Slashdot Mirror


Katherine Johnson: NASA's Pioneering Female Physicist (thenewstack.io)

destinyland writes: Tuesday's State of the Union address included a shout-out to Katherine Johnson, the pioneering African American mathematician and physicist who calculated the trajectory of Alan Shepherd's 1961 space trip. "Her reputation was so strong that John Glenn asked her to recheck the calculations made by the new electronic computers before the mission on which he became the first American to orbit the Earth," notes one technology reporter. NASA policy at the time was to not acknowledge the female contributors to scientific papers, though "She literally wrote the textbook on rocket science," according to one NASA official, noting that her impact literally reaches all the way to the moon. At a ceremony in November, Johnson was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the 97-year-old pioneer continues to encourage young people to also pursue careers in technology, science, engineering and math.

133 comments

  1. "Policy not to acknowledge" quote is offensive by l2718 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The article says "The practice in 1960 would have been not to list the female Computers as formal co-authors". The blurb above replaces "Computers" with "contributors", painting a false and offensive picture.

    Today in many fields it is common to only include as authors of a paper those who have had creative scientific input. A common example is research assistants who collate data, or technical staff who build lab equipment, but the example of someone who did a numerical computation for the author is not uncommon. Most "computers" simply did the computations, which was certainly an important contribution to the research, but not necessarily the kind of contribution that makes one an author of a paper.

    1. Re:"Policy not to acknowledge" quote is offensive by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 1

      What about male computers? Why the need to specify gender, if the difference is not gender-related?

      --
      My first program:

      Hell Segmentation fault

    2. Re:"Policy not to acknowledge" quote is offensive by l2718 · · Score: 5, Informative

      What about male computers?

      Because the computers were all female. There was rampant sexism at the time – in particular in that women could be computers but not research staff (with Ms. Johnson an apparent exception). But there are better ways of highlighting this sexism (of which Ms. Johnson was a victim) than by unreasonably rewriting quotes from the article

    3. Re:"Policy not to acknowledge" quote is offensive by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      Offensive? I can't roll my eyes hard enough.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    4. Re:"Policy not to acknowledge" quote is offensive by l2718 · · Score: 1

      Sexism, both in the past and today, is a terrible thing. We are talking here about a trailblazing woman who was a victim of sexism. There is no need to rewrite quotes to make the point that she was a victim.

    5. Re:"Policy not to acknowledge" quote is offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but FEMALE, you misogynist!

    6. Re:"Policy not to acknowledge" quote is offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually, what they often had were women who were brilliant mathematicians who never got any credit for doing the heavy lifting and actively participating in the process.

      They didn't "simply do the calculations", they did the highly advanced maths and got no credit for it.

      The practice was to take people who did as much, if not more, than the people who got the credit and leave them off it because they were women.

      Pretending like these women were the unskilled labor is the offensive part.

    7. Re:"Policy not to acknowledge" quote is offensive by Tx · · Score: 1

      It seems that quote may have been adapted from the Wikipedia article on Katherine Johnson, which says "The practice in 1960 would have been not to list the female contributors as formal co-authors [citation needed]", rather than from the article linked in the summary.

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    8. Re:"Policy not to acknowledge" quote is offensive by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      The article uses the word computers. The summary uses the word contributor. The wikipedia article uses the word contributor. But it's not a quote, and here you are wringing your hands and feeling offended, which is baffling.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    9. Re:"Policy not to acknowledge" quote is offensive by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      The article says "The practice in 1960 would have been not to list the female Computers as formal co-authors". The blurb above replaces "Computers" with "contributors", painting a false and offensive picture.

      Sigh.

      The "computers" were, in fact, significant contributors who were, as a matter of policy, not listed as co-authors. Because they were female. (See PIckering's Harem. )

    10. Re:"Policy not to acknowledge" quote is offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about male computers?

      Because the computers were all female.

      No, you are wrong. That "tradition" didn't happen until after WWII, since the men who used to be computers went to fight the war.

      Have some more info: http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/crgis/images/c/c7/Golemba.pdf

    11. Re:"Policy not to acknowledge" quote is offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That "tradition" didn't happen until after WWII

      We're talking about the 1960's here. That is after WWII, which ended in 1945. Do try to keep up.

    12. Re:"Policy not to acknowledge" quote is offensive by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Standard conjugation of the Fifties: I program, you code, she keypunches.

    13. Re:"Policy not to acknowledge" quote is offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying that before WWII when men were computers then the tradition was to list them as co-authors? The question discussed is whether computers were excluded for being women, as implied by the summary, or for being grunts.

    14. Re:"Policy not to acknowledge" quote is offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calm down. History isn't doing an injustice to you ;-)

      Seriously: $SUBJECT here is about late justice to a person or group of persons whose contribution isn't as widely appreciated as it should -- which in Kate Johnson's case is that obvious that it hurts in the face.

      If you thing that $SOMEBODY_ELSE has been treated unjustly as well, please: go ahead, do your research and open an new case!

    15. Re:"Policy not to acknowledge" quote is offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article says "The practice in 1960 would have been not to list the female Computers as formal co-authors". The blurb above replaces "Computers" with "contributors", painting a false and offensive picture.

      Sigh.

      The "computers" were, in fact, significant contributors who were, as a matter of policy, not listed as co-authors. Because they were female. (See PIckering's Harem. )

      Wikipedia?!?!?!

      Got an authoritative, accurate cite?

    16. Re:"Policy not to acknowledge" quote is offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but FEMALE, you misogynist!

      But she was just whining about being raped by Bill Clinton, so we can either ignore her or invoke the "nuts and sluts" defense.

      It's OK to slut-shame a woman who might harm Hillary!'s trek to the White House.

      You know - because of Rethuglican Warzes on Wimmenzes and all that.

    17. Re:"Policy not to acknowledge" quote is offensive by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      not listed as co-authors. Because they were female.

      Or because they were computers?

      There weren't any male ones who might or might not have been credited, so...

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    18. Re:"Policy not to acknowledge" quote is offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article says "The practice in 1960 would have been not to list the female Computers as formal co-authors". The blurb above replaces "Computers" with "contributors", painting a false and offensive picture.

      Sigh.

      The "computers" were, in fact, significant contributors who were, as a matter of policy, not listed as co-authors. Because they were female. (See PIckering's Harem. )

      Wikipedia?!?!?!

      Got an authoritative, accurate cite?

      You should already know that the wiki is correct.
      Not knowing about Leavitt's or Cannon's work in astronomy is almost as ignorant as not knowing the name of the person who was responsible for the theory of relativity.

