Slashdot Mirror
At a Workshop Last Week, a CERN Scientist Said 'Physics Was Invented and Built by Men -- Not By Invitation'; CERN Has Suspended the Scientist (bbc.com)
New submitter ilguido writes: At a workshop organized by CERN, Prof Alessandro Strumia of Pisa University said that "physics was invented and built by men, it's not by invitation", BBC reported Monday. Strumia's presentation [Google Drive link] that supports the idea that "physics is not sexist against women[...], however the truth does not matter, because it is part of a political battle coming from outside" has already received a lot of criticism, with one female physicist defining Strumia's analysis as "simplistic, drawing on ideas that had long been discredited." In a statement on Sunday, CERN said, "It is unfortunate that one of the 38 presentations, by a scientist from one of the collaborating universities, risks overshadowing the important message and achievements of the event. CERN, like many members of the community, considers that the presentation, with its attacks on individuals, was unacceptable in any professional context and was contrary to the CERN Code of Conduct. It, therefore, decided to remove the slides from the online repository." On Monday, CERN said it has suspended the scientist from any activity at CERN with immediate effect, pending investigation into last week's event.
I really wish I'd live long enough to see our species evolve past all the tendency to violence, racism, sexism, bigotry, wilful ignorance, superstitious nonsense, and all the other stupid crap that we, as a species, seem to be infected with, but as-is I'm not even so sure the human species will manage to survive to see the year 2100, when even the greatest minds among us aren't immune to all the above.
Sexism fired him, I don't see anything sexist in his presented material. On the contrary, he is attacking a persistent agenda distracting from physics and that lacks sound logical support.
Well, he's not wrong. Almost all the biggest minds in physics and math were men (even jews and non-whites: gell-mann, bose, ramanujan). Pointing this out is offensive to some people.
But what about Marie Curie or Sophia Germaine? Outliers.
I've just gotta know has the world always been this batshit crazy and I've just been to self-absorbed to notice?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
It's better to just keep your mouth shut sometimes, even if your teeth grind, and your lips go blue, and you get cobwebs in your mouth.
A physicist just wanting to do physics without politics injected.... imagine that.
If it really has been discredited, then quote the research that discredits it. Strumia has provided evidence to support his claims, and evidence is needed to dismiss those claims.
tldr; is it necessarily a bad thing that people who are interested in physics and able to do the work had historically been male.
He also mentioned that intelligent people don't scream about racism and bigotry or use it as a factor when doing science.
+1 Insightful
Can't blame you for posting anonymously.
Let it stand as a bad example instead of censoring and pretending it didn't happen.
physics is not sexist against women
This is true. Physics has no opinion on the matter. Many physicists however are definitely sexist against women. Not all but enough to be a real problem.
One of the slides amounted to: "No one is seeking gender equality in jobs that get you killed." Is that true? I suspect the military and law enforcement may be an exceptions since there's a lot of social prestige, but I don't hate myself enough to read jezebel.
Im sure ill get modded down for this, but im actually glad someone called this guy out and suspended him. Way too many conferences already have one guy, or girl, who decides to bring a pot of shit to stir instead of any actual contribution to the conference. When they leave, they immediately claim their talk to be a success because "controversy = i must be right."
Alessandro Strumia showed up to a CERN conference with an axe to grind. He didnt show up to the workgroup with a new model for detecting leptons, a new theory of strong force interaction, or anything else that would have been legitimately controversial. Alessandro Strumia showed up to shitpost about gender. CERN is not 4chan. Come back when you want to solve real problems.
Good people go to bed earlier.
I think only the one slide got him fired. Maybe the way he presented as well, I haven't seen that. The quote about physics' invention is very easy to misread, I can't blame CERN for reacting to that slide. Everything else... he's just attempting to analyze the issue. Nothing wrong with that.
It's a witch hunt, the person who made this into an issue went out of their way to make it an issue. They're part of a extremist feminist group that has a history of getting offended because they want to be. Behold the piece of shit. An archive just in case. And enjoy the witch hunt in action.
This is everything that hasn't been scrubbed by CERN and may be incomplete. It's another Tim Hunt, Mat Taylor, donglegate in action. But remember, SJW's really aren't the problem...no no, they're just misunderstood, really out for the best, trying to make the world a better place by stomping on your face.
Om, nomnomnom...
And people wonder why we can't have an open dialog on sexism, racism, or any other -ism. Those who don't agree with some "ideal" are quickly expunged from their place in society, as if their contributions mean nothing and they are nobody.
We are wasting these incidents on witch hunting instead of an opportunity for an honest dialog. The net result will be people who don't think differently, only hiding their true feelings from society, and thus doing nothing to advance humanity and real, heartfelt equality.
Looking at the pdf presentation in the OP's link, he went somewhere that some people do not want to be discussed, Gender differences and gender preferences.
Instead of refuting his argument, it's easier to call him a sexist bigot and just discredit him that way.
Appears he's making the statement, historically men did dominate the field, but didn't primarily exclude women, and when women started joining they won Nobels. But many fields of study appears to have gender differences, and that sexism wasn't the cause, but gender preference.
He states his theory, cultural Marxism re-writing history to promote oppression as the reason women did not contribute. Along the same lines of re-shaping history to push the narative that exploration and advancements were performed by men who raped, murdered, stole land and murdered indigenous people.
You didn't even read the presentation, did you? There's was no sexism in it, just facts and data. His section on covering the 1st Workshop on Construction and Gender Equality was very compelling.
Truth spoken, world goes nuts. As is the norm now.
