Posted: Apr 15, 2010 6:38 am
Topsy wrote:Darwinsbulldog wrote:Topsy wrote:@ Darwinsbulldog
I don't think there's any evidence of social engineering to enable girls to close the gap in mathematics. It's just been a by-product of gender-equal societies. There is certainly evidence that girls are generally more skilled linguistically at an early age though.
A pity really, because a more feminine perspective [not meant in a sexist way] is quite good for science. Rosalind Franklin, for example, was a kick-ass X-Ray crystallographer. All Watson and Crick did was join the dots to get the structure of DNA. He data was way ahead of Bragg's, which is why Linux C. Pauling got it wrong and thought DNA was a triple helix.
Guys in Physics are too linear sometimes. It holds back the science. Physics need a Lynn Margulis.
Jocelyn Bell who discovered pulsars, is another good example. I am not saying that there is such a thing as feminist physics, but there are too few women in maths and science, too many geek boys.
I'm not averse to the notion that males and females might have general differences in aptitudes and preferences. If that's how we've evolved then I can accept that. The most important thing IMO is that individuals have every opportunity to follow their talents and interests regardless of gender.
I didn't think you were Topsy, I was just pointing our that [even after enablment programs are given to folks to maximize their skills] we may not end up with a fifty-fifty ratio.