    19. Re: "Policy not to acknowledge" quote is offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a difference. Grade schoolers are taught about one of those people on your list. Not the others. Einstein is embedded in our brains as children. The rest you would learn about in college or highschool and forget if that's not your field of study.

    20. Re:"Policy not to acknowledge" quote is offensive by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      The blurb above replaces "Computers" with "contributors", painting a false and offensive picture.

      No, you are painting a false picture. The word "computer" has changed meaning completely between then and now. Computer now means what then would have been refered to as an automatic digital computer. A computer then was a eprson who did arseloads of calculations.

      Which contribute to the paper.

      Calling them contributers is entirely reasonable due to them contributing all the calculations.

      Today in many fields it is common to only include as authors of a paper those who have had creative scientific input.

      It's also common to hoard authorship like it's a limited resource. I can tell you if I did a bunch of calculations for someone and they left me off, that's the last time I'd ever work with them. I have in fact run software I've developed but is hard to use for people to process their data (already published---so little creative input there). They paid me back with an authorship. No way I'd have done it otherwise because I was trying for an academic career and doing unacknowledged work is a great way to fail at it.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    21. Re:"Policy not to acknowledge" quote is offensive by Bartles · · Score: 1

      I believe the article should have said computors. A computor can have a specific gender.

    22. Re:"Policy not to acknowledge" quote is offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the women were hired largely because you didn't have to pay them as much as men... So...

    23. Re:"Policy not to acknowledge" quote is offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/conjugation/convention/

    24. Re:"Policy not to acknowledge" quote is offensive by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Surely if it had the specific gender you were thinking of, it would be "computrix"?

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    25. Re: "Policy not to acknowledge" quote is offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a difference. Grade schoolers are taught about one of those people on your list. Not the others. Einstein is embedded in our brains as children. The rest you would learn about in college or highschool and forget if that's not your field of study.

      Your ignorant post made it clear that you knew nothing of the topic, so I was trying to kindly tell you to Fuck Off, Ignorant Asshole.

    26. Re:"Policy not to acknowledge" quote is offensive by Bartles · · Score: 1

      I tried to figure it out, but unfortunately my head exploded when I read this. https://uwm.edu/lgbtrc/support...

  2. Longevity pays off by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Katherine Johnson seems like a genuine candidate for long overdue recognition.

    Good thing she lived to 97!

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Longevity pays off by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Good thing she lived to 97!

      For whom? What would have been worse if she only had lived to 87?

    2. Re:Longevity pays off by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      For whom? What would have been worse if she only had lived to 87?

      Congratulations, you just figured out the basis of the sarcasm. It's pretty pathetic that it's taken this long for society to recognize her contribution, specifically because it refused to recognize it earlier because of her gender.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re: Longevity pays off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, it's too bad that modern feminism is hellbent at erasing the past women in any STEM field to claim that their special snowflake millennials are the first women to be in a field. You would think they would figure out that it would help women get more interested in STEM fields to know about successful women in the field. You know, instead of making phantom claims of wild sexism which has mostly been refuted by...women in that field.

    4. Re: Longevity pays off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, it's too bad that modern feminism is hellbent at erasing the past women in any STEM field to claim that their special snowflake millennials are the first women to be in a field.

      Holy crap on a stick. The last time I heard the MRAs complain about this it was that millennial feminists were over-emphasising women in STEM from the past. Could you guys get your stories straight please?

  3. We now get Monday "White Male Guilt" articles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    So in additional to the Friday "Social Justice" articles, we now get Monday "White Male Guilt" articles, too?

    Come on, why even mention her race? She's a mathematician and physicist. Just leave it at that. There's no need to bring race or gender into it.

    I don't see how race affects her ability to do math or physics.

    I don't see how gender affects her ability to do math or physics.

    So why mention it? Is it just some pathetic attempt to get the many white males here feeling "guilty" merely for being born as white males?

    As a society, we will never get past racism and sexism as long as social justice types constantly keep bringing up race and gender.

    Instead of focusing on our differences, why not focus on our similarities? We all love math and science. We don't need to waste our time considering what our races are, or what our genders are.

    But I suppose if the social justice types did let us move beyond constantly focusing on race and gender, they'd have nothing to bitch and moan about. So it isn't in their best interest to actually eliminate racism and sexism; these are the very things that the social justice types exploit to give themselves power.

    1. Re:We now get Monday "White Male Guilt" articles? by Theovon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In 100 years, you’ll be right.

      We still live in a society that needs to be *reminded* that race and gender are socially worthless predictors of one’s abilities. In the 1960’s, people could be openly bigoted and sexist. Today, they’ve all just moved into the closet. Moreover, there are some bigoted and sexist ideas that are so deeply embedded in our culture that people aren’t even aware of it. Personally, when I was in the 7th grade and was bussed to a school in the middle of the ghetto, I developed a very negative impression of black people. I have to remind myself that if I’d gone to the 7th grade in a school that was in the middle of a trailor park, that I would have an equally bad impression of white people. Technically, people should be free to harbor bigoted thoughts, but as a society, we have to make it clear that *acting* on those feelings is as criminal as discrimination on the basis of *any* superficial characteristic.

    2. Re:We now get Monday "White Male Guilt" articles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's a large amount of anti-male sexism going on today, you are correct about that.

      I share your optimism that in 100 years, we won't have to worry about a misandrist society that leads to the conditions where 93% of work fatalities are men, 80% of suicides are men, 77% of homicide victims are men.

    3. Re:We now get Monday "White Male Guilt" articles? by Theovon · · Score: 1

      You do have to accept that over-compensation will happen. White men used to dominate authority in the US. Actually, they still do, even if we’ve developed the maturity to accept a president with brown skin. Given the stranglehold white men have had and the efforts that everyone else have had to go through to break that down, we’re naturally going to go through a period where they get a lot of backlash. Some of that is deserved on the basis of them not relinquishing control earlier than they did. If that kind of overcompensation continues, then it’ll develop into a serious problem. But right now, CEO positions in America, for instance, are dominated by men. Why aren’t there more women in these positions? It’s most likely because we have conditioned them to not seek positions like that and conditioned everyone else to dislike women who behave “unladylike,” which means whatever we want it to mean when finding a reason to dislike women acting outside of the box they’ve been put in. At some point, we’ll produe a generation of women who have finally managed to escape that social conditioning, and that will come when society as a whole accepts their equality. Then there will no longer be any back-lash against men anymore either.