As far as whether it's appropriate - he's reacting to a huge political movement that's been going on for years now. He didn't just come out of nowhere and decide to do this.
In fact I'd say it's almost inevitable that highly analytical minds are going to react against this identity politics at some point. It's more surprising how rare it is to see reactions.
I swear, for all my straight-middle-class-Christian-white-male-ness, I really honestly do not know why so many of us in this category are so unreasonably threatened by those who aren't in the category.
It's really weird. It has defies any logic.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Does he not even recognize that ideas and discoveries by women were almost unanimously dismissed and women even prohibited from participating in scientific fields or hell, any academic field until recently?
It's very disappointing that some scientists fail to realize how drastically the world has changed in the last 100 years.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
the inflection MEN or MAN? I can't tell from the context.
It's "men" under a slide with heading "discrimination against women".
The very next slide has heading "discrimination against men".
People publishing media accounts of this crap with intentionally misleading exerts simply to stoke public outrage in order to rack up views for profit are the ones we should all be "outraged" at and demanding resignations from.
I am sure that Marie Curie's Nobel Prize was in Chemistry.
He is wrong, "physics was invented and built by physicists." But he was right, "it's not by invitation". It is not a social club. You don't get a invitation in the mail. You join by achievement, by accomplishment. All this gender talk is a distraction from real physics.
It's not opinion and the facts are not hard to find for anyone who can be bothered to look for even 20 seconds on Google. Sexism is quite real and it is distressingly common in the field of physics and many other branches of science. It's ironic that you ask for evidence of sexism in an article about a guy who was fired because he (apparently) exhibited sexism publicly. If that isn't evidence I'm not quite sure you understand the meaning of the term.
His presentation provided data to support his position. In contrast you are offering nothing.
You didn't even bother to read his presentation. Had you have bothered to do so you would have noticed the sentence cited in the headline occurs under the heading "discrimination against women".
BTW the very next slide includes the heading "discrimination against men".
The primary assertions: ...are largely indisputable.
- physics was largely invented and advanced by men
- meritocracies are based on results, not on your sex, no matter what society "wants" to see
Interesting Ted talk by a feminist activist who was making a documentary about 'men who hate women' and came to realize that in some ways men are marginalized: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... - the point that resonates with this thread is where she said "you can look around and say that every single person was born of a woman, and nobody will doubt or criticize that.... but if you say look around and nearly every single building you see was built pretty much by men and you get immediately attacked"
That said, in no particular order:
- there's no reason women can't participate in physics going forward. None.
- there's a HUGE amount of base sexism in the field today
- it's never been a pure meritocracy anyway
- there IS a cultural/social pressure from people who have this silly notion that half the participants in every field must be female. This is frankly stupid, and should be resisted. However, acting like an ass and flinging shit at a conference like this is simply not productive in the larger scope.
If you have SPECIFIC instances where A was promoted over B because A had a vagina and B had clearly better work, then let's talk.
To me it seems he's actually just butthurt because HE didn't get a promotion he wanted, and has been seething about it for a while.
-Styopa
All those things are caused by just two things:
* That resources are not infinite. (At the very least, the fact that not every bit of land is connected to every other bit of land, and that it can't be infinitely split.)
Non-infinite resources mean some kind of selection. Selection means conflict for the resources. Conflict means fighting.
* That we cannot know everyone else in their entirety. (Just like you cannot simulate the entire universe with a computer that’s itself inside the universe.)
Knowing somebody is required for understanding somebody. Including empathizing with them. Sure, you can do quite a bit of that, on quite a bit of people. But you can't 100% mirror somebody. Not even your spouse. And Dunbar's number sets the limit on how many people you can even see as people. (Not seeing people as people anymore is the problem with psychopathy.)
So with an overpopulation as utterly insane as that in our cities, and a globalization as massive as nowadays,
people are *bound* to psychopathically fight people beyond their circle of friends for resources.
With that information, you will realize that this is true for all life in the entire universe. To some degree or another. ;), or mass-extinction with everyone becoming a loner who never sees another human in his life (the wet dream of the opposite of globalists ;), we cannot expect to even come close to this.
I too, wish we could go beyond that. But apart from all people becoming "one" like the Borg (aka the wet dream of extreme globalists
All we can do, is mitigate its worst effects locally, by following the motto "There are no enemies. Only people we haven't understood yet.", and understand them. (Yes, *especially* the worst mass-murdering rapist whatevers.) And realize that that 1. does not mean we have to agree with them, and 2. mean that *we* should not mirror their behavior either. (As opposed to our current, revenge-based legal system and morals.)
And not meddle with the private matters of other groups that we aren't in conflict with over any resources that we both actually need. (Teamwork is still a good thing though. Being social is a strength.)
All of the white, Christian ones did. Especially in particle physics (which is not 200 years old, pinhead)
The "less privileged" races are still working on letting women drive and vote. Some are still mutilating their clitoris' at birth.
Too bad telling the truth is so frowned upon these days.
The idiot mentioned it in his own presentation: Women are overrepresented in the CERN administration. Why did he think he could give a scientific argument against the feminist agenda without getting reprimanded?
"significant women physicists" yielded: ... for 6.8 Million results
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
- https://gizmodo.com/these-17-w...
-
Prof Strumia should have been strummed out for not doing any basic research before stating his conclusion.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
That's Strange
You pretend to be trying to bring people together but everyone knows you're polarizing and trying to grab power. At some point in the future things will come to a head. You will have nabbed every last weak-willed individual around. You will have burned too many rubes, abused too many men, suffocated too many women. You'll have all the people you can ever recruit. And standing against you will be all the people who couldn't be convinced by your bigotry and lies. And that's going to be a whole lot more people than you have. And they'll be stronger. And they'll be smarter. What's your end game? Might want to think about that while you still have the chance to back down.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
She had one in physics (1903) shared with her husband.
