Your point (which is pretty good) is not, regrettably, the point of the article.
Additionally, you don't quite acknowledge that the reason women do not single-mindedly devote themselves to a pursuit (scientific or otherwise) in their 20s, 30s and 40s is because it is a cultural taboo for which they have little to no support to do so, expected as they are to have children to prove their gender, sacrifice their career (as opposed to a male partner sacrificing his) for said children (again to prove success at gender) and then to additionally care for aging parents who rarely want to burden male children with such tasks if they have the option not to.
While I acknowledge that most people of both genders desire children; women are told their whole lives that they do -- negating the possibility for many women of considering otherwise, and certainly negating for many more women the possibility of negotiated partnership around children that allows a woman to maintain career power.
There is nothing that indicates that women are innately less ambitious, intelligent or science oriented than men or in overwhelming majority want to sacrifice those things for having a family. But articles like this fall back on "girls just don't like science enough", "sure, lots of women are good, but only men can be great" and "women don't know how to take risks"
I was trained, from the very first moment of sentient life I can recall to never take a risk, to never make a mistake and put everyone else above me. The reason women aren't scientists have nothing to do with their being women, and everything to do with the ways they have been treated because they are women.
The women and science bullshit is right up there with "men write about ideas; women write about feelings." As if things like nation building don't happen due to jealousy, possession and desire.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-06-09 06:44 pm (UTC)Additionally, you don't quite acknowledge that the reason women do not single-mindedly devote themselves to a pursuit (scientific or otherwise) in their 20s, 30s and 40s is because it is a cultural taboo for which they have little to no support to do so, expected as they are to have children to prove their gender, sacrifice their career (as opposed to a male partner sacrificing his) for said children (again to prove success at gender) and then to additionally care for aging parents who rarely want to burden male children with such tasks if they have the option not to.
While I acknowledge that most people of both genders desire children; women are told their whole lives that they do -- negating the possibility for many women of considering otherwise, and certainly negating for many more women the possibility of negotiated partnership around children that allows a woman to maintain career power.
There is nothing that indicates that women are innately less ambitious, intelligent or science oriented than men or in overwhelming majority want to sacrifice those things for having a family. But articles like this fall back on "girls just don't like science enough", "sure, lots of women are good, but only men can be great" and "women don't know how to take risks"
I was trained, from the very first moment of sentient life I can recall to never take a risk, to never make a mistake and put everyone else above me. The reason women aren't scientists have nothing to do with their being women, and everything to do with the ways they have been treated because they are women.
The women and science bullshit is right up there with "men write about ideas; women write about feelings." As if things like nation building don't happen due to jealousy, possession and desire.