    4. Re:We now get Monday "White Male Guilt" articles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do have to accept that over-compensation will happen. Jews used to dominate authority in the US. Actually, they still do, even if we’ve developed the maturity to accept a president with brown skin. Given the stranglehold jews have had and the efforts that everyone else have had to go through to break that down, we’re naturally going to go through a period where they get a lot of backlash. Some of that is deserved on the basis of them not relinquishing control earlier than they did. If that kind of overcompensation continues, then it’ll develop into a serious problem. But right now, CEO positions in America, for instance, are dominated by jews. Why aren’t there more blacks in these positions? It’s most likely because we have conditioned them to not seek positions like that and conditioned everyone else to dislike blacks who behave “unblacklike,” which means whatever we want it to mean when finding a reason to dislike blacks acting outside of the box they’ve been put in. At some point, we’ll produe a generation of blacks who have finally managed to escape that social conditioning, and that will come when society as a whole accepts their equality. Then there will no longer be any back-lash against jews anymore either.

    5. Re:We now get Monday "White Male Guilt" articles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they still do, even if we’ve developed the maturity to accept a president with brown skin.

      We have not. Some of us have, but Obama being treated as an "outsider" and "other" is well known and easy to observe.

    6. Re: We now get Monday "White Male Guilt" articles? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      No actually I don't. It's unacceptable that virtually no one cares that the biggest cause of death in men under 45 is suicide. Very few men have power and wealth. The rest of us just try to get by as best we can. Treating us like shit is a disgrace that will only lead to problems.

    7. Re:We now get Monday "White Male Guilt" articles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Her gender and race are important because they are relevant to the time when she did her work. It was a period where people who bitch about SJWs and "White Male Guilt" ran the world so her achievements are all the more impressive.

    8. Re: We now get Monday "White Male Guilt" articles? by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      No actually I don't. It's unacceptable that virtually no one cares that the biggest cause of death in men under 45 is suicide.

      First, that's factually incorrect. According to the CDC, suicides are number two, after "Unintentional Injuries".

      That's right, the leading cause of death in men under 45 is "hold my beer and watch this". Suicide is second Maybe these are the biggest cause of death in men under 45 because men's general health overall is so good that just about the only thing that will take them out is if they decide to do it themselves, through self-harm or simple stupidity?

      Nope. Must be the feminazis.

    9. Re:We now get Monday "White Male Guilt" articles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically, what you are telling me is we should have held on to power instead of opening the doors, because now you are planning on punishing us. Fuck you. Race and gender war, shall we? Because that's what you are threatening.

    10. Re: We now get Monday "White Male Guilt" articles? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      That's right, the leading cause of death in men under 45 is "hold my beer and watch this".

      Probably most of that is "hold my beer for a sec while I drive around this curve at 90."

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    11. Re:We now get Monday "White Male Guilt" articles? by Livius · · Score: 1

      Today, they’ve all just moved into the closet.

      No, not all of them. Some are merely bigots who are passive-aggressive, but some are completely sincere.

      It's not as simple as the stereotypes in either direction, but it's the glass half-full reality that we have to deal with.

    12. Re:We now get Monday "White Male Guilt" articles? by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      In the 1960’s, people could be openly bigoted and sexist. Today, they’ve all just moved into the closet.

      You evidently haven't been paying much attention to the US presidential campaign.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    13. Re:We now get Monday "White Male Guilt" articles? by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Well done.

    14. Re: We now get Monday "White Male Guilt" articles? by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is second, and used to be much lower on the list. It started to rise when family courts became extremely pro-mother and extremely anti-father. This caused an extreme spike in divorced fathers with no meaningful contact with their kids, extreme financial hardship, and likely the worst of it, numerous false accusations of abusing the wife and children made by the wife for the purpose of getting sole custody and maximum child support. Also there are absolutely no repercussions for the woman making these false accusations. This is the primary reason the suicide rate for men is so high and it was directly caused by feminism being allowed into our court system.

    15. Re:We now get Monday "White Male Guilt" articles? by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      That is what they have always been threatening.

  4. Not an abberation by Theovon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If only we as a society can now stop thinking of these people as abberations just on the basis of gender and other genetic factors. Geniuses in general are rare, so if you’re looking for them, the last thing you want to do is summarily exclude any segment of any population, simply because YOU believe some of their characteristics correlate less with genius.

    I was reading a journal paper from the 1970’s or something that presented average IQs for different genetic groups. They found the average Asian IQ to be higher tna the average Caucasian IQ, which was higher than the average African IQ. However, in every case, the standard deviation was very high. This guarantees that geniuses would be found in large populations. (Of course, none of this accounts for aspects of intelligence not considered by IQ, like social ability.)

    Of course, racism isn’t really about IQ. IQ is sometimes used as an *excuse* for racism, but if that were not a factor, racists would find another excuse. Bigotry in general is about deciding that someone is incompetent or inferior on the basis of superficial traits. It becomes *criminal* when you actively interfere with someone’s life on the basis of a prejudgement like this.

    I’m hoping that highlighting women and other marginalized groups and their contributions to science and society as a whole will gradually enlighten the human race.

    1. Re:Not an abberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that anti-IQ people point out a single genius in a marginalized group and then they claim that it demonstrates the uselessness of IQ. It doesn't. IQ theory doesn't claim that geniuses are impossible in a group with lower average IQ, only that they'll be rarer. Highlighting specific cases doesn't give much information. Reporting the overall fraction of geniuses in each group would be more informative.

    2. Re:Not an abberation by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      (Of course, none of this accounts for aspects of intelligence not considered by IQ, like social ability.)

      And despite a post that sounds pretty good, you fall right into the same trap.

      Exactly what is "social ability" as defined by race?

      And how does any of this stuff apply to the individual? I'd suggest a better approach is noting that taking a very inexact system like measuring IQ, then applying exacting statistics to it, and using it as an approach to an entire race is proof of the applier's stupidity, and disproves the theory.

      It puts 'em into a circular logic loop, and they freak out like a TV show's 1960's computer burning up because it was asked to divide by zero.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:Not an abberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My money is still on the dark fellows in the 100m sprints.

    4. Re:Not an abberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bigotry in general is about deciding that someone is incompetent or inferior on the basis of superficial traits.

      Like assuming that European Americans can't adequately serve people of color, and so every nook and cranny of our society has to be an exact duplicate of the demographics of our society at large before people of color are served as well as their European American counterparts.

    5. Re:Not an abberation by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem with IQ is that its causal relationship is almost always incorrect. People take lower average IQ as to mean that the social group exhibiting said lower IQ is inherently less intelligent and that that's why they're poorer/less educated/less well-off, but in reality it's the other way around: being poorer and having less access to means of bettering yourself directly harms your ability to develop intellectually.

      Then there's also the fact that IQ is regularly redefined so that the average is 100 (and no, the average doesn't go down, it actually goes up systematically). People forget this fact and attempt to compare IQs made using different scales, not realizing how a 130 today might've been a 160 a century ago.

