Sciencemadness Discussion Board - how many females here - Powered by XMB 1.9.11 (Debug Mode)

how many females here

azo - 19-6-2011 at 23:18

I no there is proberly enough polls on this site ,but there is on thing that i am curious about is how many of the members on this site are females.
And it would be interesting to me to see if females are as interested in chemistry as males.
Or maybe when you add your user name you could add m or f at the end .

regards azo

[Edited on 20-6-2011 by azo]

metalresearcher - 20-6-2011 at 00:44

I think very little. By 2005 I had a girlfriend who is a lab assistant in a secondary school and had a lab education.
But this is exceptional particularly when you get a relationship with such a girl as well.
But the girl appeared as unpredictable as an unstable chemical with an NFPA704 4-4-5 rating that I broke off the relationship.

[Edited on 2011-6-20 by metalresearcher]

azo - 20-6-2011 at 01:12

lol very funny

i just cant understand why they would not be interested. because here in australia females just about do all jobs these days.
Its like they do it to say to you we can do anything you can.
i wish i married one like that

REGARDS AZO

LanthanumK - 20-6-2011 at 03:45

I think most are males as well.

bbartlog - 20-6-2011 at 04:47

Most women are practical people. Almost everything pursued on this site is impractical.

LanthanumK - 20-6-2011 at 04:52

Making chemicals and apparatus is more practical than texting and shopping.

Mailinmypocket - 20-6-2011 at 13:25

I think for the most part they don't see the point... The reason I say this that two of my friends who are girls always say things like "I don't understand you and your chemicals" or the call me a freak for getting beyond excited over UPS delivering sulfuric acid...

Actually come to think of it I wish I had at least one friend who took interest in chemistry... lol I think it is just a very particular hobby and if u like it you love it, and if not... It's just chemicals that sometimes have a "cool" or "pretty" end product!

That being said there are obviously plenty of female chemists and everything else, maybe they just don't like message boards as much as guys? :S who knows!

Bot0nist - 20-6-2011 at 16:22

I don't think its the lack of interest in forums in general. Just check forums with a more female centric theme, like babycenter and such, they seem to have lots of members. I think it may be the subject. Not chemistry, but (amateur) home chemistry. The topic just seems male oriented, along with pyro. I'm not sure why. None of my friends, co-workers, or wife have an interest in it either. Must just be a relatively rare hobby now a days.

I too long for a real world friend to share the magic of simple chemistering with.

Alas, you text filled rectangles are my only sanctuary from the woes of misunderstanding...

[Edited on 21-6-2011 by Bot0nist]

Arthur Dent - 21-6-2011 at 03:22

I share some chemistry knowledge with my little sister. We're 13 years apart and when she was very young, i would prepare small, colorful experiments for her and that would fascinate her to no end!

Now, she's been a pharmacist for 10 years, owns four drugstores and she gets all excited when I buy her a 100 ml graduated cylinder (she keeps breaking them). In return, she brings me large empty pills jars that I use to store my reagents. I always feel I might have had a tiny bit to do with her success and her knowledge in science in her early years.

I finished college and got into technical school for two years, and ended up being a graphic artist and computer specialist, far away from my early life passions in chemistry and electronics. My sister went much further in her education and I am so proud of her. It's fun when we can "talk shop" a little bit and I discuss about my latest labware acquisitions, and she actually knows what I'm talking about.

But that's it, I have no one else to talk about chemistry. @ Mailinmypocket, I know exactly what you mean about being a freak in the eyes of my friends and neighbors. LOL

Robert

cyanureeves - 21-6-2011 at 04:41

dude thats a heck of a story. to have a professional on your side like that is what keeps enthusiasts safe from witch hunters.

Saerynide - 21-6-2011 at 10:56

At least one

Maybe guys simply just assume everyone else is a guy too?

Interestingly, I'm not really the odd one out of my friends. I have pretty crazy friends. A lot of us are also engineers, so that says something about the things we like to do/make/build in our free time

[Edited on 6/22/2011 by Saerynide]

condennnsa - 21-6-2011 at 12:34

Wow I had no idea that we have an international hazard girl on sciencemadness...
Browsing through your posts , saerynide, I must say, you must be one hell of a woman...

[Edited on 21-6-2011 by condennnsa]

iHME - 21-6-2011 at 13:13

I once met a female with a keen interest in HE's. Very interesting and strange at the same time.

Fleaker - 21-6-2011 at 20:42

Quote: Originally posted by iHME

I once met a female with a keen interest in HE's. Very interesting and strange at the same time.

Yikes! I bet she had an explosive temperament!

azo - 21-6-2011 at 22:36

well i would have to say it doesn;t look like there are any female members , i thought it would be low but not zero

well having a relationship with a female that also thrive energetics ,going out getting sloshed and than having an argument !that could be dangerous.

regards azo

Saerynide - 22-6-2011 at 06:32

Quote: Originally posted by Mailinmypocket

I think for the most part they don't see the point... The reason I say this that two of my friends who are girls always say things like "I don't understand you and your chemicals" or the call me a freak for getting beyond excited over UPS delivering sulfuric acid...

When my 100% H2SO4 came (yes, "100%" according to merck << 1 sig fig? 3?? *shrug*), I excitedly dug it out from beneath the verm while everyone else backed away

I wonder if that makes me a freak? lol

Quote: Originally posted by condennnsa

Wow I had no idea that we have an international hazard girl on sciencemadness...
Browsing through your posts , saerynide, I must say, you must be one hell of a woman...

Ahahhaha. Thanks - I'll take that as a compliment

A lot of fellow females find my interests a bit... crazy... but it seems to attract males

[Edited on 6/22/2011 by Saerynide]

Mailinmypocket - 23-6-2011 at 13:26

Hahaha maybe they think it's hot when you burn magnesium or make thermite?