When I read the headline my first thought was "A certain Madame Curie would like to have a word with this guy..."
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The more and more this small but loud group keeps pushing this nonsense, the sooner there will be a massive pushback against them and this agenda. Which is a shame because the snapback AWLAYS will undo what was previously accomplished.
What these idiots fail to realize is that it is OK to stop with progressive ideas once you reach a certain point. The people who used to push equality of the sexes have now transitioned into female subjugation of men at the expense of everything else. As someone who totally signed on for equality, this is NOT ok.
If you are a physicist, board member etc, were placed into that position by merit, and happen to be a woman good for you!
We should be at a point in history where we don't look at sex as a determining factor but ignore it in favor of a list of successful options.
But no, we aren't and can't focus on more important things because these loud nitwits have a hammer and see everything as a nail.
I mean, his data does show women are being hired into positions with fewer citations particularly since the mid 2000's but with a massive and dramatic disparity shifting in around 2015.
The intro should have been "Men" by Martin Mull.
(Part of which is known as the theme song for "Two and Half Men".)
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
His being a dumb ass got him fired. Why do idiots like this feel entitled to bring up their backwards politics at non-political events?
If I'm working a job and presenting for my company and I go off on a rant about something political guess what will happen to me?
If you guess I probably will get fired you win. I'm tired of all these over privileged cry babies feeling like they have a right to throw out their politics on company time.
It's worth pointing out that the opposite would almost certainly not be the case though. If he had done a presentation on "Gender Diversity in Physics" that reached the opposite conclusions, the complaints wouldn't be made. And if you haven't noticed, the trend by the SJW crowd is to insert politics at ALL events, because "there is no such thing as a non-political event", and "being able to ignore politics is a white male privilege" and if you disagree, you're a bigot.
I'd be all for keeping these events non-political. Too bad one side has already decided that bridge must be crossed.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
Well, more specifically, a physicists wanting his and only his politics injected.
They took the title out of context and did so on purpose. I'm pretty sure that's slander in the UK.
Madam Curie had her own achievements. She didnt get where she was as a part of some politically correct forced diversity programme. Don't be so sure she would support such a programme. Everything I've read about her indicates she absolutely would not.
It's ironic that you ask for evidence of sexism in an article about a guy who was fired because he (apparently) exhibited sexism publicly. If that isn't evidence I'm not quite sure you understand the meaning of the term.
You're begging the question.
He may well be a sexist - I don't know, but you can't justify the claim using the claim itself as evidence.
Mashiki wrote:
It's a witch hunt, the person who made this into an issue went out of their way to make it an issue. They're part of a extremist feminist group that has a history of getting offended because they want to be. Behold the piece of shit. An archive just in case. And enjoy the witch hunt in action.
This is everything that hasn't been scrubbed by CERN and may be incomplete. It's another Tim Hunt, Mat Taylor, donglegate in action. But remember, SJW's really aren't the problem...no no, they're just misunderstood, really out for the best, trying to make the world a better place by stomping on your face.
The twitter post you're calling "piece of shit" is @jesswade:
"When people in positions of power in academia behave like this and retain their status they don’t only push one generation of underrepresented groups out of science, but train others that it’s ok to propagate this ideology for years to come."
The "witch hunt in action" link shows a collage of Kavanaugh headlines by the poster @BeastOfWood with lines like "white male entitlement", and "white male supremacy" marked, it's not evident to me how the poster or the collage is relevant. The last link is just the same slides as posted in the summary.
And Newton's Principia is a "rape manual". Didn't you know? Allow me to quote: "Because "it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possible Sexed nature of the equation is not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged what goes the fastest."
Also:
"The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, we attribute to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids...
"From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders"
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
It's worth pointing out that the opposite would almost certainly not be the case though. If he had done a presentation on "Gender Diversity in Physics" that reached the opposite conclusions, the complaints wouldn't be made.
Yes, precisely.
For an example more close to home for most of us, consider pretty much every non-political online discussion forum ever.
If someone posts something that's political but trendy, that's fine. But if somebody reacts to it, posts the opposite point of view or even just tries to be balanced or put it in perspective, he'll get taken to the woodshed for "being political", "flaming", etc.
A single instance does not make a statistic. The great women on STEM do exist, but they are few. Far too few for this to be a measurement error.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Discriminating against men is fine, after all they are scum. However, discriminating against the true female master-gender is a crime against nature!
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I know a few female PhDs in engineering subjects. When asked, all of them said that gender discrimination was not an issue in their studies or their research, except for the very rare "conservative old professor" that was easily avoided. Gender discrimination in the hard sciences is at worst a myth and at best irrelevant. The rare cases were it happens get blown all out of proportion to fuel an utterly sexist and misandrist movement.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
So? Noether was pretty good. She was also an exception. They do not make a trend. Equal opportunity just means the exceptions get their chance. It does not mean suddenly everybody has to be equal. BTW, less women in the hard sciences does not indicate less intelligence or skill, it indicates different choices.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
> It's worth pointing out that the opposite would almost certainly not be the case though
Yes it is incredible. I mean, I got fired for my talk on "Why Nazis were right and why Hitler did not kill enough Jews". The other guy, got a free pass, presenting the opposite talk "Horrors of the Nazi regime".