    6. Re:Not an abberation by Theovon · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Based on the statistics, you can compute that they are rarer. All that means is that you have to look harder to find them.

    7. Re:Not an abberation by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That research has been widely debunked. The basic problem is that the IQ test is a really poor way to measure intelligence. People from certain cultures tend to do better than others (regardless of genetics), and scores can be improved through practice so favours educational systems that teach the skills it measures.

      For example, the well documented Flynn Effect shows that IQs have been steadily rising in western societies since the introduction of the test. Based on modern test scoring, the average IQ in the 1930s would have been 80. A person with an IQ of 80 would struggle to cope with many everyday tasks. The time period is too short for genetics to account for the improvement, so we are left with environmental factors like diet, general health and education.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Not an abberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't pooh-pooh IQ results just because they might make you uncomfortable. If you believe IQ is an "inexact" measurement, I suggest educating yourself. Go google "Raven's progressive matrices" or hit up Amazon for "Race Differences in Intelligence." Or, you know, simply avoid making such statements without citations.

    9. Re:Not an abberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that anti-IQ people point out a single genius in a marginalized group and then they claim that it demonstrates the uselessness of IQ. It doesn't. IQ theory doesn't claim that geniuses are impossible in a group with lower average IQ, only that they'll be rarer. Highlighting specific cases doesn't give much information. Reporting the overall fraction of geniuses in each group would be more informative.

      What you said is true, but with a caveat.
      Only if the curves of the groups are the same when compared to the curve for the combined groups.
      If you were able to find the IQ of everyone, and then plot the scores of individual groups, you'll see the curves are different. Some flatter and some more peaked around the center.

      For example, suppose you test everyone on the planet for and plot the entire populations IQ.
      Then pull out and plot the scores of only Italians and again for only Spaniards. it will still resemble the general populations IQ distribution, but the curves won't be identical.
      One will be flatter and the other peakier around the middle, and also the middle for the two groups will be displaced, Italians might center at 98 and Spaniards at 102.

      Suppose the curve for italians is flatter than that of spaniards. There would be more italians at the 5-sigma ends (both retards and intelligent) than spaniards.
      So, italians, you'll have more 5-sigma retards than 5-sigma spanish retards, and likewise at the other end of the scale.
      So it's possible for a group with a flatter IQ curve to (relative to everyone) that has a lower average IQ but still have more people with high 5-sigma IQ.

    10. Re:Not an abberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Women as a marginalised group in science today? You've got to be kidding.

      There are positions, prizes and funding available only to women. There are positions, prizes and funding available to both men and women, but with an explicit preference given to women. There are others which are nominally equal, but which discriminate in practice: women are more likely to be accepted to a tenure-track job, or to receive a speaking position at a conference.

      Interestingly, there is no significant bias in the likelihood of getting a paper accepted. Possibly referees, being anonymous, are not subject to public pressure to discriminate against men.

    11. Re:Not an abberation by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Of course, none of this accounts for aspects of intelligence not considered by IQ, like social ability.

      Please don't give credence to IQ with such statements. Forget social intelligence. I know one award winning physicist who scored mid 90s on IQ tests, because IQ tests for shallow speed. The physicist in question was a slow, but very deep thinker. He'd generally get stuck thinking in detail about the questions and perform very poorly (or find things that wqere technically ambiguous if you had a perverse way of thinking about things).

      By comparing IQ to social intelligence you're implying it measures technical intelligence. It doesn't. It measures ability to do IQ tests, and not a whole lot else.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    12. Re:Not an abberation by Theovon · · Score: 1

      You make a really good point. During interviews, I don’t have the same quick response to some things that companies like Google would expect. However, give me some time, and I’ll come up with better answers than other people would because they would just move on, while I would chew on it and come up with something more comprehensive.

    13. Re:Not an abberation by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Don't pooh-pooh IQ results just because they might make you uncomfortable. If you believe IQ is an "inexact" measurement, I suggest educating yourself. Go google "Raven's progressive matrices" or hit up Amazon for "Race Differences in Intelligence." Or, you know, simply avoid making such statements without citations.

      I refer more to Stephen Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" . Racial intelligence and those who seek to apply it, also apply their metrics to individual countries, and groups. And I've met to many stupis "white" people to give the idea that we are the superior race much credence.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    14. Re:Not an abberation by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Another thing to consider is the Flynn effect. There hasn't been time for genetic change in the last century, but IQs in developed nations has gone up by up to 20 IQ points over the decades. The tests have to be recalibrated every so often, to keep the mean around 100 and the standard deviation around 15, and they have been made harder. Clearly, something other than genetics is causing the results of IQ tests to vary wildly over the space of a century.

      Therefore, if you see that group A has an average IQ that's fifteen or twenty points better than group B, it's likely to be environmental rather than genetic.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    15. Re:Not an abberation by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      IQ is not an exact measurement of intelligence. It is a decent one, but there are several aspects it does not measure, likely because we do not have a good way to measure things such as social intelligence. It is certainly a good tool to help us see differences in groups.

  5. Africans are not less smart by Theovon · · Score: 0

    Africans are widely accepted to have superior social ability. That is a form of intelligence not accounted for by IQ. Your implication that Africans are dumber on the basis of IQ conveniently ignores that fact. But then, bigots and creationists are really good at paying attention only to whatever skewed interpretation of the facts supports their case, ignoring all of the other “inconvenient” facts.

    Every person has things they’re good and bad at, and race is not going to be a predictor of one person’s mathematical ability.

    Also, “African American” may seem like a silly term. But it’s a term that Americans of African decent decided to call themselves, and it’s their freedom to call themselves by that term. It’s no sillier than calling food grown a certain way “Organic.” Does that imply that we can buy inorganic food? Well, we can — salt and other minerals, but we don’t call them that, and the term “organic” is being used here in an entirely different sense with a new meaning that gets a new dictionary entry. “Organic” after all is just a string of phonemes with arbitrary meaning.

    1. Re:Africans are not less smart by arth1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Africans are widely [weasel words] accepted [by whom?] to have superior [reference needed] social ability [definition needed].

    2. Re:Africans are not less smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm also waiting for a citation.

    3. Re:Africans are not less smart by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Africans are widely accepted to have superior social ability. That is a form of intelligence not accounted for by IQ. Your implication that Africans are dumber on the basis of IQ conveniently ignores that fact. But then, bigots and creationists are really good at paying attention only to whatever skewed interpretation of the facts supports their case

      Averaging intelligence by race means:

      Not one goddamned thing. Why some people take a metric, one of the most personal ones at that, and try to apply it to an entire race or gender is amazing. And remarkably stupid.

