Today a majority of medical students, law students and mba students are women; in addition to the humanities. But in the ‘sexist past’ all these subjects were equally dominated by men. You apparently claim that scientists are more sexist than doctors and lawyers – but is it not reasoable to consider other possibilities: men are simply more interested in science, or more realistically biases against men and boys (that’s right) in other areas with artificial entry barriers makes them go into other areas.

Incidentally MBA’s, medical doctors, and lawyers all earn far more money than scientists – maybe that is the reason for the lack of women in science!

How many of you knew Feynman? How many of you know someone that knew Feynman? I would wager that none of the outspoken posters in this thread have any real experience of what Feynman was like – you can’t tell what a person is like from reading books and articles.

Feynman was a human being, OK? Albeit a very smart one. He was not always perfect in all respects. Are any of us?

[As for The Feynman Lectures on Physics (FLP), also mentioned above, please don't forget that Feynman was not their sole author - Matthew Sands and Robert Leighton were also authors of FLP. In fact the whole project was Matt Sands' idea, and Feynman did none of the actual writing. If you ever listen to the (commercially available) tapes of the lectures on which the books are based and compare them to what is written in the books you will see that they are by _no means_ merely a transcription. Feynman was incredibly brilliant but sometimes not completely clear - sometimes far from clear - as is the case for most people speaking extemporaneously. Leighton's and Sands' great contribution to FLP was to "translate 'Feynmanese' into English" (as Leighton jokingly puts it in his Oral History at the Caltech Archives), and they did a great job, though they are rarely recognized for it.]

Michael A. Gottlieb
Physics Department
California Institute of Technology

#53, Your post is equally valid if one were to interchange the words “men” and “women” throughout. I would also suggest that neither is less common than the other.

#50, as people grow older, their outlook on life changes as do the qualities they look for in a partner

Having worked at two large, but good, public universities I’ve seen more than my share of talented young women diverted from working in the science by…..other women (this is apparently a large issue in mathematics and was pointed out to me by a woman mathematics professor who was despairing of the situation).

There are also talented individuals of both sexes that go onto great careers with or without hostile/encouraging environments/mentors etc.

As for Feynman, he can no longer defend himself or give a rationale for his behavior. My suspicion, on having read a large chunk of his writings, is that he was continually pushing the limits to see what he could get away with, or as others have pointed out here, to see exactly how cherished these beliefs of others really are – but maybe I’ve been watching too much House and Boston Legal.

So, I would respectfully suggest that people treat others with respect (if it is deserved) and just grow up!

Kordan said:
“It’s funny how women always claim they want a nice,
sensitive, and understanding guy – but the younger
ones especially (such as in college) almost always
seem to go for the big macho jerks.

Then they whine and cry about how cruel and insensitive
all men are – go figure.”

Of course no one can ever rely solely on an individuals spoken claims; actions speak louder then words. I can dig the study up for you if you’d like, but I remember a psychology paper that tested womens actual preferences (using speed dating, it’s weak but it’s the best we have) and sure enough it supported the nice guy stereotype! The women ended up liking more men that scored low on agreeableness, which I think would roughly correlate with niceness.

To teadrinker (#51): yeah, I saw that, and I agree; that is so warped.

Give this Feynman thing a rest: the man was a genius, let it be. Isn’t there a Motorhead song that says something like ‘don’t expect the best if you can’t take the least’?

Female fundamentalist Muslims are fighting for the
right to be suicide bombers, too, just like their
male counterparts:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/31/world/main4142514.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4142514

Sadly, they only get half as many virgins as the men
do upon a successful detonation – even the afterlife is
just so unfair.

The whole species is just plain warped!

Then they whine and cry about how cruel and insensitive
all men are – go figure.

Personally I think both genders are two separate
species that happen to have the genetic ability to
mate.

As for the unfairness of judging him by today’s standards, I don’t go in for that moral relativist bullshit. The hunter-gathers who practice(d) infanticide and child abuse as normative behaviours can only be judged as psychopaths and psychotics…

… which, perhaps, they were. Recondite cavemen aside, I’m wondering why your moral relativism trumps mine?

A simple thought experiment: do you think that you, had you grown up in early 20-th century America, would have been in a position to criticize Feynman (who would then have been your contemporary)? Think of all the borderline behaviour your present contemporaries engage in… in a generation or two they may be seen as swinish pigs from a bygone era. What would you say if someone from the future popped into your life judging you for not standing up to them…?

It is important not to confuse a sexist culture with a traditionally male culture where women feel less at home. In the former case a negative attitude towards women is actively maintained, while in the latter culture the negativism is completely unintentional. Based on a few conversations with female colleagues, I believe it is traditional male culture rather than sexism that is rife in physics.