The WiZard is In - 23-6-2011 at 14:05

Advanced Energetic Materials
Committee on Advanced Energetic Materials and
Manufacturing Technologies, National Research Council
ISBN: 0-309-53055-5, 64 pages, 8 1/2 x 11, (2004)
This free PDF was downloaded from:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10918.html

Appendix A
Biographical Sketches of Committee Members

Jimmie C. Oxley has been a professor of chemistry at the University of Rhode Island
since 1995. She was an associate professor in the Chemistry Department at the New
Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (NMIMT) from 1983 to 1995. She was one of the
founding investigators in the Research Center for Energetic Materials (RCEM), a center
supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), industry, government and military
laboratories. Dr. Oxley is also the founder and head of the NMIMT thermal hazards group
and developer of the NMIMT Ph.D. program in explosives chemistry. Her primary research
interests are the thermal decomposition of energetic materials, ammonium nitrate chemistry,
and improvised explosive devices. Her other research interests include the development of
better small-scale predictive tests, hazard analysis, explosive detection, and the
characterization and prevention of terrorist bombings. Among the materials that Dr. Oxley
studies are military explosives, such as nitramines, nitroarenes, and nitrate esters;
improvised explosives, such as triacetone triperoxide and hexamethylenetriperoxidediamine;
energetic salts, such as ammonium nitrate and perchlorate; and reactive chemicals, such as
peroxides, hydrazines, and hydroxylamines. Dr. Oxley is the author of more than 40 papers
on the subject of energetic materials and presenter of as many invited lectures. She served
as deputy director of the Gordon Research Conferences from 1995 to 1998, and as vicechair
(1994) and chair (1996) of the Energetic Materials Gordon Research Conference. Dr.
Oxley cofounded the Conference on Life Cycles of Energetic Materials. She has also
organized numerous national symposia for the North American Thermal Analysis Society
(NATAS), Eastern Analytical, and American Defense Preparedness Association (ADPA). She
was elected a NATAS fellow in 1995. She also organizes special explosives workshops for
government and industrial labs. Dr. Oxley is a visiting scientist at Los Alamos National
Laboratory and a board member of the International Calorimetry Conference, NATAS and
ADPA Energetic Materials Technology group. Dr. Oxley received her B.S. degree in 1971 from
the University of California, San Diego; M.S. degree in bioinorganic chemistry from California
State University, Northridge; and Ph.D. in organometallic chemistry in 1983 from the
University of British Columbia. She has served previously on four National Research Council
committees, including most recently the Committee on Commercial Aviation Security and the
Committee on Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of
Assembled Chemical Weapons-Phase I.

Anita M. Renlund is a senior scientist in the Explosive Projects/Diagnostics
Department at Sandia National Laboratories. She holds a B.S. in general chemistry from
Stanford University (1974) and a Ph.D. in chemistry from the University of Utah (1977). Dr.
Renlund joined Sandia in 1981 and has worked in the Explosive Technologies Group since
that time. She is recognized internationally as an expert in the field of energetic materials
(EMs), with specific emphasis on initiation and shock-induced chemistry of EMs. This area
includes laser initiation of explosives, explosive response to abnormal environments, and the
dismantlement of explosive systems. She currently directs research efforts in advanced
energetic materials for highly miniaturized explosive components and hazards assessments
of explosive ordnance.

Jean’ne M. Shreeve is a professor of chemistry at the University of Idaho. She has also
served as the head of the Chemistry Department (1973-1987) and as vice president for
research and graduate studies from (1987-1999). Dr. Shreeve received a B.A. degree in
chemistry from the University of Montana, an M.S. degree in analytical chemistry from the
University of Minnesota, and a Ph.D. degree in inorganic chemistry from the University of
Washington, Seattle. She also received an honorary D.Sc. from the University of Montana in
1982. Her expertise involves the synthesis, characterization, and applications of fluorinecontaining
compounds. Dr. Shreeve has an extensive background in studies relating to
fluoride chemistry and high-temperature fluids. She has published more than 340 technical
papers dealing with the chemistry of fluorine and its compounds in refereed journals. Dr.
Shreeve’s extensive list of honors and awards includes the Garvan Medal, the Harry and
Carole Mosher Award, and the Fluorine Award from the American Chemical Society (ACS).
She is a fellow and was a board member of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS) and a member of the ACS, Royal Society of Chemistry, and American Institute
of Chemists. Dr. Shreeve has been active in the ACS since 1964, including participation at
the national level on the board of directors, Budget and Finance Committee, Development
Advisory Committee, and Committee on Science; in the AAAS, she has served as chair of the
Chemistry Section and on the board of directors and Committee on Nominations. Dr.
Shreeve was a committee member for the National Research Council study on Idaho
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory High Level Waste Alternate Treatments
(1998-1999). She was recently appointed as chair of the President's Committee for the
Medal of Science.

497 - 1-7-2011 at 16:11

I remember seeing on a website traffic recording site (http://www.quantcast.com/sciencemadness.org) that almost a third of the traffic on this site was from females.. So either their statistics are wrong, or the girls just don't bother posting much, or there's actually a lot more female members and they're not admitting it. Which is it?

Rogeryermaw - 1-7-2011 at 19:30

maybe they are all just too nervous to speak up. after all, who wants a bunch of nerds drooling over the fact that there is a female with an interest in science? if they did reveal themselves their inbox would be flooded with "date me" and "marry me" garbage, seeing how rare they are.

devongrrl - 2-7-2011 at 13:05

I'm not worried, its the guys who should be worried.

Nucleophilic backside attack ! Stand close to the wall.