      Does average intelligence by race make Bill O'Reilly more intelligent than Neil DeGrasse Tyson? Does the average age of Eskimos in Alaska mean that all Eskimos in Alaska are that age?

      So while I'm not completely convinced of the veracity of the IQ by race statistics in the first place, even if true, it doesn't tell me one thing about the person of a particular race I might meet, so it's like the fact that "It's warmer down South than it is in the winter".

      What is more ironically amusing is that people who use irrelevant statistics to determine something as personal as individual traits such as intelligence are ironically showing a bit of stupidity themselves.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re:Africans are not less smart by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What is more ironically amusing is that people who use irrelevant statistics to determine something as personal as individual traits such as intelligence are ironically showing a bit of stupidity themselves.

      It's something that a particular set of racists do whenever they are faced with a brilliant person of a different race. The only way they can make themselves feel better under those circumstances is to point to some discredited "scientific study" that demonstrates their intellectual superiority as a group..

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re: Africans are not less smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed.

      And how fucking patronising and racist is it not to challenge the OP's assertion (that people from Africa have IQ scores that would entail significant cognitive impairment - IQ of 80 means lots of support needed even for everyday tasks) but instead to say that "it's OK because look they have this other thing where they're totally socially cool".

      You might as well say they've all got excellent rhythm and huge cocks. Fucking racist.

      For those who need it spelled out clearly - assuming an individual possesses specific attributes simply on the basis of their assumed ancestry is racist.

      Remember, for pretty much any group of humans, the variation within the group is much greater than the variation between the means of different groups. Draw the bell curves on the same axes, step back, and they'll essentially be right on top of each other. This is true even though racists, sexists etc wish that it weren't.

    6. Re:Africans are not less smart by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      What is more ironically amusing is that people who use irrelevant statistics to determine something as personal as individual traits such as intelligence are ironically showing a bit of stupidity themselves.

      It's something that a particular set of racists do whenever they are faced with a brilliant person of a different race. The only way they can make themselves feel better under those circumstances is to point to some discredited "scientific study" that demonstrates their intellectual superiority as a group..

      But they conveniently forget that "whites" were not at the top of that list. So not only are some white people stupid enough to believe that some long discredited pseudoscicen can tell them how to instantly determind an individual's intelligence, they manage to ignore that their studies show that caucasions should not be the leaders.

      An interesting link I found about Jay Gould's 1981 book, "The Mismeasure of Man" is interesting reading.

      Perhaps some of the material can be of further use to these racists:

      German brains weigh on average 100 grams more than French brains - as "found by a German scientist.

      Early 20th Century H.H. Goddard gave intelligence tests to immigrants, and "found out" that 83% of the Jews, 80% of the Hungarians, 79% of the Italians, and 87% of the Russians were "feeble minded".

      Robert Yerkes tested Military recruits and "showed" that the average American had a mental age of 13 years.. He also "showed" that 37 percent of whites and 89% of negros had a mental aage of less than 13 years.

      This kind of bullshit was used to justify segregation laws, most in the south.

      And it has all been discredited. At very best, it is pointless, at worst, it starts to resemble eugenics.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    7. Re:Africans are not less smart by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Actually work such as Goddards was mostly used for anti-immigration justification. The IQ tests heavily revolved around American culture with questions like who won the World Series in 19xx.
      Throw some culture questions into an IQ test and you're going to select for that culture being smarter.
       

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  6. Disagree by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Certainly some of the claims of unfair treatment of women is dubious, especially the "I'm not included socially" or "they act too friendly and familiar" sort. However this is genuinely shocking:

    NASA policy at the time was to not acknowledge the female contributors to scientific papers, though "She literally wrote the textbook on rocket science,"

    We should acknowledge it as such and not put it down to some SWJ agenda

    1. Re:Disagree by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      I would like to see the citation for this policy.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    2. Re:Disagree by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Informative

      No kidding, from the Gutenberg link:

      "...in June 1953, Katherine was contracted as a research mathematician at the Langley Research Center... At first she worked in a pool of women performing math calculations. Katherine has referred to the women in the pool as virtual `[computers] who wore [skirts].' Their main job was to read the data from the black boxes of planes and carry out other precise mathematical tasks. Then one day, Katherine (and a colleague) were temporarily assigned to help the all-male flight research team. Katherine's knowledge of analytic geometry helped make quick allies of male bosses and colleagues to the extent that,'they forgot to return me to the pool.' While the racial and gender barriers were always there, Katherine says she ignored them. Katherine was assertive, asking to be included in editorial meetings (where no women had gone before.) She simply told people she had done the work and that she belonged."

      This isn't some flunky doing the boring calculations beneath the principal researchers ... this is someone actively contributing to the outcomes, but who got ignored when it came time for credit.

      She plotted backup navigational charts for astronauts in case of electronic failures. In 1962, when NASA used computers for the first time to calculate John Glenn's orbit around Earth, officials called on her to verify the computer's numbers. Ms. Johnson later worked directly with real computers. Her ability and reputation for accuracy helped to establish confidence in the new technology. She calculated the trajectory for the 1969 Apollo 11 flight to the Moon. Later in her career, she worked on the Space Shuttle program, the Earth Resources Satellite, and on plans for a mission to Mars.

      This is a woman who deserves a ton of credit for actually being a significant part of history at NASA. She sure as hell wasn't just sitting around adding up a few thing here and there.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Disagree by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 2

      She co-authored 26 papers and was listed as an author in a NASA peer-reviewed report. I know the summary makes it sound like she didn't get any credit for her work at the time, but actually following and reading the gutenberg link provided makes the point she was more knowledgeable than the rest because she was credited when normally someone who was just a "computer" wouldn't have been, implying she was more than just another "computer".

      The whole "NASA policy" part of the summary is clearly wrong with regards to female "contributors", as she was both female and listed as a co-author in a NASA paper in 1960. It's a confused mishmash of "computers" not being credited, trying to imply that was because they were predominantly female at the time, which simply isn't true. Seen any papers lately where a TI-30Xa is listed as a coauthor? Yeah, me neither.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    4. Re:Disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She deserves a lot of credit for breaking both the race and gender barriers. Maybe she deserves to be grouped with her "male bosses and colleagues", although I suspect they did more of the pioneering physics and she did more of the calculations.

    5. Re:Disagree by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      I agree. With the massive attempts to rewrite history by feminists I have to see proof of something like this.

    6. Re:Disagree by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what I expected. I too tire of this inflammatory bullshit, but what really pisses me off is that people eat it up like a competitive eater at a Chinese buffet. They believe it because it "feels" right since they have been bombarded by feminist propaganda since birth.

  7. Re:LOL - more sickening propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But all the worlds population has arrived from africa. More over africans are forced to move to America by white people. And guess who the president of America is?. I am neither white nor african american, the rational truth is if we automate the essential work, we dont have to hate each other. So lets go do some programming and automate.

