Why is this sexism allowed - Women in Science

Original post by Unkempt_One

What? So you're claiming species in the natural world aren't inferior? Well, whatever. I change 'inferior' to 'different'. So my argument is now 'fascile analogy to a different species'. What now?

If they show similar behavioural traits then they are clearly not as different as you are implying. Seriously, what are you attempting to get at? :s-smilie:

The Zebra fish shows capabilites in heart tissue regeneration to avoid and repair from cardiovascular diseases. Should we study it and apply the concept to humans or should we ignore it because it is 'inferior' or 'different'.

Reply 23

Venomilys

Nothing we can really do since (i assume) that the grants are privately funded. If i was wealthy enough i could equally offer special grants to men with mono-balls.

They can do what they want, though i dont agree with it.

Reply 24

I agree that that has largely been the case but it doesn't blanket all behavioural activities between the genders. But this is why it will be difficult for me to formulate an argument of todays behaviour that you'll actually be receptive of, since you'll happily say that it's due to the years of being taught how things should be done?

Reply 25

Amy.92

Original post by xxxxLillyxxxx

It's an initiative for women to get into science; which even in this day and age is needed!

Women have had to put up with that kind of discrimination for forever, so I’m sure men can cope with a course giving 10 women an opportunity to get into science.

I agree! Women have been discriminated against in science for a long time so its good to see that it is being acknowledged and will hopefully change.

However I do think that it is wrong for a scholarship to be purely for female applicants, as the whole problem is that women are treated like they are less competent in science. Surely a better solution is to take the best applicants for the scholarship regardless of sex.

Reply 26

Unkempt_One

Original post by Mockery

If they show similar behavioural traits then they are clearly not as different as you are implying. Seriously, what are you attempting to get at? :s-smilie:

The Zebra fish shows capabilites in heart tissue regeneration to avoid and repair from cardiovascular diseases. Should we study it and apply the concept to humans or should we ignore it because it is 'inferior' or 'different'.

Look, the problem with your second paragraph is that you're talking about a situation where the species is clearly very different to humans, whereas you're trying to say we can look at natural behaviour of different species, and apply that to humans and expect it to work. What I'm trying to get at is this logically tenuous way of describing human gender differences is unnecessary in the face of studies of the average differences between men and woman.

Reply 27

kunoichi

20

Original post by Jordan.G

I do agree with this as if there was a ‘male-only’ scholarship then feminists all would be publicly outraged.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Then why dont a load of men get outraged and actually do something about it?

Men moan because feminists actually get off their arses and speak out for what they want whilst failing to do the same.

There is a lot that is undesirable about many feminists but moaning at them because men have a lack of motivation to speak out when they dont like something is wrong.

Reply 28

sabian92

There's a scholarship at LJMU for law students.

Black law students.

I know, I almost laughed at the implicit racism as well. Not even arsed it's only for law students, it's ONLY for black students. So if you're a whitey, you are apparently rich enough to afford it but blacks are poor apparently.... hmm.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 29

anonymouspie227

20

I think it's nice. I think the idea of encouraging people from under-represented groups in a particular field, to study in that area, via scholarships are good. Individuals may not choose to study had it not been for those possible awards...

Edit: Also, if we lived in world where there was no negative discrimination, and people weren't therefore disadvantaged for, whatever reason, and real equality existed universally, then I'd disagree with such schemes.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 30

xxxxLillyxxxx

With thing like science, it isn't like public service, or office work etc, where women have been able to do those jobs for the past couple of decades.

It's about overcoming the stigma that in this day and age still surround women in science

It's not about discriminating against men, it's about overcoming the stigma woman face from narrow-minded comments such as: 'Not as clever as a man, how would she know etc.

Allowing women an opportunity that they can't always get in a male environment.

When the world is a woman’s world, I will take your comments about discrimination towards men seriously. Especially the comment of 'Imagine the outrage if there was an exclusively male only scholarship' hasn't that been the case for universities until the past few decades.

Now women are getting women only scholarships, suddenly exclusivity is a problem?

Reply 31

RedDevilThing

9

Original post by Bellissima

because women are more intelligent than men and their input into the above fields would lead to great discoveries. women already do the things you mentioned like nursing well enough so we don't need men doing it too.

Oh wow this is gold.

Firstly, not only is your statement about intelligence sexist and patently false (no-one can legitimately claim that one sex is more intelligent than the other), it is in no way a justification for discrimination. Even if women were more intelligent than men, it wouldn't change the number of men and women who were interested in studying certain subjects. Being more intelligent and being offered money is unlikely to persuade anyone to study a subject they are not interested in studying, so why should the money be offered to only a certain group of people in the first place?

Your statement on nursing is equally as ridiculous. By your logic we shouldn't have women engineers for the same reason. We don't need men studying nursing or women studying engineering, but for those who have the aptitude and the motivation the opportunity should be available.