Ok, so it was a corny pun but what the hell

Magpie - 2-7-2011 at 15:39

Quote: Originally posted by devongrrl

Nucleophilic backside attack ! Stand close to the wall.

Who can forget when they first learn of this SN2 reaction! Just picture a frumpy professor drawing a detailed diagram on the blackboard and describing this attack. Although I saw no outward chuckles from my classmates I know what 90% of them were thinking. What a great moment in organic chemistry lecture.

The WiZard is In - 2-7-2011 at 16:09

Quote: Originally posted by Rogeryermaw

maybe they are all just too nervous to speak up. after all, who wants a bunch of nerds drooling over the fact that there is a female with an interest in science? if they did reveal themselves their inbox would be flooded with "date me" and "marry me" garbage, seeing how rare they are.

Forsooth!

[Edited on 7/16/13 by bfesser]

cyanureeves - 2-7-2011 at 16:57

maybe the 1/3 women was that girl with her boob hanging out way back when it was just polverone and some other dude at SM. she mostly posts in detritus now.

Saerynide - 3-7-2011 at 00:10

Quote: Originally posted by Magpie

Actually, my orgo professor was a flaming middle aged gay guy (rather good looking too) and he definately made some hilarious innuendos

He was among my most entertaining professors

Mildronate - 3-7-2011 at 00:24

That picture is from some postsoviet country.

The WiZard is In - 3-7-2011 at 05:39

Quote: Originally posted by Mildronate

That picture is from some postsoviet country.

Could be. La picture get 300+ Googling hits from round
the world.

hissingnoise - 3-7-2011 at 05:53

Mmmm! Thaaat . . . Nipple . . .
I mustn't've been fully weaned, I guess!
Bittie? Bittie?

The WiZard is In - 3-7-2011 at 06:02

Quote: Originally posted by Mildronate

That picture is from some postsoviet country.

Could be. La picture yields 300+ Googling hits from round
the world.

how many females here?

Al Dehyde - 3-7-2011 at 07:15

That's a beauty! im 30, been out of school a few years now and im struggling to find anyone who has an interest in chemistry at all, so if any males or females in Melbourne wanna genuinely learn and explore all things chemistry then im up for it! Send me a P.M and we'll see, its always nicer to have someone share the joys and pick up on mistakes ( or as the case for that photo -call the ambulance) you never know what will come of things when two heads are at work, i have been really looking into biodiesel etc, enjoyed it so much that i started to research anything and everything and looking to turn my hobbies into a profession

azo - 3-7-2011 at 13:58

i wish someone would nucleophilic back door my mrs that has an interest in chemistry, but i supose there is even less females in australia with an interest in chemistry.

regards azo

Mildronate - 4-7-2011 at 12:23

Quote: Originally posted by The WiZard is In

Quote: Originally posted by Mildronate

That picture is from some postsoviet country.

Could be. La picture yields 300+ Googling hits from round
the world.

ITs soviet glasware and ring stand

AndersHoveland - 4-7-2011 at 18:14

I am a female... admirer

The WiZard is In - 4-7-2011 at 18:30

Quote: Originally posted by Mildronate

ITs soviet glasware and ring stand

Ring stand?! I never noticed it!

Reminds me 40+ years back, a dentist writes a letter
to Playboy noting that in the previous months issue one
of the female carbon based units had a chipped tooth.
I never noticed that either.

peach - 5-7-2011 at 04:03

I'm afraid the PC bubble has caused us to believe some quite large anomalies. Most girls I've met have very little genuine interest in science. I spoke to a girl about this at university and she said she was there because her parents expected her to be. Another I spoke to answered "Meh..." when I asked if she liked science. None of the girls I met at university on science courses did anything to do with science outside of the lectures and labs.

I suspect a significant percentage of girls doing the sciences now are doing it as a result of the girl power age making them think doing a subject that was predominately studied by men is asserting some form of power, as some new form of burning their bras, and will ensure they end up being paid the same amount as men. It is good that more girls feel able to move into science and engineering if they want to, but it is not good if they're not genuinely passionate about it at heart.

Another interesting part to the puzzle is that universities and companies have to preferentially take girls into these subjects so as to avoid having bias charges made against them. Girls are also given special grants just for being on science and engineering courses. Things not given to the men. An odd form of fairness.

A harmful thing has happened over the last few decades in terms of the women's liberation. That is that not only have women been told that 'to be a woman you must muck in with the boys (pssst... even if you don't want to!)' but that roles typically dominated by women have become shunned.

"She's a stay at home mum (pssst... what a looser)". Last time I checked, men couldn't have babies. And we do need those.

In effect, women's liberation has scored a bullseye shot in it's own foot by wrecking the things women are usually better than men at, and making women feel like they have to be men to be a woman. Rather than them doing what they want to do, they are (as usual) being told what to think and do. By other women.

Girls find it special that I can use a sewing machine. My underlying reason for learning to use one was because 5p of thread is cheaper than the £50 for a fitted shirt. I have very little interest in the art of sewing and clothes beyond their utility. I can understand why women are surprised I can use one (as most men can't be bothered working out how to iron their own shirt), but I would be offended if they thought I was good at it or gave me sewing machines they wouldn't give to another woman; in reality, a grandma could thrash me on one and I'm not all that interested, so I don't deserve any special treatment.

I apply the same thinking to girls and science.