  8. Literally by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "She literally wrote the textbook on rocket science," Someone doesn't know what literally means.

    1. Re:Literally by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      That would be you.
      According to the dictionary the word "literally" has two meanings - and you only know the first one.

      Webster's dictionary and the OED both include the second one - which is correct here. Even dictionary.com lists it as option 4 - with a note that this can be confusing since this meaning is very nearly the opposite of the first meaning, but this meaning has been common throughout the English speaking world since at least the early 19th century.
      In dictionary.com it is listed as:
      "in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually:"

      Webster's lists the second meaning as:
      " in effect : virtually will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice"
      And gives the note that this is not actually an opposite of meaning one, nor is it a misuse - it's a perfectly valid use of the word for hyperbole or emphasis.

      I'd have added the OED as well but their website is unusable and I haven't got the patience to copy and paste dead-treeware.

      Either way - the point is made, if you think there is something wrong with how "literally" was used in that sentence, then it is literally you who don't know what "literally" means.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    2. Re:Literally by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      "in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually:"

      So what you are saying is that virtual reality and literal reality are the same thing now. For a certain percentage of the population, that might actually be true.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Literally by Orgasmatron · · Score: 2

      Dictionaries memorialize common usage as an aid to readers. They offer no opinion on the correctness of word choices.

      The inverse meaning of literally is common, but incorrect. Note that I am not normally in the prescriptive camp of linguistics. I do not consider formations that merely make one sound like an idiot to be incorrect, but I do consider formations that lose information to be incorrect.

      Consider the present case. "wrote the book" is an expression that can mean either "wrote the book" or "knows enough that he could write a book". The use of the word "literally" could help distinguish the two cases here, but is instead used as an intensifier. Considering that the cliche in question is already quite superlative, adding an intensifier seems inflationary, and it actually diminishes her stature in the minds of the reader, as he will inevitably be disappointed when he finds out that the claim isn't true.*

      Granted, the author of this is directly quoting someone, but should have chosen a different quote.

      On a side note, I'm a bit surprised by the comments here. Was the slashdot readership not generally aware that large scale batch computation in the age before electronic computers was done by hordes of people (mostly women) called "computers"? It came up a couple of times in Cryptonomicon.

      And what is with the sudden push to present the sexism of the recent past in comic book terms? (See Agent Carter, or Aquarius for examples of mustache-twirling melodrama-villain sexism. Mad Men has a bit too, but the other shows really turned it up to 11.) My theory is that actual sexism has become such a foreign concept in the modern west that writers today don't understand it at all, so they have to resort to caricature.

      * I can't find a book by her, and nothing I've seen claims that she made significant contributions to any specific actual book. Anyone have a citation?

      The oldest modern (=mentions using radar) textbook on the subject that I'm aware of is Fundamentals of Astrodynamics, published in 1971, and based on unstructured materials (including plenty of NASA papers) that the Air Force Academy had been collecting and using since around 1959.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    4. Re:Literally by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Although those definitions are wrong, she didn't even virtually write the book on rocket science. Because there is no book on rocket science. Many people "wrote the book" on rocket science, including the guys who actually, um, built rockets.

    5. Re:Literally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I generally take the word "literally" to mean "and I'm not exaggerating" in its figurative use. Only the second instance of the word found in the summary matches one of my two mental definitions, as far as I can tell.

      I'd totally love a shorter, less misused word that would mean "and I'm not exaggerating" ...

    6. Re:Literally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/584799-ice-hockey/52004489?page=1

      btw Jeff Daniels as voice of the caller "Doug"

    7. Re:Literally by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      "wrote the book" is an expression that can mean either "wrote the book" or "knows enough that he could write a book".

      The second meaning doesn't seem to be common. "Wrote the book" is a simple statement of fact, referring to the person having written the standard (or at least a well respected) book on the subject.

      This is why we need language to be clear. When making what appears to be a factual, literal statement there isn't room for this kind of ambiguity. That's why I too reject any meaning of "literally" that isn't absolute, because the only way to infer what the speaker means is by evaluating the likelihood of their claim.

      And what is with the sudden push to present the sexism of the recent past in comic book terms?

      Laziness mainly, but I think Mad Men did go into the subtleties of it a little more. It's a simple, easy trope to establish a struggle for the female protagonist, that tends to block more interesting character development and sidelines her as a single issue stereotype.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Literally by TheCurvyPoet · · Score: 1

      There most def were textbooks on rocket science, which was a very new thing in the 60s, as the team at NASA (which included Ms. Johnson) were making it up as they went along. Textbooks were needed to teach young scientists so NASA could recruit them. And, you know, to add to the general store of knowledge. Ah, youth.

    9. Re:Literally by TheCurvyPoet · · Score: 2

      She authored the textbooks that were used in universities across the country. These books were written as they went, because the things in the textbooks had never been done before. She wrote them. As in, put pen to paper and wrote the books used in classrooms. Thus, she literally wrote the textbooks on rocket science. And the quote in the article is from the Deputy Director of NASA, who, methinks, understands the definition better than yourself.

    10. Re: Literally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they do know exactly what 'literally' means. She wrote one of the standard texts on the subject.

    11. Re:Literally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the dictionary the word "literally" has two meanings - and you only know the first one.

      Yes, it's in the dictionary.
      However, using "literally" for things that did not happen brands the speaker as poorly educated.

      The dictionary has many such usages in it. So it's not wrong in the sense that seeing an apple and calling it an alligator is wrong, but it's wrong in the sense that it impairs clear communication. The listener has to wonder in many cases, wtf did he mean?
      Now one can look in the dictionary and find out that the speaker meant almost, sorta, kinda, lots.
      You can also find out that "ain't" means something like "isn't" or "won't", but the dictionary ain't saying people will admire you for your varied vocabulary.

      To my ears, hearing "literally" misused in that fashion is as unpleasant as double negatives (in English), or hearing people who sprinkle their conversation with things like "I had ran the program".
      It hurts. It hurts almost as bad as listening to presidential candidate debates.

    12. Re:Literally by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Well, of course I will take the utterly unsubstantiated opinion of a random person on the internet over the shared conclusion of three distinct teams of lexicographers at three separate dictionaries including the one published by the world's most prestigious university and held as the canonical record of the English language in determining which meanings of a word is "wrong". That wouldn't be stupid of me at all.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    13. Re:Literally by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Well if you deem Oscar Wilde to be poorly educated that says more about your standards of education than it does about the people you are judging, since he used that second meaning multiple times in his writing and is generally considered one of most skilled masters of the English language to have ever lived.