It is almost as if two sides of an argument weren't the same. This difference of treatment is horrific, if you ask me.
You can find the slides from the presentation here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c_NyUhOZ8erdqU2AGZJZtNfFeA91Kefj/view
It's a rational, data-driven, statistical analysis of gender discrimination/preferences in physics.
People hate this guy because he presents facts, and the facts don't support the "party line".
"Serial Murderer" is also a field made up of mostly men!
So is "Military General".
And for the SAME REASON.
But please, someone FIX these egregious wrongs....maybe AFTER you read about why they exist. :-\
MY GOD peoples is f'n stupid.
The real crux of his presentation is probably Slide 15. He's just sore he wasn't hired for a position where he felt he was more qualified than someone who was hired.
The issue is he implies it is a MALE invention. I thought the issue was he claimed it to be an INVENTION rather than a discovery.
> If geocentrism really has been discredited, then quote the research that discredits it!
Easy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model
> Sometimes, the results of the "research" is pretty overwhelming, and quoting it at length over and over again for each layperson who stumbles by is not an effective use of time.
The argument that your'e too intellectually lazy to refute weak claims is something that discredits you. You do not, because you cannot, refute the points.
> For example, it's not been that long since women could actually attend a university and get a degree in physics.
If only that was something we could fact check!
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_women's_education&oldid=861933446
Part of the reason they believe this is because some time after that, Bettisia Gozzadini is lecturing there after having earned a degree from the same institution.
Now, are you going to move the goalpost and say that you wanted to claim something other than what you actually said? Or maybe you could say that the better part of one thousand years isn't "that long" in your opinion?
> But going over this again and again for people who will respond with "NUH UH!!!" is just a waste of time.
You haven't "gone over" anything at all. You've just ranted and shown us how you are too privileged to give facts in support of your assertions. Frankly, it's more a waste of time for me to do this for you than the reverse, and yet I know that the privilege you want is BS.
We have a word for people who demand to be believed without evidence: charlatans.
> It's not opinion and the facts are not hard to find for anyone who can be bothered to look for even 20 seconds on Google
A set that doesn't include you yourself, based on revealed preference. Why should we believe you when you won't even spend 20 seconds thinking through what you're saying and who demands that their critics write their arguments for them?
Frankly, I've come to assume that anyone posting like this is a bot or paid shill. You won't argue because you can't afford to get tied down in details, you have too many accounts to run and so you just need to make your views look popular and obvious as a form of social proof. So you set things up to privilege yourself against having to do anything in an argument and let the other sock puppets, along with the legitimately deluded, agree with you.
> It's ironic that you ask for evidence of sexism in an article about a guy who was fired because he (apparently) exhibited sexism publicly. If that isn't evidence I'm not quite sure you understand the meaning of the term.
The problem is that you call him sexist rather than explaining why he's wrong. This has created a reality distortion field wherein facts that are hurtful are labeled problematic and never dealt with intellectually, because the cognitive dissonance is too much for you to handle given that you constructed your beliefs out of whatever was convenient for you rather than any set of principles that can be articulates. Which is why you have to privilege yourself from arguing to avoid losing.
> So is pretending to be ignorant as an argument tactic to pretend sexism isn't really a serious problem in the physical sciences.
One tell for ignorance is being unable to articulate one's positions, despite wasting who knows how long typing up an evidence-free post. Claiming that you don't even have to make a claim is merely an assertion that you deserve to be privileged over everyone else. Nobody but those who already agree with you are willing to grant you that privilege, especially when your own laziness is given as the only justification for it.
There are plenty of people who are awful to people based on their sex. It cuts both ways. There's no reason to assign group blame for the actions of individuals based on the genitals someone was born with, which is what the reasonable people are objecting to. The usual tactic is to deflect that by finding some unreasonable and unlikable person to associate your opponents with, but two can play that game and it's a stupid one to play.
Have you accounted for selection bias? By limiting your sample to women who have made it to the PhD level, you are potentially omitting women who did not progress as far because of gender discrimination. Some women are better than others at working in an environment with a pervasive "boys' club" mentality and thus may not see gender discrimination as an issue because they are less affected by it. Discrimination is a very difficult thing to quantify, so you can get very different results depending on who you ask, what you ask, and how you ask.
If you have SPECIFIC instances where A was promoted over B because A had a vagina and B had clearly better work, then let's talk.
He did exactly that, slide 15.
. However, acting like an ass and flinging shit at a conference like this...
He was SPECIFICALLY invited to talk about gender and discrimination. People who wanted to hear traditional narrative, should have warned him.
This was a colossally dumb move, especially coming from a person in a research/academic job. This is a white-hot super-sensitive topic. Go ahead and argue "freedom of speech" until you're blue in the face. Freedom of speech means you have the legal right to say stuff. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you're immune from professional consequences. What did he think was gonna happen? I looked at this guys presentation. It's 90% discussion and 10% hard data. The hard data is interesting and worth discussing. The rest is near-alt-right-discussion-board-level talk that amounts to "hey guys, maybe men ARE actually smarter than women (snicker snicker)".
This guy should have known better. Larry Summers should have known better. People think of this as a free speech issue, but I think it's more like a surgical or a law issue. You're not gonna get operating privileges at the local hospital just because you're a random schmoe with some half-baked idea about how to cut people up. You don't get to represent clients in court unless you've proven your qualifications. Same here - if you're an actual expert in a field that's directly relevant to gender differences, then you're qualified to wade into this mess and help sort it out. Otherwise, you're better off keeping your mouth shut, ESPECIALLY if you're male.