[Edited on 5-7-2011 by peach]

sternman318 - 5-7-2011 at 05:30

....
There are no pictures peach

peach - 5-7-2011 at 08:30

Of what?

jamit - 5-7-2011 at 23:37

peach, you're absolutely right on! Woman liberation and the way our culture in america gives special privileges to woman in filling quotas in science departments and engineering and other disciplines of science is just wrong! If a woman is good as what she does, fine, she deserve to be there but to give special preferences just because she's a woman, just proves that they are not "generally speaking" fit to be there. Our differences are more than just "biological" but "psychological and even spiritual". Most of the world, except the western world recognizes this because they are honest about the oblivious (but in the west, its all about political correctness) and their countries are run by men, including science department.

I hope none of you "mostly men" at sciencemadness are wimps when it comes to feminism and all. Women have just as much "smarts" as men, but they are not "wired" like men, generally speaking, which proves why so few women are part of this forum.

If you're a woman on this forum, please don't take this as a criticism of you... I'm just pointing out the oblivious... few women on this forum and many other similar forums... you're just one of the special ladies here.

Magpie - 6-7-2011 at 09:15

Marie Curie was also a special lady...a very special lady; and so was Lisa Meitner. I'm sure there are many others.

I think that culture may play a more important role here than "wiring." I would be interested to hear the opinions of former Soviet Union and former East European (Soviet Bloc) countries on women chemists. During the Soviet period I don't think that culture played much of a role.

The WiZard is In - 6-7-2011 at 09:27

Quote: Originally posted by Magpie

Marie Curie was also a special lady...a very special lady; and so was Lisa Meitner. I'm sure there are many others.

I think that culture may play a more important role here than "wiring." I would be interested to hear the opinions of former Soviet Union and former East European (Soviet Bloc) countries on women chemists. During the Soviet period I don't think that culture played much of a role.

Lisa Meitner screwed big time by the Noble Prize Committee!

Soviet block - comes upon my mind that female Romanian
who "Despite never finishing an elementary education (her records
show that she left school with only a good mark in needlework),
graduated from the University of Bucharest with a PhD in polymer
chemistry and top in a class of 100 women with the honor of
summa cum laude. Her thesis has 162 pages, 32 tables, 40 figures
and 440 references and describes the invention of a very valuable
artificial material." She then went on to publish an astonishing
number of papers in chemistry.

djh
----

Wall Street Journal
Opinion
April 12, 2011

There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap

A study of single, childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30 found that
women earned 8% more than men.
By Carrie Lukas

Tuesday is Equal Pay Day—so dubbed by the National Committee for Pay Equity,
which represents feminist groups including the National Organization for Women,
Feminist Majority, the National Council of Women's Organizations and others. The
day falls on April 12 because, according to feminist logic, women have to work that
far into a calendar year before they earn what men already earned the year before.

In years past, feminist leaders marked the occasion by rallying outside the U.S.
Capitol to decry the pernicious wage gap and call for government action to address
systematic discrimination against women. This year will be relatively quiet. Perhaps
feminists feel awkward protesting a liberal-dominated government—or perhaps they
know that the recent economic downturn has exposed as ridiculous their claims that
our economy is ruled by a sexist patriarchy.

The unemployment rate is consistently higher among men than among women. The
Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 9.3% of men over the age of 16 are currently
out of work. The figure for women is 8.3%. Unemployment fell for both sexes over the
past year, but labor force participation (the percentage of working age people
employed) also dropped. The participation rate fell more among men (to 70.4% today
from 71.4% in March 2010) than women (to 58.3% from 58.8%). That means much of
the improvement in unemployment numbers comes from discouraged workers—
particularly male ones—giving up their job searches entirely.

Men have been hit harder by this recession because they tend to work in fields like
construction, manufacturing and trucking, which are disproportionately affected by
bad economic conditions. Women cluster in more insulated occupations, such as
teaching, health care and service industries.

Yet if you can accept that the job choices of men and women lead to different
unemployment rates, then you shouldn't be surprised by other differences—like
differences in average pay.

Feminist hand-wringing about the wage gap relies on the assumption that the
differences in average earnings stem from discrimination. Thus the mantra that
women make only 77% of what men earn for equal work. But even a cursory review of
the data proves this assumption false.

The Department of Labor's Time Use survey shows that full-time working women
spend an average of 8.01 hours per day on the job, compared to 8.75 hours for full-
time working men. One would expect that someone who works 9% more would also
earn more. This one fact alone accounts for more than a third of the wage gap.

Choice of occupation also plays an important role in earnings. While feminists
suggest that women are coerced into lower-paying job sectors, most women know
that something else is often at work. Women gravitate toward jobs with fewer risks,
more comfortable conditions, regular hours, more personal fulfillment and greater
flexibility. Simply put, many women—not all, but enough to have a big impact on the
statistics—are willing to trade higher pay for other desirable job characteristics.

Men, by contrast, often take on jobs that involve physical labor, outdoor work,
overnight shifts and dangerous conditions (which is also why men suffer the
overwhelming majority of injuries and deaths at the workplace). They put up with
these unpleasant factors so that they can earn more.

Recent studies have shown that the wage gap shrinks—or even reverses—when
relevant factors are taken into account and comparisons are made between men and
women in similar circumstances. In a 2010 study of single, childless urban workers
between the ages of 22 and 30, the research firm Reach Advisors found that women
earned an average of 8% more than their male counterparts. Given that women are
outpacing men in educational attainment, and that our economy is increasingly
geared toward knowledge-based jobs, it makes sense that women's earnings are
going up compared to men's.

Should we celebrate the closing of the wage gap? Certainly it's good news that
women are increasingly productive workers, but women whose husbands and sons
are out of work or under-employed are likely to have a different perspective. After all,
many American women wish they could work less, and that they weren't the primary
earners for their families.

Few Americans see the economy as a battle between the sexes. They want
opportunity to abound so that men and women can find satisfying work situations
that meet their unique needs. That—not a day dedicated to manufactured feminist
grievances—would be something to celebrate.

