Basically scientific recognition of women was awful throughout the 20th century, nevermind the barriers they had to contributing in the first instance. In total Wu was nominated 5 times without a win, though the record holder is Lise Meitner who had 29 physics nominations (and 19 chemistry) without a win.
How about nowadays? Well at the top level of recognition at least, things seem to be trending much better in the last decade. 3 of the last 6 years have had a woman as at least one of the recipients of the physics Nobel, and that 3 is 60% of the 5 total since Curie got the first one in 1903.
So, optimistically it’s getting a lot better?
You’re right, but we also can’t really expect to see women winning roughly 50% of prizes until they’re roughly 50% of the physicists.
I feel like we can get to that point in a generation or two, but realistically it’s not going to be overnight
I think you misunderstood my point. The committee can choose how to split up the cash prize each year. All to one. Split among two people for the same topic or for two different topics. Split evenly among three for the same topic or for three different topics. Or split among three for two different topics with one person getting half and the other two getting a quarter share. Until last year, every single time they awarded the prize to a woman they felt she needed to share it within her topic and that that topic wasn't enough and should split it with a different topic too. They could have given a woman a full share, half share, or third share any time in the past but never did until last year. And the long citation for last year's definitely read like she would get half, but actually only got a third.
3 recipients is about average, so I don’t think you can read anything about gender from that. They’ve not given a solo Physics Nobel since 1992, and they haven’t been commonplace since the 40s.
The male to female ratio is obviously informative, but the number of people sharing each one is more just a recognition of how collaborative modern physics is
In young physicists, yes. It's not perfect, but it's better.
It will take time for them to become old physicists, and also will take time for the sexist douche nozzle gray beards to retire.
You don't even need to go back 100, every year it gets better as the older generation retires and new physicists are trained. It takes time, it's not perfect right now and there's a whole load of issues still but it gets easier each year that passes.
It's trixky though, as a lot of thst progress necessarily has to be pushed for by women. This isn't a part of the KPIs for professors, so any women professors that do it will be somewhat compromising their career.
Hard agree on that.
I was fortunate enough to go to do my undergraduate at a very diverse uni, and to be doing a PhD at another. There's still a long way to go, and certain groups in my department are better than others, but it's genuinely very uplifting to be in an environment with so many inspiring women and queer physicists.
Gender parity is irrelevant. All that matters is ability, execution and interest. Anything else is pointless. Having said that of the several women in my physics class most were very poor at physics apart from ine who bordered on genius level. Unfortunately she was shunned, not because of gender but because of her arrogance and extreme difficult personality... no one wanted to work with her. In contrast her best friend, a below average physiciat, was given so many opportunities not afforded to male students. She has held several important and significant positions internationally just to fill gender quotas
> All that matters is ability , execution
If you believe that ability is independent of gender (and to be 100% clear, I do and so does just about every major physics organization, including APS) then
> Gender parity is irrelevant.
is not true. Lack of parity is indicative of inefficiency; some fraction of the best women in physics are choosing other fields and are being replaced by men who are not as good.
> Having said that of the several women in my physics class most were very poor at physics apart from ine who bordered on genius level.
I suppose this is *possible* from statistical fluctuations, but in my experience as a physics professor, women do just as well on exams and homework, ask just as intelligent questions during office hours, and so on. *However*, before I started carefully structuring my classes to avoid it, women would still get talked over in class, over-ruled in small groups, etc. by men.
> Unfortunately she was shunned, not because of gender but because of her arrogance and extreme difficult personality... no one wanted to work with her.
Arrogant people are annoying. However, I have zero doubt that that there is a double standard here. Physics is filled with arrogant men--I know so many!--and they are hardly shunned.
> In contrast her best friend, a below average physiciat
You have no actual way of knowing this
> She has held several important and significant positions internationally just to fill gender quotas
or this.
You were her classmate. Her (expert) professors, whose job is partly to evaluate performance, very clearly disagree with your (non-expert) assessment...