      It's like saying that "basing the theory of your CPU on the underlying principles of the Turing machine marks you as a badly trained engineer".

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  9. Its appalling! Can we correct it? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2
    NASA officially had a policy not to list female contributors to papers as co-authors? Wow! That was simply awful. How did they even justify such an unscientific discriminatory policy? Were there any male scientists who objected to it? Did any female scientist raise objections? Is it possible to dig through old NASA records to find such contributions?

    BTW it should be possible to find it in the archives. NASA records and documents everything. Richard Feynman suggested something trivial. He noticed they were marking the bolts at 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock positions to help align solid booster rocket section assembly. He suggesting marking the 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock bolts in addition to help them better. NASA studied the suggestion for two years and rejected it because the documentation update would be prohibitive. That is the level of documentation they maintain. I am sure it would be possible to find the long forgotten women contributors and right the wrong.

    We award Congressional Medal of Honor posthumously after several decades. We restored Robert E Lee's citizenship decades after he died. Gen Lee's application for citizenship with formal sworn renunciation of his allegiance to Confederacy was taken home as a personal souvenir by the Secretary of State and was found in attic after several decades.

    If restoring that traitor's citizenship status after a century is deemed to be important, giving credit to women scientists for their contribution to NASA is important too. We can and we should find the historical wrong and right it.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Its appalling! Can we correct it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We restored Robert E Lee's citizenship decades after he died. [burnpit.us] Gen Lee's application for citizenship with formal sworn renunciation of his allegiance to Confederacy was taken home as a personal souvenir by the Secretary of State and was found in attic after several decades.

      And it was rejected at the time, informally, but they knew they had no intention of granting it to him.

      And we never should have. The man violated one oath, why take a second? I can see the mercy in sparing his life, but he was a traitor.

      Let him die a traitor's death, no honor for treason.

    2. Re:Its appalling! Can we correct it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm curious why your starting position is to believe the claim. Shouldn't we go back through NASA's meticulous records and find out if there were actually female coauthors that weren't recognized as such first? Were men in Johnson's position at NASA credited on papers as a matter of policy while women were not? Don't just come out of the gate believing everything you hear because it triggers your sensitivities.

    3. Re:Its appalling! Can we correct it? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      How did they even justify such an unscientific discriminatory policy?

      Here's how:

      https://www.nasa.gov/sites/def...

      It's called "white male privilege", and it takes a damn long time to change:

      http://edyoucatives.com/wp-con...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Its appalling! Can we correct it? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is some truth in what you are saying. But it is worth their time for the undergrads slogging through social science degrees to take it as a project and comb through the records. Show it one way or the other.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    5. Re:Its appalling! Can we correct it? by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 2

      NASA officially had a policy not to list female contributors to papers as co-authors?

      Nope. In fact, if you read the gutenberg link in the summary, it clearly states that she was listed as a co-author. i.e.:

      NASA TND-233, “The Determination of Azimuth Angle at Burnout for Placing a Satellite over a Selected Earth Position” 1960. Authors: T.H. Skopinski, Katherine G. Johnson

      The link says her contributions were greater than the mere "computers" and proves it by stating she co-authored 26 papers, so while there may have been a policy not to list the people who did the underlying math for you (Seen a TI-30Xa listed as a co-author recently?), they clearly listed female contributors.

      Trying to get the facts on something through the media is like playing a game of deliberately biased "telephone", however.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    6. Re:Its appalling! Can we correct it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think if you were to take a picture of a control room today, you'd see plenty of women. Not 50%, but certainly higher than the percentage graduating in "space flight related" majors (engineering and CS are something like 10% women these days).

      Even at Johnson Manned [sic] Spaceflight Center, a somewhat male-centric place, there's a fair number of women in the control room on console.

      Even more at JPL or SpaceX.

      Because after all, in California, everything is more liberal.

      https://astroengine.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/spacex-mission-control.jpg
      http://www.fix.net/wreil/photo_MSL-16-Mission-Control-Cheers.jpg

    7. Re:Its appalling! Can we correct it? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The point they were trying (and failing) to make was that at the time women were often relegated to the role of computer, with Ms. Johnson being one of the rare exceptions who managed to rise above that level. So the sexism was a glass ceiling, and the fact that it meant few women had their names on papers was really just a side-effect of that.

      It's a bit like how some people argue there is no wage gap because different lifestyles/jobs etc, ignoring the fact that those things are often the product of biases against women.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Its appalling! Can we correct it? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      It's a bit like how some people argue there is no wage gap because different lifestyles/jobs etc, ignoring the fact that those things are often the product of biases against women.

      I take it then that you've known a lot of men that were pregnant, or left the workforce because they wanted to spend time with their children while they were young?

      How many women players are on your favorite professional football team? What is the league average? Why do you think those numbers are the way they are? Is it simple bias?

      We are often told by feminist advocates that women bring different perspectives to a workplace. If that is true, do you think that different perspective might lead to different priorities and behaviors, and ultimately choices?

      Wage Gap Myth Exposed -- By Feminists

      The Biggest Myth About the Gender Wage Gap
      The real gap isn't between men and women doing the same job. It's between the different jobs that men and women take.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    9. Re:Its appalling! Can we correct it? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I take it then that you've known a lot of men that were pregnant, or left the workforce because they wanted to spend time with their children while they were young?

      Try googling for things related to "men afriad to take paternity leave". Turns out lots of men want to, but don't feel they can.

      In other news sexism hurts men too. And if you catually care about men you should want to rid the world of it.

      How many women players are on your favorite professional football team?

      Not that I follow football, but it's not like the world association ever banned women from playing in men's teams or anything...

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/tal...

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re:Its appalling! Can we correct it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA officially had a policy not to list female contributors to papers as co-authors?

      This seems to be a blatant lie in the Gutenberg article. According to this NASA page http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/hist..., Ms. Johnson co-authored 26 articles, all of which can be found on this NASA site:http://ntrs.nasa.gov. However, you will only find one that lists her full name as an author. The others only list her as "K.G Johnson", which happens to be the standard author attribution that went for both MEN AND WOMEN. Her contributions weren't left off of the papers, she was listed just like the men were.

    11. Re:Its appalling! Can we correct it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the fact that it meant few women had their names on papers was really just a side-effect of that.

      Except that's a lie. Her name can be found on every paper that she contributed to. All 26 of them. It's on NASA's technical reports site if anyone care to look, which apparently nobody does.

    12. Re:Its appalling! Can we correct it? by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Have social science undergrads do it? Well, we know exactly what the results of that would be.
      It would show extreme prejudice against women and the student would have no repercussions at all.
      or
      It would show little to no discrimination and the student would be kicked out of the department.