Ms. Lukas is executive director of the Independent Women's Forum.

sternman318 - 6-7-2011 at 09:41

Quote: Originally posted by peach

Of what?

I feel like most of your lengthy posts have pictures of some sort. it was a joke- I was trying to make it seem that I cared nothing of what you said, just wanted pictures

jamit - 7-7-2011 at 01:17

Quote: Originally posted by Magpie

I think that culture may play a more important role here than "wiring."

I would agree with you Magpie that culture does play a role to varying degree but it's mostly because men are "wired" differently than women that account for men's dominant interest in science. Even though our culture tries to encourage and even "unfairly" and selectively place women in every department of science, generally speaking, its still dominated by men in the general public. Many of my engineering friends tell me just how unfair such a ridiculous policy is in this country. Women who are less qualified in their aptitude and test scores get in while guys with similar aptitude and test scores don't.

Yes, both nature and nurture plays an important role in shaping a person's interest in science. However "nature" is the foundation and "nurture" can either encourage and build that foundation but it cannot eliminate it.

Even in a western culture like ours, dominated by "political correctness" and feminism we still cannot produced on a consistent basis a significant female interest in the area of science... not that there aren't exceptions. You can't quote Madam Curie and a few others and think that this proves your point. It doesn't!

As this forum has shown and other similar forums as well, most are dominated by men, although there are women present. Why is that? Do we discourage women in this forum. Absolutely not!

I don't care about gender when I read a post. However since this post is on the subject of the number of females on this forum... the number being rather small, doesn't this prove my point that men have a greater inclination by "nature" in certain areas of "interest" due to the way they are "wired" (though nurture/culture does influence to some degree) toward's the sciences.

Thanks guys for letting me express my thoughts. I just know too many friends who are "science majors" who should have received a faculty position in major universities but because of this STUPID feminist quotas, they were rejected from being considered from such a position all in the name of "equality". I call this, not equality, but favoritism and injustice! If females are just as "naturally" interested in science as men, you wouldn't have to give them any "preferential" advantages to make it "equal".

Enough said.

Magpie - 7-7-2011 at 05:13

Jamit, I can't really disagree with you. But I would still like to hear from our post-soviet bloc members on this.

In my own experience, ie, some 40 years in industry working as a chemical engineer, I did work with several female engineers. Some were competent but I don't remember any as outstanding.

But place yourself in today's US junior high or high school, where women with intelligence and ambition are deciding what they want as a career. It's hard enough for a male to show exceptional skill in science/math without being teased as a "nerd." For a female it must be the same as social suicide.

jamit - 7-7-2011 at 19:49

Magpie... As always you are gracious and wise!

woelen - 7-7-2011 at 23:36

All this political correctness about the role of men and women is going way too far. Right new there are even creches where children may not be called 'girl' or 'boy' anymore. ALL differences (except the obvious biological ones) about the genders MUST be removed. But I know from personal experience that there _are_ differences, even with young children. I myself have 2 daughters and a son and I know many little girls and many little boys and whether you like it or not, there simply are differences. Boys are more 'physical'. They have rougher games, are playing more physically (e.g. running hard through the house, climbing all kinds of objects). Of course, girls also do such things, but on average there certainly is a difference.

Where I live, there now also is a counterreaction. The people, taking care of all the kids in creches and schools like to have kids playing peacefully and not too physically. But this is harmful for some boys. These boys just have to run, they have to climb and have to get rid of their energy. In some places these differences are accepted and boys and girls again are treated (somewhat) differently. Not by forcing them in some role or direction, but simply by allowing and even encouraging them to play in such a way, which fits the child most.

Of course, when people grow older, the differences between the genders remain. I think that we should accept that. I know women who feel uncomfortable, because they have two kids and are at home with these kids 80% of their working time. Other women make them feel like they are loosers because they do not have such a fantastic job or career and just are at home with their kids. There is a lot of social pressure on women to have an outdoor career, but at the same time the same women must be perfect mothers for their kids and perfect lovers for their husbands. This gives a lot of stress. So, the old slavery of women being there only to take care of kids, preparing food and cleaning the house and enjoying the men is replaced by a new kind of slavery due to social pressure. Of course, the last sentence is somewhat exaggerating, but I'm quite sure there is some truth in it.

During my career I have met quite a few women in science and engineering. On university during my PhD research period I shared an office room with a woman who did research in the field of control engineering. She was a perfect office mate, who really was enthusiastic about her research but at the same time she also was a nice social person, a pleasure to talk with. She did the research, because she liked it, not because she was pressed to do so.
Lateron in my career I had to work together with a young woman, who also really liked the work she did (software engineering). But she was a real nerd. Her appearance was not nerd-like, she looked quite pretty, but her behaviour was really nerdy. I had a hard time communicating with her and getting information from her and other team members had similar issues with her. She was not social at all.
So, two women in science/technology and two totally different experiences. Women are just like men

peach - 8-7-2011 at 04:07

I frequently end up in a local primary school helping out, where I get to watch the behaviour of a few hundred children, and have done since I wasn't much older than them. Your own observations, woelen, are quite correct.

Yesterday I was sat in a class with reception kids. The girl on the mat in front of me was stating, to thin air, who her friends where. Four or five boys were busy wrestling each other across the carpet. This is standard stuff and is so generic I can confidently say that's normal.

This point;

Quote:

But this is harmful for some boys.

Is dead on.

A lot of primary teachers are women. And where ever there is a single parent, it is likely going to be a woman.

It is hard to watch young boys, even as a guy, hitting each other, coming out covered in cuts and bruises or doing things that look like they're going to break their neck. But they're not genuinely fighting or going to do all that much damage to themselves and the others, they're just being boys and getting used to a rougher physical life. There is a fine balance, as playing rapidly turns into crying (as it does in adult men, with guns). The crying can last all of 1 minute in boys, before they're then sharing action figures with each other.