Feel like relating personal anecdotes about how your daughter is different than your son? Just take a cyanide pill. You'll get the same result with much less pain. Want to promote societal stereotypes? More time efficient to just jump off a building. Try to address the political side of gender issues as an amateur? You might as well be shooting your career in the head. This guys presentation did all this and more.
Physicists are expensive. Get women into physics and they become significantly less so. It's the same across all STEM fields. It's got nothing to do with diversity and everything to do with wages.
As an added bonus men and women are fighting among themselves over gender issues, making a nice skism in the working class.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
One of the great ideals in forming the European Union was being able to collectively engage in large projects like the LHC and all the new physics that has flowed from it. So CERN has decided that politics trumps (sorry!) this researcher’s ability to do physics. If he had been wearing a Hawaiian shirt, would he be executed?
Meanwhile, Europe has totally bowed out of the CRISPR/GMO revolution. I’m waiting for word from Brussels that the world is flat.
All that baggage is the result of evolution. Quit asking for our species to evolve more, and instead, ask for our minds to become intelligently designed.
(Next up: who is the analyst that we'll sucker into writing the requirements?)
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
GLWT
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
He's totally being a dick about it, and I agree with other posters, I reviewed the slide deck and it was a amateurish presentation. Everyone pretty much knows that the one most important aspect of being promoted is if your boss likes you or not. And that has a lot to do with if you are of the same ilk. Same personality, like the same sports team, maybe the same college, hang out at the same bar, or are friends of a friend. All of that crap that has nothing to do with merits. So if women were only allowed to start publishing papers in 1965...per the profs own chart, yeah, sorry but even 50 years later they are going to be underrepresented because you need a bunch of old profs to kick it first.
And that's what I don't get about the Slashdot crowd. Everyone has a story about Joe Blow getting promoted just because he was in the same frat as his boss, but when it comes to the women question it's all "Meritocracy is all that counts". Where does anyone see a true meritocracy anywhere in society. Yes, barriers are greatly reduced, but like most stuff you will need a few generations to expire before things are truly level.
Where in his presentation did he demonstrate sexism?
He may have demonstrated blindness to sexism, but he did not as far as I can see demonstrate sexism himself.
A better solution to the problem would have been to show him the sexism he wasn't seeing.
Have been about SJW feelings, outrage and political correctness.
Who cares about facts - someone will just tell you you're a Nazi for disagreeing with something crazy
If what he said wasn't true - and should be removed from the conference - then there mustn't be a problem with sexism in science, right?
But we all know that there is a problem.
So what he said was true - science is mostly built by men because women have been excluded for the majority of times and places where it was practised, and that needs to change.
So what the hell is going on here?
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Okay, let's look at his presentation. Helpfully he didn't number the pages.
"% of women in different fields"
He argues that because there are more women than men in some fields, there is no discrimination and it's just a natural balance for each subject. The obvious flaw in this argument is that it assumes that discrimination is equal in app professions and subjects. Even within STEM it's uneven.
"% of women in theory"
Classic "gender equality paradox" argument, which simply ignores the different social structures in each country and either discards or focuses on the outliers as suits it.
"Sexism in citations"
Decides to ignore this paper because of a single sentence in the abstract. Handy because it provide some compelling evidence that his hypothesis is wrong.
"Sexism in conferences"
Presents a graph showing that there is an issue, then dismisses it by pointing out that the issues start much earlier than the conference... Which seems to be admitting that there is a problem. Then deflects by complaining about women only conferences, right below the graph showing the need for them.
"Gender asymmetry in hiring"
Women are hired with fewer citations... And as he pointed out in the previous slide, women get fewer citations so that's unsurprising. Also fails to consider different disciplines here, he just lumps all difference sciences together. Note that the graph also shows pretty clearly the problem women face as they reach their mid-20s and people start to assume they will drop out to have families.
"Gender asymmetry in hiring: by country"
Unfortunately we don't know what he was saying with this slide up. Since it otherwise undermines his core point I imagine it was something about how the gap is there in every country regardless of level of equality or something, a pretty lame argument.
"Discrimination against men"
Here we get to the classic anti-feminist nonsense. Men are obliged to fight in wars, well feminists tried to stop that. Then the widely debunked story about Oxford extending exam times for women. It just goes on and on like that.
I haven't got time to go through the rest, but I can see he is using number of citations as a metric which is obviously flawed. Everyone wants to cite well known people, and people working in more niche areas are clearly not going to get as many citations.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Is he right or wrong?
Oh wait, I scrolled down and he starts talking about Cultural Marxism.
Yes, he cites a Nazi conspiracy theory. Holy crap, no wonder he was fired. Not just for his views on women, but for the antisemitism and anti-feminist memes.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Easy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
If geocentrism really has been discredited, then quote the research that discredits it!
(I'm gonna say that another 2,000 times until you get the point)
The argument that your'e too intellectually lazy to refute weak claims is something that discredits you. You do not, because you cannot, refute the points.
Actually, I can. But you'll just respond with NUH UH again, so what's the point? You will never be convinced, so attempting to convince you is an utter waste of time.
For example, it's not been that long since women could actually attend a university and get a degree in physics.
If only that was something we could fact check!
If only you could have bothered reading just the next sentence. Soooooo close to finding the point but that would have been dangerously close to needing to reconsider your opinion. And we can't have that!!
You haven't "gone over" anything at all.
Wait....you mean in a post describing how it's pointless to go over something again you were surprised that it wasn't gone over again?
Does light escape your surface, or is the event horizon within your skull?