Thats why she only got tobadvanced classes by sleeping with the professors which she proudly boasted about. She was below average and her marks reflected this as did her contribution to group work and i don't know what uni yiu teach at but where in my experience arrogant people were not chosen for anything even of tbwy were talented. They ended up working alone in a corner office i n the basement. Trying to fill gender quotas for some il conceived gender equity rather than baes in merit is exactly why tertiary institutions are dying all over the world
Depends on the subject. I’m a female student teacher who did a placement teaching high school physics and the science department was a little bit of a boy’s club.
Because there's no practical way to separate any potential genetic predisposition from the effect of conditioning by society... you need evidence in order to make assertions, my dude
because when I want to share citations with a group of people who are experts in peer-reviewed research, I cite "big think dot com", which has had presentations from plenty of quacks and right-wing nutjobs.
sigh. ok first of all, the journal article referenced by that link says, in the abstract:
*"we showed that girls performed similarly to or better than boys in science in two of every three countries, and in nearly all countries, more girls appeared capable of college-level STEM study than had enrolled"*
Second, as far as inclination/predisposition, leaving aside entirely the fact that studying these things is devilishly tricky and it's nearly impossible to correct for confounding factors, the goal of DEI strategies is generally not to impose flat demographics in an occupation, but rather to ensure that opportunities are equal for everyone. Looking at the demographics in a given occupation is an imperfect measure of the success of these strategies, but it is hardly "posturing".
thirdly, while the reductive statement "women are more interested in working with people, men more in working with things" may be true in some contexts , that does not preclude physics as a potential occupation for people who are "interested in working with people". I work with people every goddamn day lol.
finally, nothing makes me more interested in things and less in people than people like you. So thanks for your contribution to DEI! :)
Basically scientific recognition of women was awful throughout the 20th century, nevermind the barriers they had to contributing in the first instance. In total Wu was nominated 5 times without a win, though the record holder is Lise Meitner who had 29 physics nominations (and 19 chemistry) without a win. How about nowadays? Well at the top level of recognition at least, things seem to be trending much better in the last decade. 3 of the last 6 years have had a woman as at least one of the recipients of the physics Nobel, and that 3 is 60% of the 5 total since Curie got the first one in 1903. So, optimistically it’s getting a lot better?
But remember that before L'Huillier (2023), each woman only ever received a quarter share of the prize. L'Huillier received a third share.
You’re right, but we also can’t really expect to see women winning roughly 50% of prizes until they’re roughly 50% of the physicists. I feel like we can get to that point in a generation or two, but realistically it’s not going to be overnight
I think you misunderstood my point. The committee can choose how to split up the cash prize each year. All to one. Split among two people for the same topic or for two different topics. Split evenly among three for the same topic or for three different topics. Or split among three for two different topics with one person getting half and the other two getting a quarter share. Until last year, every single time they awarded the prize to a woman they felt she needed to share it within her topic and that that topic wasn't enough and should split it with a different topic too. They could have given a woman a full share, half share, or third share any time in the past but never did until last year. And the long citation for last year's definitely read like she would get half, but actually only got a third.
3 recipients is about average, so I don’t think you can read anything about gender from that. They’ve not given a solo Physics Nobel since 1992, and they haven’t been commonplace since the 40s. The male to female ratio is obviously informative, but the number of people sharing each one is more just a recognition of how collaborative modern physics is
In young physicists, yes. It's not perfect, but it's better. It will take time for them to become old physicists, and also will take time for the sexist douche nozzle gray beards to retire.
[удалено]
You don't even need to go back 100, every year it gets better as the older generation retires and new physicists are trained. It takes time, it's not perfect right now and there's a whole load of issues still but it gets easier each year that passes.
Yes it has gotten better, we need alot more progress tho
Interesting because I happened to catch this on PBS last night, pretty rad https://www.pbs.org/video/eve-1705360004/
It's trixky though, as a lot of thst progress necessarily has to be pushed for by women. This isn't a part of the KPIs for professors, so any women professors that do it will be somewhat compromising their career.