Another very important factor is them burning off spare energy. If they don't run around, fight with each other and do stupid stuff, they end up like little nuclear bombs of anger waiting to go off and the problems smear out over weeks, years and their entire life.

I think in the older days this was allowed much more outside school than it is now. Now, the boys have 'problems' if they want to behave like that, in school or out, and are instead plopped in front of GTA for 6 hours when they get in, after having dinner at McDonalds, again. Enter the Ritalin era.

This is the only problem I have with same sex marriages that, like single parent families, there will be more of a single sided approach to bringing them up. But that is a complicated issue, more so than that statement can get into. Lacking a dad myself, I never had anyone to share my interests with and had to do it all myself. This was both a positive and negative thing.

Quote: Originally posted by sternman318

I feel like most of your lengthy posts have pictures of some sort.

One picture it is. Me with an owl, in a school.

<img src="http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/2005/dscf4156o.jpg" width="600" />

[Edited on 8-7-2011 by peach]

[<a href="u2u.php?action=send&username=bfesser">bfesser</a>: reduced image size(s)]

[Edited on 7/16/13 by bfesser]

Neil - 8-7-2011 at 07:37

First

Second, there are LOTS of girls in science, you just need to look at it as a whole. Bio-engineering? Biology? environmental science? Guys are the minority there. I am under the impression that there are still more males then females overall, but that balance does seem to be shifting.

Socially there is ample evidence suggesting that peer pressure leads to many females who display mathematical skills dumbing it down to be more excepted. Add this negative impetus to the difficulty in following through with a massively mathematical science like chemistry, electrical or chemical engineering etc, and the numbers start to make sense.

Guys get to find a niche being the nerd or the geek (anyone riding white and nerdy?) but girls in the same role are supposed to be sexy nerd eye candy *hehe yes I have big breasts and am holding a test tube*

Just google "nerd girl" then google "nerd guy"

There are lots of girls who are in science and who know their science cold. Educational institutes such as science centers normally have a very biased gender ratio with very few males and a very large number of females and not as a result of biased hiring. I've known about ten girls who were 100% science for every guy who was 100% science in said scenario.

As to schooling, many men avoid trying to teach primary/kindergarten or work with small children. There is such a massive negative stereotype that any guy who is adult and wants to work with children must secretly want to bugger them, thus many males avoid working with youngsters.

Despite the exceptionally large number of females I know who are in science, none of them do any home experimenting. At the same time despite the excessively large number of males I know, I'm the only one who is actively pursuing home research at any given time.

Maybe there is a reverse stereotype at play? Guys who are hyper “WHOA SCIENCE” clearly want to make bombs and drugs which means that their interests and their public actions are somewhat impinged. A forum of like minded people offers a outlet, how many active posters here? Not many given the number of English speakers who are involved in chemistry all over the world. The same posters on this forum are also responsible for a broad spread of posts on a number of other forums on a number of topics - once again that's a awfully small number of people.

If this forum is a tiny minority of males, then it makes sense that likewise there is a small number of females – whose numbers are further constrained by social pressures.

OF course this is aside from the already mentioned likelihood that revealing an extra X chromosome leads to mass overtures of nerd infatuation, http://fatuglyorslutty.com/ .

I'd really like to know - WHY ARE THERE SO FEW HOME EXPERIMENTERS OF ETHER SEX?!

Arthur Dent - 8-7-2011 at 13:19

Quote: Originally posted by peach

Me with an owl, in a school.

[Edited on 8-7-2011 by peach]

I knew it... i knew it!!!

You ARE Harry Potter, aren't you? Hah!

If not, you still are a top notch wizard, sir!

Robert

[Edited on 8-7-2011 by Arthur Dent]

Pyrophoric

The WiZard is In - 8-7-2011 at 15:24

djh
----
Pyrotechnics, which is captivating
to some people, is a dark chaos
which one cannot penetrate without
the torch of chemistry and math-
ematical calculations.

Claude-Fortuné Ruggieri
Principles of Pyrotechnics
3rd Edition 1821
Translated by Stuart S Carlton
MP Associates 1994

simba - 5-8-2011 at 07:45

The chemistry engineering & pharmacy courses in my college is composed mostly of woman.

MeSynth - 5-8-2011 at 12:07

Quote: Originally posted by azo

I no there is proberly enough polls on this site ,but there is on thing that i am curious about is how many of the members on this site are females.
And it would be interesting to me to see if females are as interested in chemistry as males.
Or maybe when you add your user name you could add m or f at the end .

regards azo

[Edited on 20-6-2011 by azo]

Females are naturaly not interested in science.

MeSynth - 5-8-2011 at 12:10

Quote: Originally posted by sternman318

I feel like most of your lengthy posts have pictures of some sort.[/rquote]

One picture it is. Me with an owl, in a school.

<img src="http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/2005/dscf4156o.jpg" width="600" />

[Edited on 8-7-2011 by peach]

I always thought you were a girl from your name.. lol

[<a href="u2u.php?action=send&username=bfesser">bfesser</a>: reduced image size(s)]

[Edited on 7/16/13 by bfesser]

francis - 5-8-2011 at 17:12

Quote: Originally posted by peach

I'm afraid the PC bubble has caused us to believe some quite large anomalies. Most girls I've met have very little genuine interest in science. I spoke to a girl about this at university and she said she was there because her parents expected her to be. Another I spoke to answered "Meh..." when I asked if she liked science. None of the girls I met at university on science courses did anything to do with science outside of the lectures and labs.

