"Women own the woo, men own the science" is not a solved problem.
In this case, "woo" refers to the "softer" attributes often associated with women - nurturing, caring, feeling.
"Woo woo, a term used by scientific skeptics for pseudoscience, alternative medicine and New Age beliefs."
Just because a word has multiple definitions doesn't mean you can pick one that doesn't apply and call me wrong.
Women are not being told they can't do science anymore (that's what the article seems to be suggesting). Instead they're being told they need to look pretty and live up to certain standards of beauty. Living up to these standards is a lot of work for young girls and doesn't leave much time for much else. Men on the other hand can neglect such standards and still be socially accepted. I can't even imagine what a woman would go through if she dressed like your average male engineer.
When were the biological arguments refuted? source? From what I've heard, there seems to be more evidence for the biological side now (eg http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/07... ).
"Using contemporary data from the U.S. and other nations, we address 3 questions: Do gender differences in mathematics performance exist in the general population? Do gender differences exist among the mathematically talented? Do females exist who possess profound mathematical talent? In regard to the first question, contemporary data indicate that girls in the U.S. have reached parity with boys in mathematics performance, a pattern that is found in some other nations as well. Focusing on the second question, studies find more males than females scoring above the 95th or 99th percentile, but this gender gap has significantly narrowed over time in the U.S. and is not found among some ethnic groups and in some nations. Furthermore, data from several studies indicate that greater male variability with respect to mathematics is not ubiquitous. Rather, its presence correlates with several measures of gender inequality. Thus, it is largely an artifact of changeable sociocultural factors, not immutable, innate biological differences between the sexes. Responding to the third question, we document the existence of females who possess profound mathematical talent. Finally, we review mounting evidence that both the magnitude of mean math gender differences and the frequency of identification of gifted and profoundly gifted females significantly correlate with sociocultural factors, including measures of gender equality across nations."
Let's be clear here though. There are indeed be biological differences between the male and female brain. Females may be better at certain tasks than males and vice-versa. The question is, is there evidence to suggest biological factors could play a significant role in explaining the extremely low amounts of women in science? Consider the fact that even if some biological difference in mathematical ability could be demonstrated, that wouldn't even come close to explaining the disparity. We're not trying to produce Nobel Laureates here, just scientists.
Your original comment said the biological arguments were "refuted". Lacking conclusive evidence for hypothesis A is a lot different than "refuting" hypothesis A. I think a more fair statement is that we don't really know.
The relevant biological differences may not be in math skills. It may be in competitiveness, risk taking, etc.
Or the biological origin may be second order. For instance, it may be true that men and women have the same innate drive towards competitiveness. But there is certainly a biological difference in what men and women find attractive. Men are attracted primarily to signs of fertility. Women are attracted to signals of status and dominance. Thus men might culturally condition themselves to be more competitive in order to earn status and get laid. Thus there will tend to be more men at the top of any high status, competitive field. The roots of this will be biological, but the effect is second or third order.
the biological arguments have been proven to have no merit
However, in terms of interest they could have a lot of merit. Innate interest is often invoked to explain why a ridiculous number of women go to veterinary school, for instance. Did you know that the first Humane Societies were started by women, in a time when women did pretty much absolutely nothing?
It also depends on the woman how difficult these standards of beauty are achieving. Many of my female friends are engineers (comp, ee, cheg) and look excellent. Not because they "dress to the nines" but because they put on a little makeup and a nice shirt. The ones who were less accepted socially tended to be those who didn't take care of themselves, including the men.
Also, as a comp sci guy, I don't like the "tolerance for all quirks" thing we have going in some ways. It is great that we are passionate about our stuff, but there is social decorum that we should follow. Showers, general professionalism, and paying attention to how others feel about things -- these should not be considered polite suggestions but requisites.
really? In business, politics and law, we tolerate a lot of manipulative, egotistical assholes. why shouldn't the nerds get a break on some things, too? If I can save 20 minutes in the morning by throwing on jeans and a T shirt and not messing with my hair, really, what's the problem with that? why should I waste time/money on dressing nicely?
Really, I think the fact that nerds aren't held to the same level of 'professional appearance' as others of the same pay grade is that manipulating others, generally speaking, isn't our job.
The fact of the matter is, how someone dresses is simply not a good indicator of honesty, skill, or anything else you might actually care about.
I know my first impression, when I see someone in a suit, is "who is he trying to impress? and why can't he do it with his skills, rather than his appearance?"
I would love if life were a pure meritocracy filled with lollipops, puppy dogs and mediocre metaphors... but it isn't. There isn't a great way to determine the difference between honest, skill or anything else -- but if one person is willing to put on a suit and the other wants to opine about his irrelevant ethics... well we know who usually gets the job.
Let us also face the fact that we get a lot of egotistical assholes in tech -- except they do not bathe or make an attempt at decorum which is why people think we are so undesirable (according to the above). And the fact that someone is a slovenly self centered jackass that acts like a jerk to anyone who isn't a linux/vim fanboi that does xyz -- that doesn't mean he brings anymore value to a company of any size.
In my experience the best people have been pretty chill, bathe every day, observe general social decorum, and try not to act like jerks. I refer to both PhD and those sans BS.
I don't remember the last time I saw an experienced SysAdmin or Programmer interview in a suit and get the job. No, wait, I do. It was shortly after the .com crash. the applicant was mostly a visual basic programmer. Really old guy who was missing his index finger. He got the job, too, and was pretty good (he was doing something for our accounting systems, if I remember right) As I recall, I recommended the guy (It wasn't my decision, but being one of the other programmers, I got to make a recommendation) because he brought actual code to the interview, which is something else that is at least moderately unusual (not as unusual as the suit, but certainly not common.)
A nice shirt? sure. A tie? well, maybe. but a full on suit, from what I've seen, is pretty rare for technical positions, even during the interview.
Now, i've probably only participated in maybe 50 interviews for 'real companies' so my sample size isn't huge. it's possible that I just haven't seen the suits.
it depends on what you mean by 'the best' - some of the most effective people i know (in terms of 'getting things done' and making money) are somewhat less technically skilled, but have those social skills you are talking about. It really does give them an edge.
Nobody is saying that social skills and technical skills are not better than technical skills alone. However, for people who are technically skilled enough, well, they get a lot of slack when it comes to social skills.
The best technical people I know require some of that slack. social skills, just like technical skills, require effort and practice... nobody has the time to become the best at everything.