Originally posted by Anthony Stark
Back to topic, do you see your girlfriend as your creative equal within your field of expertise...? Answer honestly.
yes, and objectively she is much more successful than I am as well.
I'd say in general I might be more outside-the-box in terms of creativity and such, but in terms of contribution to science, etc, I am certainly in her shadow.
Originally posted by Oliver North
yes, and objectively she is much more successful than I am as well.I'd say in general I might be more outside-the-box in terms of creativity and such, but in terms of contribution to science, etc, I am certainly in her shadow.
Spoken like a well trained youg man. ;-)
Originally posted by Oliver North
so evidence that contradicts your first thesis is simply evidence that men are trained?I can't pretend I expected much better...
That's not what I said; however, personal testimony is subjective evidence at best. Please produce evidence and don't get so upset, the snarky comment was in jest it wasn't meant seriously. You know, it was a masculine locker room punch in the arm style joke between guys. Tongue in cheek etc.
Originally posted by Oliver North
I provided factual and suggested anecdotal evidence.Are you suggesting women aren't more represented in the highest levels of science than they were 40 years ago?
Really? You sure?
I am suggesting given the equality of access to higher Education in most Western Countries, that the results and representation have not reflected this. Even when you factor in gender socialisation.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There aren't really equivalents to "Socrates, Newton, etc" among men either. Focusing on people who have been deified and popularized for their accomplishments is fairly pointless, no one is ever going to match them. Heck even Tesla wasn't as brilliant as 😇TESLA😇.
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
I am not sure about others' opinions regarding this issue, but Emmy Noether's name always comes to my mind when I hear the big names like those mentioned in this quote.
Whilst her work probably was one of the greatest women ever she lacked the theoretical to practical application ability of most of those mentioned above.
Most of her work being purely theoretical in nature, and not doesn't have anything to with this though, amirite? Nevermind the fact that her Theorem is a pretty important practical tool in modern theoretical physics?
Or are you merely trying to bite on someone's personal opinion as part of your faux misogynistic gimmick on this thread?
Originally posted by Anthony Stark
I would be interested to see if the change is stagnant or even in decline. Figures would be interesting.
Spoiler:
www.google.com
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Most of her work being purely theoretical in nature, and not doesn't have anything to with this though, amirite? Nevermind the fact that her Theorem is a pretty important practical tool in modern theoretical physics?Or are you merely trying to bite on someone's personal opinion as part of your faux misogynistic gimmick on this thread?
The theoretical nature of their work I would argue is one of the differences in the way the few female Scientists of note function. This perhaps is a notable difference and something which requires highlighting. I am sure some women are able to make the leap from theory to application themselves......... certainly.
Not at all and I see nothing misogynistic about this thread; faux, gimmicky or otherwise, I do see some posters social conditioning and world view prejudicing their ability to answer subjectively based on evidence.
Originally posted by Oliver NorthSpoiler:
www.google.com
I think Google is unlikely to help here.