> If geocentrism really has been discredited, then quote the research that discredits it!
> (I'm gonna say that another 2,000 times until you get the point)
Easy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model
I've made my argument and I won't make yours for you. You will not because you cannot. You don't have facts to support it with and the cognitive dissonance of trying clearly hurts your brain so much that you can't even use it for long enough to make your points.
That said, have fun pondering this paradox of leftism, how can there even be sexism any more when you can simply identify as the other sex to fix the problem? :) It's not like you have to change anything about yourself to decide to have a different identity. Sexism solved! We'll just ask people to identify as women until all things are perfectly balanced, just as Thanos intended.
I'm sorry but one of the most significant figures of modern physics was a woman and she was regarded as crazy like most breakthrough scientist, right up until she scored two significant Nobel prizes. On her own. Madam Currie.
Throughout history there are women paying key roles in all sorts of discoveries. Not so much as men because they have a womb, but significant enough to demonstrate equal prowess in research and discovery. This sort of bullshit can be dismantled swiftly and on the spot, no need for a firing drama imho.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
A physicist just wanting to do physics without politics injected
If he had really been wanting to do just that why would he go to a workshop titled "High Energy Physics Theory and Gender" instead of one just on physics without the gender? The difference is that if you go to a physics conference and say something stupid you will be shown to be stupid by use of logic and data. If you go to a gender conference and say something stupid you are burnt at the stake as a heretic. Only one of these approaches teaches you why you are wrong and lets you, and others, learn from your mistake thereby helping to fix the problem...which is why we use that approach in science.
...there would be no men physicists.
Well, he's not wrong. Almost all the biggest minds in physics and math were men
True but have you ever stopped to wonder why? This is NOT evidence that men are better at physics but evidence of the extremely sexist society which has existed for centuries. Yes, things are a lot better now than they used to be but you have to be a monumental idiot to not realize that sexism in the past was directly responsible for the lack of women in physics or indeed any science.
This is what should have been pointed out to him by someone in the audience. This is the way that you fix idiotic thinking. If you scare them into never expressing their views you will never have the opportunity to correct them.
Why not go all the way and say physics was built by white, affluent men who went to certain universities and lived in certain cities.
Physics was never done by the peasant class. Historically they were nobles. In the modern age, they are mostly affluent or middle class. No physicists I know has a working class background.
Physics was mostly done by white men of certain countries living in certain cities.
Most physics comes from education and work in certain institutions. There is virtually chance of making any impact from Bumfark state university.
I'm sure there is lots and lots of data to support all of this.
Why stop at men and women? Go all out. Physics would progress best if all of them were selected based on their university, family class, race etc based on historical data.
it's "Locker room talk" and a generally unfriendly work environment.
The nerds I know have very, very little tact. The few who do know what tact is have to try really, really hard to avoid saying incredibly off color crap. There are entire books about dead baby jokes and enough jokes about dead hookers and pedophiles to fill several books over. Being a nerd and spending a lifetime around other nerds I can tell you they'll cheerfully spout these gags along with harmless Monty Python jokes and be completely obvious to the difference between the two....
They're not doing it on purpose, but like I said, no tact. That isn't to say they're being tactless. That implies they know what tact is and they're doing it on purpose. When I say no tact I mean the absence of the stuff. A complete inability to read a room.
I remember a buddy of mine at work once telling a dirty joke about a girl he knew with big boobs wearing a t-shirt with D20s on the nipples and the phrase "Yes, they're natural" methodically explaining this joke to me with our boss (who was a woman and fortunately a good sport) in the room. When I say 'no tact' that is what I mean. This was one of the tamer examples.
I don't think it's unfair when women are uncomfortable around that talk. I don't think it's unreasonable to want to teach men and boys tact. But if we're not going to have that conversation and just take for granted that it's the woman's problem, or that there's no problem at all, then we're going to lose women in science. Not all of them, but a lot of them.
Now, that said, there's a lot of men who would like very much to lose those women. Part of the problem is wages. More people in your field means less money for you. I can't argue that except to say our society as a whole has it's priorities backwards and that there'd be plenty of money if we'd stop spending so much blowing up brown folk overseas. That's not me being flippant, we spent $600 billion this year dropping bombs.
And there's social status. Men, especially white men, are losing some of the high status they once had. Again, this isn't up for debate. It's just a fact. White men were treated better by and large as little as 20-30 years ago and a lot of them have taken notice of that. It's good to be the king. They got preferential treatment in loan applications, schools, job applications, police interactions and a variety of other things.
I think the correct approach is the one Bernie Sanders is taking where he works to bring everyone together. Liz Warren does the same thing. It's damn hard to do though. Our ruling class would like very much for us working class stiffs to fight among ourselves. And, well, so far we've been doing just that.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
and I'm not really seeing that. What I _am_ seeing is a very small group of nut case feminists who are blown way out of proportion by right wing media. Show me the left wing equivalent of Alex Jones with 2 million+ followers and I'll start to buy what you're selling. But all I'm seeing is a few fat chicks running women's studies departments. Yeah, they might make your life hell for a semester while you satisfy a gen-ed requirement (if you're not clever like me and use the Chinese History course to do it), but they're ultimately powerless and completely without any sort of following let alone political power. Meanwhile the aforementioned Alex Jones has spoken directly with our president on more than one occasion...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1) Speak inconvenient truth to power
2) Get stomped on because (1)
3) $$$ (?)
(T)he (O)ld (M)an
Women in Europe, where physics was invented, were generally discouraged from pursuing professional work ... not just in STEM topics, but also in the arts. For example, Mozart and Mendelssohn both had very musically-talented sisters.
