Male Scientists More Prone To Misconduct 300
sciencehabit writes "Male scientists — especially at the upper echelons of the profession — are far more likely than women to commit misconduct. That's the bottom line of a new analysis by three microbiologists of wrongdoing in the life sciences in the United States. Ferric Fang of the University of Washington, Seattle; Joan Bennett of Rutgers University; and Arturo Casadevall of Albert Einstein College of Medicine combed through misconduct reports on 228 people released by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) over the last 19 years. They then compared the gender balance — or imbalance, in this case — against the mix of male and female senior scientists and trainees to gauge whether misconduct was more prevalent among men. A remarkable 88% of faculty members who committed misconduct were men, or 63 out of 72 individuals. The number of women in that group was one-third of what one would expect based on female representation in the life sciences."
Their conclusion, my conclusion. (Score:5, Insightful)
Their conclusion: Men commit more misconduct.
My conclusion: Women are sneakier at committing misconduct.
Re:Their conclusion, my conclusion. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Their conclusion, my conclusion. (Score:5, Insightful)
Boobs buy a lot of forgiveness.
Then folks should be forgiving you continuously...
Re: (Score:2)
And the German Army...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/oddstuff/8212207/German-soldiers-are-growing-breasts [stuff.co.nz]
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of my overweight male friends would beg to differ
Re: (Score:3)
In most of the companies I've seen, things run smoother when C-level employees are not around
Re: (Score:2)
a) You're saying that a (fading but still present) cultural expectation that the man pays for the first date causes a 40% salary increase?
b) Most men are not CFOs.
a) I doubt that's what the AC meant. It's more like the cultural expectation, which may only be present in a given smaller area or subculture rather than an entire large region, is what makes a guy spend more. He feels like he needs to. That's not the fault of men or women of today. It's just a lingering relic of an expectation. I, too, feel I should. After all, that's how a lady ought to be treated. That's what all of the old-school films and such seem to indicate anyway. In truth, I think it's dow
Re:Their conclusion, my conclusion. (Score:5, Insightful)
Studies of marital infidelity suggest women are sneakier. They're no more faithful, but they don't get caught as much. Not having the irresistible urge to brag about wrongdoings to their friends at the bar/locker room probably helps.
Re:Their conclusion, my conclusion. (Score:5, Insightful)
Studies of marital infidelity suggest women are sneakier. They're no more faithful, but they don't get caught as much. Not having the irresistible urge to brag about wrongdoings to their friends at the bar/locker room probably helps.
That could be due to the husbands not being perceptive enough to notice as well. Instead of women being more sneaky, maybe men are just more oblivious.
Re: (Score:3)
Or that when you're not the one cheating, you trust your partner.
It's only in retrospect that you can see how everything had one, simpler, explanation. It just didn't make sense at the time.
Re:Their conclusion, my conclusion. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, there are some excellent articles on primate behavior that suggest there are many reasons for infidelity among both sexes. Its not to hard to figure out why women are sneakier... think people, men outweigh women by 50% or more and have twice the muscle mass. If your spouse can kill you with their bare hands,you tend to unconsciously avoid circumstances where that behavior might be expressed. Duh! Many women are taught from an early age to marry a good provider, but when Mr. Oh My Gawd shows up... stuff happens. There used to be strong religious taboos and social morays that kept people faithful, but after the sexual revolution of the 60s and cheap and effective birth control, the gloves are now pretty much off.
One growing answer has been polyamory or group marriage where a consenting group of people become all singing all dancing. This provides the members with sexual variety, while allowing group members natural strengths to empower the group and weaknesses being reinforced by other members. We still haven't gotten past jealousy and the idea of "Owning" our partners in this society, so don't expect that 50% divorce rate to improve anytime soon. There are however logical and even fascinating ways of people relating that may have real possibilities in the future.
Re:Their conclusion, my conclusion. (Score:5, Funny)
social morays that kept people faithful
I have this image of vicious eels guarding women's marital fidelity, ready to jump out and bite any unauthorized entrants where it hurts most. Not sure why you call them "social", though. Seems downright anti-social to me.
The word you actually wanted is "moré" :-)
Re: (Score:3)
social morays that kept people faithful,
What a wonderful concept, if only we were aquatic enough to take advantage of it. They're fascinating creatures, and any potential transgressor would have a rapid rethink at the thought of all those teeth tearing into their private flesh.
Thank you, and well done!
With apologies to the bible as literature crowd... (Score:2)
Yeah, right... (Score:4, Informative)
There used to be strong religious taboos and social morays that kept people faithful, but after the sexual revolution of the 60s and cheap and effective birth control, the gloves are now pretty much off.
...and the youngins used to respect their elders.
Giacomo Casanova was a real guy, you know? [wikipedia.org]
And the fact that the ten commandments have to mention infidelity TWICE, while murder only once, indicates how much of that was going around (and kept going around) WAY before "the 60s".
Actually, there are some excellent articles on primate behavior that suggest there are many reasons for infidelity among both sexes. Its not to hard to figure out why women are sneakier... think people, men outweigh women by 50% or more and have twice the muscle mass. If your spouse can kill you with their bare hands,you tend to unconsciously avoid circumstances where that behavior might be expressed. Duh! Many women are taught from an early age to marry a good provider, but when Mr. Oh My Gawd shows up... stuff happens.
Why go down to the biological level or even psychological level? Women ARE better at social interaction. That's it.
Human relationships (including love triangles, rectangles etc.) are literally exactly that - any relationship between two or more individuals. [wikipedia.org]
End of story.