Reply 32

Original post by Unkempt_One

Look, the problem with your second paragraph is that you're talking about a situation where the species is clearly very different to humans, whereas you're trying to say we can look at natural behaviour of different species, and apply that to humans and expect it to work. What I'm trying to get at is this logically tenuous way of describing human gender differences is unnecessary in the face of studies of the average differences between men and woman.

If the whole population was as incompetent as you to extrapolate data and information from other sources and then to apply them to our own species and endeavours then we'd get absolutely nowhere.

Would you compare contrast between two completely different spieces that are not human, such as looking at the hunting and stalking skills of each, understanding that they both exploit their environment for camouflage and what has driving them to develop such similar behaviour? If so, then why can't you do the same thing between humans and other species, maybe even very closely related species such as chimpanzees and bonobo apes?

Reply 33

username948920

Scientific progress is now based on positive discrimination as opposed to means-tested opportunities. :rolleyes:

Do we now no longer cater for the best? Is progress now measured by satisfying the 'numbers game'? This system... ... :rolleyes:

Reply 34

kunoichi

20

The asumption i made that men couldnt be bothered to speak out comes from seeing a lot of guys on TSR and other forums, simply moaning but doing nothing.Yes there are a few women, but a greater number of men seem to speak so harshly about feminsists simply for being motivated when they themselves cba to do anything other than sit on a forum and whine about it.

And why should they not be heard? If feminists can make themselves heard so can anyone else, just try hard enough. Nothing stopping women and anyone who calls themself a feminist joining in if they support them either.

I didnt say in my post that only women were feminists either before i get accused of that :rolleyes:

Reply 35

Jordan.G

2

Original post by kunoichi

Then why dont a load of men get outraged and actually do something about it?

Men moan because feminists actually get off their arses and speak out for what they want whilst failing to do the same.

There is a lot that is undesirable about many feminists but moaning at them because men have a lack of motivation to speak out when they dont like something is wrong.

Because getting outraged over something as small as this is pointless.

My point is that if companies or whoever is offering this grant just made it open for both genders in the first place then there wouldn't be any need for people to get outraged.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 36

Muppet Science

14

Original post by Bellissima

because women are more intelligent than men and their input into the above fields would lead to great discoveries. women already do the things you mentioned like nursing well enough so we don't need men doing it too.

I do sincerely hope this is ironic, but I will assume it is not.

Firstly, women can indeed be intelligent. All my teachers (I study Bio, Chem and Phy at A2) are female and all highly intelligent. For instance, my Physics teacher got a first from Oxford.

However, to say women 'are more intelligent than men' is a little short-sighted. They may well be, on average, but to say such a blunt statement with no context and no evidence just makes me sad.

'Their input into the above fields would lead to great discoveries' is potentially true. Marie Curie for example. But that is not really the issue at hand, no one is disputing that women can be clever. The issue at hand is that there is positive discrimination on the grounds of sex, which if I were to receive any would annoy, belittle and condescend me. If women could go onto make these 'great discoveries' then they should compete for those places against their male counterparts who may also make great discoveries.

'Women already do the things you mentioned like nursing well enough so we don't need men doing it too'... you are aware that this somewhat undermines your own argument? If we were to follow this logic then we would still be in a father-at-work-and-mother-at-home paradigm. Your, worrying, logic would suggest that because men do their jobs (for the sake of this context, we shall call it researcher) 'well enough' then women should stay at home with the children and washing up. If families wish to live that lifestyle then by all means do. But well I give up if I am being honest as this argument has just made me a little annoyed and I need my beauty sleep. :angry:

So I shall conclude with, everyone should compete on an equal play-field. Exceptional circumstances, e.g. ill during A-level exams, should be noted during considerations but gender, race etc. should play no part in discussion, be it positive or negative discrimination.

Reply 37

Bellissima

16

Original post by RedDevilThing

Oh wow this is gold.

Firstly, not only is your statement about intelligence sexist and patently false (no-one can legitimately claim that one sex is more intelligent than the other), it is in no way a justification for discrimination. Even if women were more intelligent than men, it wouldn't change the number of men and women who were interested in studying certain subjects. Being more intelligent and being offered money is unlikely to persuade anyone to study a subject they are not interested in studying, so why should the money be offered to only a certain group of people in the first place?

Your statement on nursing is equally as ridiculous. By your logic we shouldn't have women engineers for the same reason. We don't need men studying nursing or women studying engineering, but for those who have the aptitude and the motivation the opportunity should be available.

yes i'm sorry but if women were running this **** then we'd already be living in a flying city on the other side of the universe 1000 years in the future. i think we just have more brain cells dedicated to intelligent thinking.

Reply 38