Up until the 20th century, most of the STEM exceptions include female astronomers like Leavitt and Herschel (and a handful of mathematicians). After that, women like Marie Curie and Lisa Meitner were active 'inventors' ... and then there's the case of Einstein's first wife....
So there's little doubt that 'men invented' physics to a large extent because women were excluded (except in 'support' positions). Leavitt (like Burnell, later) probably deserved a Nobel. I can completely understand some anger about such a bald assertion.
"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson
"If I misunderstand you, its your fault."
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
> Interestingly, "charlatan" is also the word for people who want to be believed on the basis of a single out of context factoid.
A claim can be refuted by counter-examples.
> You are in effect arguing that because one woman was able to teach at a university in the 1200s the argument "it's not been that long since women could actually attend a university and get a degree in physics" is completely invalidated. A single exception does not invalidate anything: note "women" is plural, and Bettisia Gozzadini was not a physicist. The OP's goalposts remain unmoved.
That only gets you up to 1390, at best, and that's for women who *teach* there. Presumably, many more were educated long before that, unless you believe that every woman who graduated became a professor there.
> Moving your goalposts a bit, we find that the first recorded female professor of physics was Laura Bassi in the 1700s, also (interestingly) at the University of Bologna.
That doesn't help the OP's claims any, but whatever.
> So no, one exception does not invalidate a general rule
That's like saying the statement "there are no even primes" isn't invalidated just because 2 exists.
Anyhow, the argument would be that women have been getting education for a very long time, not that there were no barriers in getting there. Everyone has faced lots of barriers, but women have gotten educations for a long time. Right now, they're doing better than men in university, in fact. So I'm not sure how you can claim that allegations of historical oppression are stopping women today from studying physics and you don't appear to be any too clear on that either, given that you did nothing to connect the dots. I had to refute that because it was pretty much the only claim made by OP, but you had the opportunity to do more.
Then again, I should credit you, you gave the best argument so far. That's a very low bar to clear over those who haven't given anything really, but it's a start. Think through your beliefs a bit more and we can talk again.
> An archive just in case.
We will never need it. The Twitter text will stay. Victors do not have shame.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
> Behold the piece of shit [twitter.com].
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/peo...
19 publications, 2 where she was the first author.
Including this immortal contribution to physics:
Tesh S, Wade J, 2017, 'Look happy dear, you've just made a discovery', PHYSICS WORLD, Vol: 30, Pages: 31-33, ISSN: 0953-8585
Has a fricking Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
because with her 19 pulbications...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
>This includes the IOP Bell-Burnell Award for Women in Physics 2016, IOP Early Career Physics Communicator Prize 2015. This includes award of the Robert Perrin Award for Material Science from the Institute of Materials Minerals and Mining. Specifically on criteria 7, Wade was recognized for her achievements by the US state department as the UK representative for the 2017 "Hidden No More" visit, which included representatives from 48 countries world wide
> It is a bit concerning that she created your Wikipedia page and you created hers, and you both work together in the same academic institution?
My rage on world's insanity, as usual, quenched by unexpected humour I found in this.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Part of the problem is wages. More people in your field means less money for you. I can't argue that
Allow me. If you want the big bucks then you need a team. Best of all that frees you up to get on with the interesting stuff, in exchange for a bit of time managing the people doing the lower level stuff. I've lost count of how many libraries I've written to do the cool stuff and then handed over to the desktop/web people to wrap a GUI around, and they seem pretty happy with that.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
- James Watson, Nobel Laureate, discoverer of DNA structure, one of the most important discoveries in the history of biology
- Tim Hunt, Nobel Laureate
- James Damore, not a Nobel Laureate (what were you thinking, James?)
- Alessandro Strumia, scholar that contributed to science more than Jess Wade (see https://scholar.google.com/cit...)
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Many decades ago a simple mantra went the rounds. It was aimed at racism. But it applies to this situation, too.
"A mind is a terrible thing to waste."
This guy may be a sexist turd; but, is that any excuse to waste his mind?
{^_^} Joanne
Google finds me a /. Article from last week about how on average women are better at stem than men, but that starting around he top ten percent it crosses back the other way quickly. At the 90th its 50/50 but at the 95th it was more like 15/85 towards the men. So even though women are better on average the 10 percent that are best at stem are mostly men. Less than 10% work in stem, and making the assumption that those best at it would choose the career, it isn't surprising there are fewer women in stem.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
This is how Mashiki's mind works. He gets triggered easily because he believes in a vast conspiracy of feminists trying to destroy the world with Cultural Marxism, and so whenever anyone says anything he disagrees with in the slightest he assumes they are part of it and the embodiment of pure evil.
So why don't you prove me wrong. Go out, publicly, in front of the media and take ads out in the paper with the two following subjects: "The wage gap is a myth." "No, the US rate of sexual assaults is not higher then the Congo."
I'll wait. Enjoy the public lynch mob by the way.
Om, nomnomnom...
A simple google search for "the wage gap is a myth" shows many, many people who have said this publicly and somehow survived without being lynched.
In fact I'd go as far as to say it's approaching the most popular viewpoint now.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
CERN, like many members of the community, considers that the presentation, with its attacks on individuals, was unacceptable in any professional context and was contrary to the CERN Code of Conduct. It, therefore, decided to remove the slides from the online repository."
Okay. So I read the document/presentation.