      Social science departments are almost exclusively headed by feminists who will not tolerate any research which does not tow the party line.

    13. Re:Its appalling! Can we correct it? by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      It's a bit like how some people argue there is no wage gap because different lifestyles/jobs etc, ignoring the fact that those things are often the product of biases against women.

      I am getting really tired of this bullshit claim. The "wage gap" exists only because of women's choices. Men are much more willing to take jobs which are more dangerous, stressful, and/or keep you away from home more. Incidentally those jobs pay more because they have very serious trade-offs. These are trade-offs which the vast majority of women are not willing to make where a much larger percentage of men are.
      Now take your feminist propaganda and fuck off.

  10. The text book on rocket science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With all respect, this guy wrote it.

    1. Re:The text book on rocket science by TheCurvyPoet · · Score: 1

      She authored the textbooks that were used in universities across the country. These books were written as they went, because the things in the textbooks had never been done before. She wrote them. As in, put pen to paper and wrote the books used in classrooms. Thus, she literally wrote the textbooks on rocket science. And the quote in the article is from the Deputy Director of NASA, who, methinks, understands the definition better than yourself.

    2. Re:The text book on rocket science by TheCurvyPoet · · Score: 1

      Sorry, this comment was meant for the parent. She wrote textbooks in the 50s and 60s and I assume they've been updated by now. Also, did it occur to you that there might actually be more than one textbook on the subject before dissing her? BTW, the quote, as you can see, came from a deputy director of NASA, who would be in a better position to make this comment than yourself.

    3. Re:The text book on rocket science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would one of Obama's political appointees be in a better position to comment? Yeah, for what it's worth. I didn't see any links to said textbooks, like I provided.

  11. Re: FTFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's pretty much true. They may as well have ended the summary with "Pretty good . . . For a girl." There's no need to point out she's a woman by needlessly calling attention to it. People will figure it out from the name or surrounding text. Instead of celebrating her for her contributions, we're calling attention to some attribute of the person that they did not choose and should have no bearing on their achievements. You may as well call out her hair or eye color.

    If you want to make a post about women overcoming sexism decades ago, just do it directly instead of trying to make every post in which the subject is a woman about seeing if we can shoehorn in more victemhood crap. You're just telling the young women of today who are interested in science, math, etc. that no matter how good they are, they're only still going to be just a good woman scientist instead of just a scientist.

  12. no matter how amazing the achievement is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it literally makes me care less when you literally say 'literally', no matter how literally you might mean it

  13. Re:In 2016, gender is what pays off by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    She's a good engineer. No doubt. There are many more male engineers more accomplished.

    She wasn't an engineer. She was a mathematician and physicist. Don't demote her to engineer just to make yourself feel better.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  14. Re:In 2016, gender is what pays off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like various other people she would have received recognition long ago if she didn't have a vagina. That is part of the issue here. There seems to be a reason for you not understanding this.

    Apparently your intellect is stunted by the presence of your penis.

  15. Nazis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's also give credit for the American space program where it's due... Mostly captured Nazi scientists.

    1. Re:Nazis by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      Besides Godwin's Law, let's not forget the Canadians when Avro cancelled the Arrow and Avrocar programs that resulted in many Canuck engineers migrating south to the US that gave NASA a huge pool of talent for the space program.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
  16. Re:LOL - more sickening propaganda by KingSkippus · · Score: 1

    *sigh...* Why do I bother feeding the trolls? Oh well, here goes, mostly for the benefit of everyone else who might have accidentally read your incredibly racist, stupid post.

    The AVERAGE IQ of Africans is twenty or more points below that of whites. Care to discuss? One genius African doesn't negate that fact - meaning that the more Africans there are in a white country, the worse it becomes for whites. Which is why Africans don't want to live around their own kind, in AFRICA.

    So, apparently, is yours for not knowing that racism is responsible for differences in things like average IQ and earning potential of African-Americans. African-Americans are just as capable of learning and performing as "whites" when put into an environment conducive to learning and free of the systemic racism that has plagued this country since its inception. If it weren't for people like you, there wouldn't be such differences.

    And the likely reason most "Africans" don't want to live around their own kind is because the people you're calling "Africans" aren't, in fact, African. They were born here, grew up here, lived all of their lives here, have all of their friends and families here, and are integral to the culture that defines us as a society. They're not "African" any more than you're "European" because of your likely heritage, and making such idiotic statements is like claiming that you don't want to live around your own kind, in EUROPE.

    And, of course, that completely neglects the fact that most people of African heritage in the United States aren't here because their ancestors came here voluntarily, they were shackled and forced to relocate against their will, likely by those who were your ancestors. And, of course, that unless you're a full-blooded Native American, you're just as much an "invader" here as those you look down upon--except even worse, because your ancestors came here willingly and by force.

    So please, stop being such a tool, and the cause of the very problems that you're bemoaning.

  17. Re:In 2016, gender is what pays off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You failed to notice that vagina was simultaneously encapsulated in an African-American body, which I assure you was a considerable encumbrance to recognition in nearly all aspects of life in the 50s & 60s.

  18. Re:LOL - more sickening propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If IQ & scientific accomplishment means so much, then the Jews should be running every nation.

  19. In the 60's scientists were sexist by Mike610544 · · Score: 1

    Vera Rubin, who did a lot of the early research on dark matter, was not allowed to use the telescope at Caltech specifically because of her gender (eventually the policy did change). Also prevented from enrolling in Princeton's graduate astronomy program because women were not allowed until 1975.

    --
    ... also, I can kill you with my brain.
  20. Re:LOL - more sickening propaganda by russotto · · Score: 1

    If IQ & scientific accomplishment means so much, then the Jews should be running every nation.

    According to The Daily Stormer, we are!

  21. Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why should I care if she has a vagina? This submission is sexist and you should be ashamed!

  22. Mod parent down by Prune · · Score: 1

    men's general health overall is so good

    Confirmed for troll by stating a bald faced lie about well-established facts. Men have 1.4x the death ratio of women, and it's higher in all major health-related categories except Alzheimers. Source: http://www.health.harvard.edu/...

    --
    "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  23. Re:LOL - more sickening propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you for showing that there are whites with very low IQ.

  24. Re:In 2016, gender is what pays off by Your.Master · · Score: 1

    That's no demotion. Calling her an engineer means that she did stuff of practical application (as opposed to purely academic work).

    She worked at NASA in "key scientific and engineering positions". This is applied science, or engineering.

  25. Re: LOL - more sickening propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Big difference: Europeans are Herrenvolk while negros and amerinds are untermensch. It is the destiny of Europe to rule the world and have mastery over the lesser races for their own good.

  26. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me name my penis after her