Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 24 Jun '15 00:14 / 2 edits
    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/23/sexism-in-science-did-watson-and-crick-really-steal-rosalind-franklins-data

    "Sexism in Science: Did Watson and Crick really steal Rosalind Franklin's data?"

    "Her (Rosalind Franklin's) manner was brusque and and at times confrontational--
    she aroused quite a lot of hostility among the people she talked to, and
    she seemed quite insensitive to this."
    --Norma Sutherland (speaking of Rosalind Franklin, not of me)

    The workplace of science was even more sexist in the 1950s than it's today.
    If Rosalind Franklin had been the demure, deferential, always aiming to please
    woman whom most men professed to admire, then she would not have been
    nearly strong enough to carve out her own independent career in science.
    Smart women can have strong opinions Insecure stupid men resent these women.

    'Sexist attitudes are ingrained in science, as in the rest of our culture.'
    --Matthew Cobb
  2. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    24 Jun '15 18:49 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/23/sexism-in-science-did-watson-and-crick-really-steal-rosalind-franklins-data

    "Sexism in Science: Did Watson and Crick really steal Rosalind Franklin's data?"

    "Her (Rosalind Franklin's) manner was brusque and and at times confrontational--
    she aroused quite a lot of hostility among the people she talked t ...[text shortened]...

    'Sexist attitudes are ingrained in science, as in the rest of our culture.'
    --Matthew Cobb
    No argument there! I am very secure, Hypatia I think (and a lot of others too) think she should have been included in the Nobel prize.
  3. 24 Jun '15 20:43 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    No argument there! I am very secure, Hypatia I think (and a lot of others too) think she should have been included in the Nobel prize.
    Rosalind Franklin was ineligible for the 1962 Nobel Prize (awarded to Francis Crick and
    James Watson) because she had died in 1958, and the Nobel Prize cannot be awarded posthumously.
    Like many women in science, she had to choose, in effect, between establishing her
    career or a more 'normal' life with marriage and children. Rosalind Franklin's not known
    to have had any physically intimate relationship with a man, though there were a few men
    to whom she reportedly was much attracted.

    I wish that Chien-Shiung Wu had been awarded a share of the 1957 Nobel Prize in physics
    along with Tsung-Dao Lee and Chen-Ning Yang (the first Chinese to win a Nobel Prize in science)
    because her experimental work was essential in confirming their hypothesis that parity
    was *not* conserved in weak nuclear interactions--a revolutionary result at that time.
    There evidently was bias against her for being an experimental physicist (Lee and Yang
    were theoretical physicists) as well as a woman. It was not until 1975 that Columbia
    University raised her salary to make it equal that of its male professors of the same rank.

    For whatever it's worth, one woman (who earned a graduate degree in chemistry when
    that was unusual for a woman) in my family recently advised me that I should become
    more assertive. She said, "You won't get anywhere if you try to agree with everyone!"
    I already knew that, but women tend to be condemned for not always trying to be agreeable.
  4. Standard member st dominics preview
    troll taunter
    24 Jun '15 22:45
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    She said, "You won't get anywhere if you try to agree with everyone!"
    I already knew that, but women tend to be condemned for not always trying to be agreeable.[/b]
    Duchess ~ do you really believe that you try to agree with 'everyone'?
  5. 24 Jun '15 23:23
    Originally posted by st dominics preview
    Duchess ~ do you really believe that you try to agree with 'everyone'?
    St Dominics Preview, one of my most dishonest obsessed trolls, again shows his abysmal 'reading comprehension'.
    St Dominics Preview has been doing his utmost to keep attacking me personally in other forums.
  6. Standard member st dominics preview
    troll taunter
    24 Jun '15 23:24 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    St Dominics Preview, one of my most dishonest obsessed trolls, again shows his abysmal 'reading comprehension'.
    St Dominics Preview has been doing his utmost to keep attacking me personally in other forums.
    Yep

    And will continue to do so.

    It was just a question

    Would that be a 'yes' or a 'no'?

    And can i raise the topic of the American Civil War? Shall we resume on 'Debates'?
  7. 24 Jun '15 23:39 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by st dominics preview
    Yep

    And will continue to do so.

    It was just a question

    Would that be a 'yes' or a 'no'?

    And can i raise the topic of the American Civil War? Shall we resume on 'Debates'?
    Let everyone in this Science forum be aware that St Dominics Preview, an obsessed troll,
    has implicitly declared his intent to bring his lying and personal attacks toward me here too.
    That seems to be St Dominics Preview's major interest in writing in the RHP forums.
  8. Standard member st dominics preview
    troll taunter
    24 Jun '15 23:42 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Let everyone in this Science forum be aware that St Dominics Preview, an obsessed troll,
    has implicitly declared his intent to bring his lying and personal attacks toward me here too.
    Indeed

    that'll probably be just the 2 of us then
  9. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    25 Jun '15 12:33
    Originally posted by st dominics preview
    Duchess ~ do you really believe that you try to agree with 'everyone'?
    I read that statement and understood she does not try to agree with everyone. Are you being deliberately obtuse?
  10. Standard member st dominics preview
    troll taunter
    25 Jun '15 14:22
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I read that statement and understood she does not try to agree with everyone. Are you being deliberately obtuse?
    I agree that the correct question would have been

    'Duchess, do your sisters really think that you agree with almost anyone'

    I made an error. It happens. I await my well deserved short, sharp reposte from D with trepidation.
  11. 25 Jun '15 15:20
    Duchess has made many enemies on the debate forum. I could make a list but it would take too much time.
  12. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    25 Jun '15 17:09
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Duchess has made many enemies on the debate forum. I could make a list but it would take too much time.
    It is clear she is a lot more intelligent than most folks here including me.
  13. 25 Jun '15 23:43
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    It is clear she is a lot more intelligent than most folks here including me.
    Everyone here is more intelligent than you. I'm not convinced duchess is even a woman. On the debates forum someone posted that duchess was on another website forum using a man's name. Duchess could very well be male. Could be a woman trapped in a man's body.
  14. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    26 Jun '15 00:46
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Let everyone in this Science forum be aware that St Dominics Preview, an obsessed troll,
    has implicitly declared his intent to bring his lying and personal attacks toward me here too.
    That seems to be St Dominics Preview's major interest in writing in the RHP forums.
    Everyone needs a hobby.

    I don't think he is obsessed though ... more like ... keen.
  15. 26 Jun '15 01:36 / 1 edit
    On the subject of 'sexism in science' (rather than 'sexist attacks by trolls in RHP forums' ),
    many women who would be qualified to pursue careers in science don't consider these
    possibilities on account of their cultural conditioning against non-traditional careers.
    For many women, the issue is not their ability, but their confidence in their ability.

    Recently I read an interview with a woman in Poland's air force. When she was ready
    to graduate from Poland's air force academy, she was asked about what she would like
    to do in the air force. Not having given it that much thought, she assumed that she
    would be assigned to something like air traffic control. Instead, the flight surgeon advised
    her that, being very physically fit and having exceptional eyesight, she should consider
    becoming a pilot. She was astonished; she never even had considered the possibility.
    She explained that there were no pilots in her family. She never had even dated a pilot.
    So, after taking a deep breath, she applied to become a fighter pilot. After beating out
    many male applicants, she was accepted for training as a MiG-29 fighter pilot. At the
    time of the interview, she was about halfway through her training. By the way, Poland's
    air force has a proud tradition and claims to maintain high standards of training.