Philosophy Discussion Forums

Halfwit:

I do not disagree that women are unfairly excluded.

Who are you not disagreeing with here? It can't be me.

You and the OP are slinging vague generalities and thinking with very fuzzy logic. Women will bring spirituality to physics?

This comes after a quote from me, so I guess it must be addressed to me. What vague generality did I sling? Where did I state that I agreed with the OP about the need to bring more spirituality (whatever that is) to science?

In the words that you quoted I didn't state that women are unfairly excluded from science or that science needs more or less of any particular ingredient. I stated my agreement with you (that changing the nature of a subject in order to include a particular section of society is self-defeating) but suggested putting it into more general terms. I guess I didn't say much really!

---

Still, on the subject of generalizations in general (as it were):

What if there do generally tend to be broad sets of personality traits that tend, on average, to make men and women think differently to each other? And what if these do, on average, tend to cause men and women to be over-represented in some fields and under-represented in others?

Obviously it's incorrect to mistake a generality for a universal. Saying "women tend to be shorter than men" is not the same as saying "all women are shorter than all men". But that doesn't stop generalizations from being useful in analyzing trends. I think it's highly likely that there are traits and tendencies that tend, on average, to exist more in one sex than the other, just as there are physical characteristics that do so.

The field that I work in, software engineering, is massively male dominated. I suspect that's not entirely due to prejudice and societal pressure but also has something to do with the way that on average male and female minds tend to work. The trouble is, it seems all too easy for a statement like that to be twisted into a statement like: "software engineering is man's work." which of course would rightly annoy my female colleagues.

Also, making observations of these kinds of generalities is often seen as somehow saying that women who do work in male dominated fields are somehow more masculine than others. I guess this is like turning the statement "women tend to be shorter than men" into the statement "tallness is a male characteristic and women who are tall are really men".

Unfortunately, some statements of general truth, even if true, cannot be stated because they are always misinterpreted as statements of universal truth or as a value judgments. It's extraordinarily difficult to persuade people to take what you say at face value and not imagine a whole host of other things in it, as Halfwit's reply to me seems to demonstrate!

HalfWit wrote:

Skakos wrote: I personally believe that women can give science what it currently lacks: A more spiritual and holistic view to the problems of the cosmos. We have treated universe as a machine for too long. It is time to look at things from a different angle...

But then they're no longer doing science. Are you saying that

a) Women are as good as men doing science, so we should hire more of them; or

b) When women do science, they do it differently than men do ... in which case ... what is it they're doing?

Your last paragraph really undermined your argument. You seem confused about whether women are capable of doing the same job as men; or whether the job itself should be redefined to included whatever it is that women do, which is NOT science.

Can you clarify your thesis, please?

Science today has a purely materialistic / mechanistic direction. We believe everything is matter, everything is brain, everything is particles. We believe human is a machine that needs fixing. Matters of consciousness are reduced to matters of electrons. Only a handful of serious scientists are bold enough to say something different than the mainstream view of "matter is everything". Women - I believe - can bring the paradigm shift towards a more spiritual view of the cosmos much more quickly than it is already happening. Don't you agree that a different point of view is always beneficial?

Skakos wrote: Science today has a purely materialistic / mechanistic direction. We believe everything is matter, everything is brain, everything is particles. We believe human is a machine that needs fixing. Matters of consciousness are reduced to matters of electrons. Only a handful of serious scientists are bold enough to say something different than the mainstream view of "matter is everything". Women - I believe - can bring the paradigm shift towards a more spiritual view of the cosmos much more quickly than it is already happening. Don't you agree that a different point of view is always beneficial?

If you explain something using supernatural phenomena, you are no longer doing science. Science has thrived when put into a materialistic framework. Were would we be if we still believed spirits in the forest or that gods drag the planets? Secondly, you should really stop stereotyping women.

I think you'll find a lot of women in biological sciences but, as usual, nearly all the principal research scientists are men.

I would think that science could do with more human beings per se. Like others, I reject the notion that women will bring a soft touch or holistic view to science. In areas of mental traits tests indicate that there is far more difference within genders than between them.

If a belief in gender equality is to be asserted and legislated for then the above header is an empty suggestion. Science needs the people who are the best scientists. That is it.

Whilst it might be true that many women find it hard to get into science; or that girls tend not to be attracted to science subject, it is not true to say that science needs more women.

Whilst it is true that men and women are equal, and one gender is as capable as the other, then suggesting a need for one gender over another is SEXIST.

I would agree to encourage all girls that show and interest in science to pursue it to the best of their abilities and for admissions officers to make sure they do not reject any applicant on gender grounds; what science needs is the best people possible.

For that an even handed, open, and fair opportunities ought to be given to people of all genders to enter science, as that is a policy of sexual equality.

A statement saying " more women needed" is the same as " more men needed" - it is sexist.

Equality can only ever be achieved by providing equal opportunities.

What I find really unpleasant is the suggestion that we need more women in science to take science off on some imaginary fantasy. The OP is truly sexist, offering the most gross and blatant stereotyping. As if women we too stupid to do real science because they are stuck in some sort of medieval nonsense about "spirituality" Shame on you.

 I'll never forget some observations I made years ago while working at a weekend stall market in a large city.  I had already noticed that the customers of the fortune tellers who worked there were almost exclusively female.  Then one day a new stall owner arrived and as she was setting up, out of curiosity I inquired as to what she was planning to sell.  The woman explained that she sold little bottles of oil, which were labelled with "Money" or "Harmony" or "Health" or "Love" or "Peace" or "Happiness", things like that.  She explained that if it's love you're after, for example, you burn the oil in the bottle marked "Love" and love will come into your life.  
I was stunned by the absurdity of such an idea, but didn't say anything to the woman, not wanting to offend.   But I walked away thinking, "Lady, who the hell is going to be silly enough to fall for that nonsense?  You won't sell a single bottle.  Go home now before you make a complete fool of yourself."

Well, stupid me!  When the market opened her stall was easily the most popular there; at any one time she would have had at least ten customers lined up.  I was absolutely amazed.  The other thing I noticed was that 100% of her customers were women and girls.  That was the day my suspicions about the female mind were confirmed beyond any shadow of a doubt.

So it comes as no surprise to me that science is dominated by males.  

-- Updated October 10th, 2016, 6:11 am to add the following --

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I have heard that 90% of the doctors in Russia are female. If true, then I wonder why the difference from the science field?

Perhaps being a doctor doesn't require a great deal of the creative thinking, as I would imagine that most of the time, a doctor is simply following procedures that have being tried and tested and proven. I suspect that when it comes to coming up with new ideas to advance science, men easily outperform women, on average.
The same advantage men appear to have in creative thinking in science is evident in other fields of intellectual pursuit as well.

I personally believe that women can give science what it currently lacks: A more spiritual and holistic view to the problems of the cosmos.

It sounds like an insult for women in my eyes XD.

I know many engineers that are women. There are more men, specially in some countres, but I think that's basically because of culture... chess competitions are still with women separated from men.

There are famous women scientists, in maths, etc. Well, The engineers I know, they weren't seeing "the spiritual and holistic view" of steel. They are good engineers, they like it. But not solong ago (well, still some people in this generation) women weren't allowed to vote, work in factorys etc in many places, have sex if they want... and it's that way in some places now. The change can't be from "no women in factory" to "Same number of women and men" in a few years, there are more every year, that's all.