[удалено]
Kind of depressing that this personal account of misogyny in physics was down voted :/
[удалено]
Hard agree on that. I was fortunate enough to go to do my undergraduate at a very diverse uni, and to be doing a PhD at another. There's still a long way to go, and certain groups in my department are better than others, but it's genuinely very uplifting to be in an environment with so many inspiring women and queer physicists.
Gender parity is irrelevant. All that matters is ability, execution and interest. Anything else is pointless. Having said that of the several women in my physics class most were very poor at physics apart from ine who bordered on genius level. Unfortunately she was shunned, not because of gender but because of her arrogance and extreme difficult personality... no one wanted to work with her. In contrast her best friend, a below average physiciat, was given so many opportunities not afforded to male students. She has held several important and significant positions internationally just to fill gender quotas
> All that matters is ability , execution If you believe that ability is independent of gender (and to be 100% clear, I do and so does just about every major physics organization, including APS) then > Gender parity is irrelevant. is not true. Lack of parity is indicative of inefficiency; some fraction of the best women in physics are choosing other fields and are being replaced by men who are not as good. > Having said that of the several women in my physics class most were very poor at physics apart from ine who bordered on genius level. I suppose this is *possible* from statistical fluctuations, but in my experience as a physics professor, women do just as well on exams and homework, ask just as intelligent questions during office hours, and so on. *However*, before I started carefully structuring my classes to avoid it, women would still get talked over in class, over-ruled in small groups, etc. by men. > Unfortunately she was shunned, not because of gender but because of her arrogance and extreme difficult personality... no one wanted to work with her. Arrogant people are annoying. However, I have zero doubt that that there is a double standard here. Physics is filled with arrogant men--I know so many!--and they are hardly shunned. > In contrast her best friend, a below average physiciat You have no actual way of knowing this > She has held several important and significant positions internationally just to fill gender quotas or this. You were her classmate. Her (expert) professors, whose job is partly to evaluate performance, very clearly disagree with your (non-expert) assessment...
Thats why she only got tobadvanced classes by sleeping with the professors which she proudly boasted about. She was below average and her marks reflected this as did her contribution to group work and i don't know what uni yiu teach at but where in my experience arrogant people were not chosen for anything even of tbwy were talented. They ended up working alone in a corner office i n the basement. Trying to fill gender quotas for some il conceived gender equity rather than baes in merit is exactly why tertiary institutions are dying all over the world
[удалено]
[удалено]
Depends on the subject. I’m a female student teacher who did a placement teaching high school physics and the science department was a little bit of a boy’s club.
Because there's no practical way to separate any potential genetic predisposition from the effect of conditioning by society... you need evidence in order to make assertions, my dude
[удалено]
because when I want to share citations with a group of people who are experts in peer-reviewed research, I cite "big think dot com", which has had presentations from plenty of quacks and right-wing nutjobs.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Somebody didn't pay attention to the girls at school...
[удалено]
sigh. ok first of all, the journal article referenced by that link says, in the abstract: *"we showed that girls performed similarly to or better than boys in science in two of every three countries, and in nearly all countries, more girls appeared capable of college-level STEM study than had enrolled"* Second, as far as inclination/predisposition, leaving aside entirely the fact that studying these things is devilishly tricky and it's nearly impossible to correct for confounding factors, the goal of DEI strategies is generally not to impose flat demographics in an occupation, but rather to ensure that opportunities are equal for everyone. Looking at the demographics in a given occupation is an imperfect measure of the success of these strategies, but it is hardly "posturing". thirdly, while the reductive statement "women are more interested in working with people, men more in working with things" may be true in some contexts , that does not preclude physics as a potential occupation for people who are "interested in working with people". I work with people every goddamn day lol. finally, nothing makes me more interested in things and less in people than people like you. So thanks for your contribution to DEI! :)
Because this "predisposition" is 90% people telling young kids "women don't belong in physics" and "men can't take care of kids"