At my Uni, probably half the people doing science courses are women. I think more women are doing genetics, biology, and medical science courses, but still half of my 3rd year organic chemistry class (which is required by those majoring in chemistry or medicinal chemistry only) are women.

My analytical lab demonstrators are both women, last year my organic lab demonstrators were women...I've had more female lab demonstrators and supervisors than male.

The head of the first year Chemistry course at my Uni is a woman. The head of the second year Organic chemistry course is a woman. The head of the second year Analytical chemistry course is a woman. The second year Physical Chemistry course is jointly run by a male and a female. The third year Medicinal Chemistry course is run by a woman.

The head of the larger first year biology course is a woman. The head of the second year biochemistry course is a woman.

The technical managers for the second year Analytical chem labs are women, and the technical manager for second and third year organic chemistry teaching labs is a woman.

I don't think my University is any sort of anomaly. The girls in my classes do science for all the same reasons men do. Because they're interested. Because it'll lead to a career. Because they want to discover something new. Because they're ambitious.

Quote: Originally posted by peach

I suspect a significant percentage of girls doing the sciences now are doing it as a result of the girl power age making them think doing a subject that was predominately studied by men is asserting some form of power, as some new form of burning their bras, and will ensure they end up being paid the same amount as men. It is good that more girls feel able to move into science and engineering if they want to, but it is not good if they're not genuinely passionate about it at heart.

I'm not sure your suspicions are well-founded, peach: at least, at my Uni (which is all I can speak about), as many women do science as men. We have as many female Honours, Masters and PhD students in all our science faculties, as we do men.

They are excellent researchers, teachers and demonstrators - if I asked my demonstrator for analytical chem if she was doing her PhD in chemistry to assert some form of power, I'd be laughed at.

Most women I've met doing science are very hard workers, committed to achieving good experimental results, good marks, and good lab practice.

I don't know if in their hearts they are passionate or not - I don't think it matters, does it?

dann2 - 6-8-2011 at 05:56

Peach:
You, or your class mates or the staff (or perhaps all three) are obvoiously a big fan of the 'HIVE' as evident from the poster on the wall.

Also,
There is someone about to pick-pocket you (as you busy yourself with the wise bird)..........or is he sitting on a loo reaching from that bog roll. (hardle

)
Dann2

[Edited on 6-8-2011 by dann2]

asilentbob - 17-8-2011 at 22:35

My older sister is doing tons of research on west nile. She was the kind of 6 classes a semester instead of the normal 4 type of girl and it obviously got her very far very fast. She is brilliant and completely deserving of all the funding she has gotten. She has 2 girls.

I know of a girl who occasionally goes to pyrotechnic conventions. Her father was in display fireworks I believe. I have a video of her launching a pretty large strobe rocket that she made at PGI one year. She is pretty cool. You can imagine what her roller derby nickname is.

I chat from time to time with Spatula Tzar, she is into electronics, robotics, chemistry, light pyrotechnics, lathes, and various engineering projects and interests. I'm not sure if she has an account here, but she most certainly has skimmed various threads here among other forums.
http://spatulatzar.com/

Dr. Kiki's is hosting a Science show / podcast. I listen to it among others on long drives.
http://twit.tv/kiki

The University I was going to was something near 60-70% women... mostly for marine biology. In my physical chemistry 2 class there were 2 girls out of 8 chem majors. One was oriental and essentially forced into it by her parents. She had very little interest or skill in it as you would expect. The other was harder to read. She was very good at math and chemical calculations... but I never really saw her in the labs doing any directed independent study or anything and we never really talked about if she was excited at all about it... So not really sure how much she liked it. She also didn't have a facebook/myspace, etc... she was very protective about what information on her was out there. Many women are, and I don't blame them. Every women's nightmare is some stalker dude randomly showing up at her house knowing everything about her... and it happens way too often. Internet forums only make it easier.

As has been said, women and men are wired differently and generally have different social pressures and societal expectations to fill as well as priorities, whether conscious or not. A single guy in college is probably not thinking much about a potential baby, but a single girl probably is. So perhaps she may be careful to choose a career in which she makes enough money and has enough time for her potential children. Or it may be more automatic and unconscious. Maybe for many chemicals == birth defects... which isn't much of a stretch really... Perhaps with all the social commitments and pressures women just don't find as much time for such pursuits as men. I really dunno.

I may be going to the ACS National Meeting... So should probably see plenty of women there.

I think many women who are interested don't actually join the forums or discussions because of the whole, "OMG, There are no girls on the internet!," flock-nerd mentality. Or if they do, they do not bring up their gender.

As a side... XKCD and Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal (SMBC, NSFW) are 2 webcomics which feature women scientists frequently... and are just awesome.

I guess any girl members can approach me for random techno-chat knowing I wont treat them like a piece of meat...

hissingnoise - 18-8-2011 at 01:34

Quote:

I guess any girl members can approach me for random techno-chat knowing I wont treat them like a piece of meat...

'Should work - gaining their trust is important.
And you might even get the pics without having to ask . . .

asilentbob - 18-8-2011 at 03:24

No one would send pics or such personal details on a forum discussing such borderline-illegal topics.

... and I'm not that charming anyways lol!

Mildronate - 18-8-2011 at 05:20

Bees on the wall.

kryss - 18-8-2011 at 08:52

When I started working there was one woman working in Chemistry out perhaps 50 people ( 20-30 years ago). Now, IN our own group, the vast majority are women.

How can you tell if a woman has been using the PC?

The WiZard is In - 18-8-2011 at 14:50

When Looking for Love, Women Spurn Science

The WiZard is In - 20-8-2011 at 03:52

http://news.yahoo.com/looking-love-women-spurn-science-14200...