Peter, a “traditionally male culture where women feel less at home” IS a sexist culture. Sexism doesn’t need to be negative or intentional; it can be unconscious, ingrained, or even well-intentioned.

But I am not INTERESTED IN and not TURNED ON BY typical female jobs like nursing or teaching small kids, and most men that I know are not INTERESTED either. Most of us would be bored to death. Why do we have to force people to do things they are not interested in in the first place?

Tom – Funny, I know and have met plenty of men who are interested in “typical female jobs.” Did I just happen to befriend the few exceptions to a hard and fast rule, or is it possible that different men have different interests?

I find it really depressing that attempts to identify and analyze occurrences of sexism (and racism, etc.) are always so quickly dismissed as political correctness. We’re talking about actual lives and careers here, not offending delicate sensibilities. Does your right to treat women however you want trump my right to do my job without being denigrated and dismissed?

I guess that’s reasonable, what with very little having changed and this being your blog

I wish to respond to this, by Jack M.:

I’m reminded of a story about Hemingway. Someone once asked what was his advice to young writers, to which he replied that he always tried to discourage them – the good ones were the ones who didn’t listen!

There are a lot of intelligent, creative mentors who operate on this principle. There is a problem with this, however.

That is this: women (and, at times, other minority groups) on average tend to rate their own abilities as being lower than they actually are, whereas men tend on average to rate their own abilities as being as high as, or higher than, they actually are. This is well documented.

If a very good writer or scientist discourages younger colleagues from attempting to continue in the field, the discouragement is going to disproportionately affect females regardless of the ability of the younger colleagues.

Indeed, we do see this — men of lesser ability are likelier to continue in various fields than women of higher ability, even after controlling for factors like child-rearing.

There are those who have argued that the female tendency to being more easily discouraged, and to self-underrating of abilities, indicates that most women are not suited to any intellectual pursuits requiring a bit of egotism. (I don’t think anyone would deny that most successful academics have at least a dash of egotism, and a tendency to believe themselves in the right even when others insist that they are wrong.)

Maybe this is true. But by allowing this aspect of Western intellectual culture to persist, we are removing some excellent people from the pool of potential contributors, many females, but males as well. We must reconsider whether we feel that egotism and self-conceit really should be requisites for a young academic who has otherwise strong potential to do good work.

The free-market analogy does not work here because it assumes that the market makes decisions for best benefit in a rational manner. It doesn’t. Humans are not really rational beings, and we very, very often make decisions that are counter to our best interests thanks to our own biases, quirks, and superstitions.

This may change in the future in the sciences, as the sciences have become much more collaborative in the last twenty years or so. We now do much of our best work not by individually locking horns with antagonistic competitors, and thumping our chests, but by working together.

May the trend continue, because I think it can only be for the better that we do not waste precious time trying to knock one another down.

To Richard!

It might be worth pointing out that TMI went bankrupt in 1994. Evidently their groundbreaking computers weren’t good enough for the real world.

1. You assume women do those jobs out of “interest”?

Think again! Some women truly aspire to those jobs, but many have been turned off of more lucrative, exciting, or otherwise “interesting” careers by male (and sadly, sometimes female) hostility, if not outright discrimination.

2. No one except you mentioned “force”.

Come on, that’s sheer hysteria. The key here is to level the playing field so that everyone has an “equal opportunity” – there’s a reason that phrase is used, even if it’s rarely implemented well. It’s not about forcing people to do anything, it’s about allowing them to explore interests that they may have but aren’t currently culturally permissible. Maybe you would never be a stay-at-home dad or first-grade teacher, but some men would if it were socially acceptable. It sounds like your assertion (“most men…”) comes from asking other men, “You would never do a boring fairy job like THAT, would you?” Yeah, what are they supposed to say?

#26. “Based on a few conversations with female colleagues, I believe it is traditional male culture rather than sexism that is rife in physics.”

That sounds like a pretty limited sample technique. You might want to read some of the articles detailing the issues in physics culture. It’s a well known problem.

#38. “Frankly, the only time I felt ‘discouraged’ because I was a woman was when my female undergrad advisor (with the curious preference for male research assistants and grad students) wouldn’t hire me”

Yep, sexism can come from both sexes. There’s a lot of internalized misogyny in science. I know I’m guilty of it at times, as are many women who’ve had to learn to behave like “one of the boys” to succeed. It becomes ingrained.

In my experience (in hep phenomenology) there is, at least these days, no bias against women and no macho culture. Of course academia is very competitive, but that’s not the same as macho. The stats say that there is a high dropout rate among women. Well, it’s the same in all professions. It’s still the case that becoming a mother is much more damaging to one’s career than becoming a father (there are many reasons for this).

Another interesting aspect of this is http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article3889912.ece .