, most men are taller than most women, on average. We also know scientifically for a long time now that male brains are in fact physically larger than female brains, but more recently we have also been able to get accurate estimates on the number of neocortical neurons in the brain, and it shows that on average female brains have a 17% deficiency to the average mail brain (males average 23 billion, females 19 billion, and for comparison African elephants have 11 billion and chimpanzees 6 billion). Likewise if we look at the total neocortical synapses, the difference is even more pronounced as women have less synapses per neuron, with the average male having 175 trillion compared to 110 trillion for female brains, which represents a huge 40% difference. Now we know that in nature vs nurture, that nurture plays a tremendous role in intelligence as well, as the brain like any muscle has to be exercised and constantly stimulated from an early age to develop to its full potential, and that education is equally if not more important than general intelligence (they are not the same thing). However, it stands to reason that all else equal, a male is at an inherent natural advantage, just as males are not necessarily faster or stronger than women but all else equal on average have an advantage. So when you are talking about fields that weed out all but the best of the best, as many science fields do, you will find that just as the highest performing athletes are generally male, its likely the highest performing scientists are also generally male.

It may not be politically correct in the "girl power" climate we have, but it is science.

cceaebe67d07d81268ec6c4d4af586dce539332f0ae46809290e6847e367795e.jpg
 
Ducman69 said:
Generally speaking, we now know as a statistical fact that taller people tend to be more intelligent, on average, than shorter people. Again, this is talking about generalities that are true comparing large groups, and of course this doesn't apply to any particular individual. We know that generally speaking, most men are taller than most women, on average.
Click to expand...

I stopped reading here. This is NOT a solid fact. What you have posted is some pretty flawed sexist shit, not solid science.

The statistical correlation between height and intelligence is very weak.

The current theory for it revolves around the reason for the height of the individual.

Some people are genetically predispositionsed for height and being male amplifies this.

Some people don't have the genes for height. This is amplified by being female.

The people who lack the genes for stature are not going to be as tall, but the peoe who have the tall genes can also be short if - at a key period in their developmwnt, they were malnourished.

These are the short people who are also less intelligent, because at this key period in development when they lacked ideal nourishment was also a key period for brain development.

So essentially, your entire theory falls apart.

Now, instead lets look at an actual meausre of intelligence.

There ARE differences between men and women in this regard. On average - however - men and women are about the same from intelligence level, but these things are spread on a bell curve.

While the average is the same, the male curve has a higher standard deviation and is thus wider, which means men are overrepresented at the very high end of intelligence and at the very low end.

Kock_2010_F00_StdDevDiffs.PNG
 
In my field of (insert here) pretty women get looked at and hit on, blah, blah, blah. It must really suck being beautiful. Lets also look at what sort of benefits, jobs, toys, etc. things beautiful women get away with by being so tormented. If that isn't enough they can always cry feminism.
 
Statistical fact... I don't think it means what you think it means. There are several studies that demonstrate that there is a statistically significant correlation between height and IQ in national populations, in numerous studies. That makes it a statistical fact, regardless of the reason behind it (which I didn't even go into): http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-014-9644-z

Besides, if you kept reading, I'm curious how you would discount the fact that male brains have a greater number of neurons with higher synaptic density to boot:
The most striking finding from the present study is that despite the well known anatomical and functional inter-individual variability of the brain, we consistently observed a lower synaptic density in women in all cortical layers of the temporal neocortex.
Click to expand...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2567215/

Sources:
Neocortical neuron number in humans - Bente Pakkenberg of the Neurological Research Laboratory, Copenhagen, Denmark
Gender Differences in Human Cortical Synampic Density - Universidad Complutense of Madrid, Spain
Total Number fo Synampses in the Adult Human Neocortex - Thai Nguyen University of South Florida

iq-by-college-major-gender.png

As I said though, each person is an individual, and there are certainly female geniuses. But if there are statistically far fewer unusually high IQ females compared to the number of males, then it is completely natural that in a gender-blind application process where the most qualified person is chosen for the job, that women would be significantly underrepresented. Judging people based on their merits as an individual is the definition of being non-discriminatory, and attempts to balance the male/female ratio of scientists would in fact be discriminatory if it does so against the numbers, putting less qualified people in position simply to balance quotas.
 
rsquared said:
The dude said "my trouble with girls". If he had said "the trouble with girls", then yes, backlash away. But there's no need to be hating on the guy for relating his own personal experiences from another era.
Click to expand...

He essentially said you tell women what to do and they cry.

As for his era, I don't know your age, but I'm old enough to remember a good chunk of this guys "era" and that's a bullshit excuse.

He's getting called out, because what he's saying is bullshit. I'm guessing you're pretty young, because I've been working since the 80s and very much remember the 70s and women weren't fragile flowers in the workplace or college...certainly not those in grad school beyond.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top