Endimion17 - 16-7-2013 at 00:21

So... two years later... Any changes? How many active female forum users do we have?

Fantasma4500 - 16-7-2013 at 15:23

well actual women gamers, and not the ones doing it just for the concentrated attention is pretty rare
another thing is women actually interested in chemistry, on my school there is one teacher in chemistry who took an education in organic chemistry
the place she was educated we were in playing around with some µ measurement pipettes and some organic stuff, seemingly +90% of them there was women, strange??
a hobby i see the same chances of women having is pyro, although i have come across 2, 1 younger girl of unknown age and a older around 30

very related to second post in this thread

its a pretty weird thing really
riding horses isnt seen as a very masculine thing to do, so less masculine men is more prone to have that as free time activity, now there is lesbians out there who are ... too masculine, but how come they dont have chemistry as an interest then?
i guess the next question would be.. why do kids love cinnamon toast crunch?

Endimion17 - 16-7-2013 at 16:13

Riding horses isn't considered a masculine thing? Since when is that? o_O

I wouldn't say female gamers are pretty rare. Most gamers are men, no doubt about that, but "pretty rare" is simply not true, at least not today.

Regarding lesbians, only a small fraction of them are stereotypically masculine, and from all women that look like that, probably less than a half are lesbians.
Just think of the numbers. There are somewhat more than 10% of lesbians among the female population, and what's the amount of butch women? It's ridiculously small.
There is a fantastically huge amount of lesbians around us and we ust can't recognize them. Vast majority of them are not less feminine than any average heterosexual female. Analogously, the same works for the male inhabitants of this planet.
And just think of all kinds of bisexual women out there. It's an interesting thing to think about before bedtime. LOL

Anyway, I don't remember hearing anything from a known female on ScienceMadness. It's quite sad. I guess the female planetary collective had a meeting and decided to ignore SM, being too busy making sandwiches. >

They in fact cover the vast majority of the education and, for some inexplicable reson, life sciences. However, I've noticed they quite often lack the scientific curiosity. There are always exceptions, but this is it's mostly something else.

[Edited on 17-7-2013 by Endimion17]

watson.fawkes - 17-7-2013 at 02:39

Quote: Originally posted by Endimion17

Anyway, I don't remember hearing anything from a known female on ScienceMadness.

Given the tenor of this board sometimes, why would anyone bother to assert their gender, gender identity, or even sexual orientation? There's little upside to it. Don't expect it.

hyfalcon - 17-7-2013 at 02:44

I think you all just hit the nail square on the head. Sometimes in some of the posts I've read, I would swear some were channeling their inner woman.

woelen - 17-7-2013 at 03:16

After reading the last few responses, even if I were female, I would not tell that

Endimion17 - 17-7-2013 at 05:49

So people hide their gender around here... Interesting. It came to my mind, but I haven't expected it to be actually happening on a regular basis. I can't differentiate gender by looking at someone writing in English. Subject pronouns are gender-neutral, as well as verbs. Most, if not all Slavic languages use gender-specific verbs so you can instantly recognize the author's gender.

It's kind of like female scientists from hundred years ago, with their initials or pseudonyms. I disagree with that because there's no need for it. This is an online forum and, with the expection of few stupid members and painful layout, quite a jolly good place.

Do these ladies actually think they're going to be stalked by a pile of nerds? I don't see that coming.

Come on, ladies. Nothing to be afraid of.

[Edited on 17-7-2013 by Endimion17]

bfesser - 17-7-2013 at 05:51

Quote: Originally posted by Endimion17

Do these ladies actually think they're going to be stalked by a pile of nerds? I don't see that coming.

Come on, ladies. Nothing to be afraid of.

Sadly, they would. I've witnessed this countless times in the past.

[Edited on 7/17/13 by bfesser]

Endimion17 - 17-7-2013 at 06:05

Fuck, that's sad. There must be really sexually suppressed people around here. Who'd say?
I'm far from a ladies man, not even handsome by today's standards, but I don't have these levels of problems.

I declare publicly - if there's a female user around here, she doesn't have to be afraid of stalking by me.

I like to joke and mock sometimes (the sandwich jokes), but I'm really not a sexist.

So here's a funny, self made demotivational poster style mock.

I've got more.

bfesser - 17-7-2013 at 07:50

Oh, for ████'s sake… "<em>This</em> is why we can't have nice things!"

Hexavalent - 17-7-2013 at 08:52

Quote: Originally posted by MeSynth

Females are naturaly not interested in science.

In your fourth year of secondary education in the UK, you are allowed to choose what subjects you wish to study for GCSE level. In the additional science class, I'd say 60% of the pupils are girls, one of which is my GF, who is brilliant and science, technology and mathematics and wishes to become a dental surgeon.

annaandherdad - 17-7-2013 at 09:47

My daughter, age 10, is naturally interested in science. She constantly thinks about things---when a car moves forward, does it push the air out of the way? And what about the hole left in the air behind the car, what happens to it? That, and a million other questions.

And recently we have begun to work with a 17-year old girl who absolutely loves chemistry.

fusso - 10-6-2018 at 13:50

Quote: Originally posted by 497

I remember seeing on a website traffic recording site (http://www.quantcast.com/sciencemadness.org) that almost a third of the traffic on this site was from females.. So either their statistics are wrong, or the girls just don't bother posting much, or there's actually a lot more female members and they're not admitting it. Which is it?

How do they know the visitors' and members' genders? SM don't ask for members' genders. I strongly doubt the stats' authenticity.

HeYBrO - 10-6-2018 at 22:55

Why do people insist on reviving old inane threads such as this one constantly?

j_sum1 - 10-6-2018 at 23:04

Agreed. This had well and truly run its course five years ago.