I bolded two particular concerns of mine:
Where are the attacks on individuals? Did I miss it? Is the wording poor and they meant attacks on groups?
contrary to the Code of Conduct... maybe I missed something here but since there are no individual attacks and no group attacks, what exactly was done that was contrary to the Code of Conduct? I did see a lot of discussion abut gender topics, but I saw no assertions from the writer; although I did see assertions by others who are cited. Perhaps the people who were cited should be subjected to the penalties of the Code of Conduct?
TL;DR, this shit is coming to Linux now that Linus has been manipulated. *sigh*
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Mashiki wrote:
So why don't you prove me wrong. Go out, publicly, in front of the media and take ads out in the paper with the two following subjects: "The wage gap is a myth." "No, the US rate of sexual assaults is not higher then the Congo."
I'll wait. Enjoy the public lynch mob by the way.
Don't Buy Into The Gender Pay Gap Myth. The Gender Pay Gap is a Complete Myth Wage Gap Myth Exposed — By Feminists The ‘Wage Gap’ Myth That Won’t Die .These are just the first few hits.
I have not been able to find anyone that supports the idea that sexual assaults in the US is higher than in Congo. When Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State she raised the issue of sexual violence with Congolese President Joseph Kabila; I believe she would support your position.
Gianotti, who led Atlas, one of Cern’s two main detector projects that pinpointed the Higgs Boson particle, added that while her role “demonstrated there is no prejudice against women in those positions, some of my female colleagues had a much harder time than I did”
A simple google search for "the wage gap is a myth" shows many, many people who have said this publicly and somehow survived without being lynched.
Then go a head and do it. I'll wait, let's see if your view or my view is the correct one.
Om, nomnomnom...
These are just the first few hits.
And yet feminists, governments, politicians, media still keep pushing the "wage gap" myth. I've heard no less then 6 ads pushing that on the CBC, FM96, and on 680 News(those are all in Ontario).
I have not been able to find anyone that supports the idea that sexual assaults in the US is higher than in Congo. When Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State she raised the issue of sexual violence with Congolese President Joseph Kabila; I believe she would support your position.
Where do you think the latest 1:3, 1:4, 1:5 women are victims of sexual assault bullshit is coming from? It's parroted all over the place, those rates put the sexual assault levels above the levels of the Congo. Those numbers have been used for years, more then a decade actually. I've even seen feminist groups trying to push the 1:2 women will be victims of sexual assault by the time they're 35.
Om, nomnomnom...
Interesting. So if Mashiki had linked to those things you found on your simple google search, would you then admit that hey - maybe there ISN'T a gender wage gap?
Or would you, and this is what I'd be on, discredit those links, and that Mashiki just up to his usual craziness? Would you still say it's the popular view, and not astroturf or fake news propaganda spread by, say, Russian trolls?
Well if Animojo is consistent in one thing, it's his shilling of feminist talking points. So that means one of two things, either they're realizing that they've been lied to...repeatedly and aren't sucking back the koolaid quite as hard. Or, the talking point is falling out of favor with whatever dogma is being pushed by the political/social groups that they follow. It may be a combination of both of course, especially since "the normies" have started banging on and mocking feminists over this. But it really hasn't stopped those groups from pushing it, rather they've simply reworded it and/or pushed it to a lower priority.
Om, nomnomnom...
Yes, a person that believes in guilt before innocence is indeed a piece of shit. There's no other way to label them. See, deciding to throw a fundamental cornerstone of the legal system over your shoulder because you want to ruin someones life/push an agenda/etc simply makes you such.
FYI the last link is there because CERN started scrubbing everything, until there was a backlash against it. Funny how a supposedly scientific organization that's supposed to find the truth of something was die-hard set to remove anything that questioned orthodoxy.
Om, nomnomnom...
Do what? Take out a newspaper ad? Nah, I'm not wasting my money on that nonsense. And also I don't think the wage gap is a myth.
On the other hand I can simply point to the moderation on any post suggesting that the wage gap is real to prove that the opposite is true, at least on Slashdot.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Yes, a person that believes in guilt before innocence is indeed a piece of shit. There's no other way to label them. See, deciding to throw a fundamental cornerstone of the legal system over your shoulder because you want to ruin someones life/push an agenda/etc simply makes you such.
Could you please point out the part of her tweet that is a matter for the legal system because I fail to see your point?
"When people in positions of power in academia behave like this and retain their status they don’t only push one generation of underrepresented groups out of science, but train others that it’s ok to propagate this ideology for years to come."
These are just the first few hits.
And yet feminists, governments, politicians, media still keep pushing the "wage gap" myth. I've heard no less then 6 ads pushing that on the CBC, FM96, and on 680 News(those are all in Ontario).
I fail to see how this is relevant, just about any position can be heard (which is part of the point i was making).
I have not been able to find anyone that supports the idea that sexual assaults in the US is higher than in Congo. When Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State she raised the issue of sexual violence with Congolese President Joseph Kabila; I believe she would support your position.
Where do you think the latest 1:3, 1:4, 1:5 women are victims of sexual assault bullshit is coming from? It's parroted all over the place, those rates put the sexual assault levels above the levels of the Congo. Those numbers have been used for years, more then a decade actually. I've even seen feminist groups trying to push the 1:2 women will be victims of sexual assault by the time they're 35.
Different definitions of sexual assault and varying methodology seem like the obvious answer to me. What has been reported from Congo is the systematic use of rape in armed conflict. The legal definition of sexual assault is much wider and varies depending on jurisdiction. What is considered "sexual assault" in a school or workplace environment is wider still and then we have daily speech in communities with different values. Methodology can range from reported to self-rated to interviews such as "have you experienced X?".