Re: (Score:3)
Or, when Mr. Smith fooled around with his secretary and was caught by his wife, she didn't do much (except perhaps threaten to go stay at her mother's house for the weekend in protest) as divorcing the cheater wasn't a viable option. Women were told to be obedient wives and just go with what hubby said. Be
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Their conclusion, my conclusion. (Score:5, Informative)
The same male predominance in crime statistics, (violent and non-violent) is found in nearly every country.
Women commit 1/10th the amount of violent crimes that men do.
Unless there are sneaky ways to murder people, I don't think your conclusion holds.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in Canada a woman is almost as likely to murder her spouse as a man is.
So it must be cleaning the maple syrup off the plates drives women nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, you just lick it off. There's a special place in hell for those who waste good maple syrup, eh?
Re:Their conclusion, my conclusion. (Score:5, Informative)
First, I said violent AND NON VIOLENT. You stopped reading when you saw what you wanted to see.
The behavior traits that affect the commission of crime are arguable exactly the same as those driving scientific cheating or misconduct.
Others on this topic have posted that women are subject to far more scrutiny than men, and they realize this, and understand that they won't get away with it.
So for you to assert that they commit just as much misconduct but get away with it more often flies in the face of every other aspect of human behavior, as well as the theory of glass ceiling and undue scrutiny of female researchers.
Re: (Score:3)
You said violent and non-violent, but only gave a figure for violent and said "unless there are sneaky ways to murder people", which is about violent crime. That's equivocal.
I found it surprisingly much more difficult to get nonviolent crime rates broken down by gender. Most talk about overall, or violent, but not both at once so I can't even synthesize because the data may come from different sources, so I'm having trouble verifying your comment. I did find larceny was about 2:1 male:female in the US, w
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh....
Again, The topic under discussion is "research misconduct" faking results, plagiarism, etc.
There is not a shred of evidence that females were anywhere near these male researcher who were committing research misconduct.
Re: (Score:2)
The original point however does stand. This is for people who were CAUGHT. It's widely researched and known that women are far better then men at social manipulation and subterfuge simply due to biological requirements. Weaker sex had to use underhanded means to get ahead of the stronger one that used brute force.
It would be strange if this particular stage would be an exception to this rule.
Re:Their conclusion, my conclusion. (Score:4, Insightful)
They aren't terribly specific on what exactly constitutes misconduct, but it seems to be correlated with retracted papers and bad science. Given this, I can't think sneakiness is really going to account for much. After all, no amount of sneakiness really makes up for flawed science because, well, that's the point of science ;). Of course, it could let them get away with bad science and not be accused of misconduct. That I don't know.
But, as a simple musing, I wonder if this is because female scientists feel they are under greater scrutiny, while men have a more old-boys-club outlook that makes them less concerned that they'll get in trouble for misconduct.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Their conclusion: Men commit more misconduct.
My conclusion: Women are sneakier at committing misconduct.
My question: what percentage of scientists are men?
Re: (Score:3)
My wife used to teach in a middle school all-girl's school. You wouldn't know if one girl had a problem with another girl even if you observed them closely. They'd look for all the world like the best of friends. Meanwhile, one girl would be effectively destroying the other girl.
As a contrast, I have two boys. You always know if there's a problem between boys. You can spot the fighting/yelling from a mile away.
So it wouldn't surprise me to hear that girls grow up to be better able to hide wrong doings
Re:Their conclusion, my conclusion. (Score:5, Informative)
The number of women in that group was one-third of what one would expect based on female representation in the life sciences
So, no.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Their conclusion, my conclusion. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I would posit there is a cruicial missing control here: Authority. Misconduct is far more likely to be committed by folks in authority than those who aren't, I would like to see the percentage of woman committing misconduct proportionate to their percentage in *authority roles* rather than just their percentage in the whole field, likewise mens misconduct proportionate to their percentage in authority roles. I think this would be much more balanced, as it is a very relevant control they're missing from their statistics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Their conclusion, my conclusion. (Score:4, Informative)
No, that was all accounted for in the article, both in scientific/engineering academia as a whole and life sciences in particular.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, feel free to read the article and point out where it isn't. It's publicly available so there is no reason to criticize it without evidence...
Re:Alternatively (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow... rather than look at logical behavioral and sociological differences in men and women that might result is this finding, the male response is women are just as bad at men but aren't held to account for their misdeeds. Hhmmmm. Interesting. So in how many societies on the planet are baby boys being slaughtered or dumped on orphanage porches to make way for female babies? How many men are being forced to stay in their houses under threat of death even when staying in that house may include starvation? How many men are surgically mutilated to ensure that they will never enjoy sex and remain faithful to their wives? How many men are being raped, mutilated, burned, disfigured or killed by women committing acts against society? How many men are being hired by women for their large bulges and rippling muscles? How many men have to deal in a daily battle of sexist, matriarchal social norms that cause them to be members of the poorest classes in society, be burdened by frequent abandonment by women, left holding the bag for raising single parent families? You know, they used to keep statistics about Single Fathers who were abandoned by their wives, but the number was so ridiculously small that it disappeared into the statistical noise so they stopped tracking it. How many men have to deal with a female controlled medical system that caters to women's every sexual whim but virtually ignores even the most basic reproductive needs of men? You know... you guys are a bunch of whining ass hats who haven't even gone to the slightest trouble to come up with a world view that reflect anything that has to do with this space time continuum, talk about narrow minded and delusional.
Try this on, just as a possibility. For a woman to succeed in science she has to work 3 time harder than a man, undergo 3 times as much critical scrutiny by a male dominated peer review and sweat 3 times harder about getting it right in the first place. Consider men tend to be more competitive and women more collaborative, so men working more alone might be more tempted to fudge results because 1. They want to beat the competition and 2. There are fewer folks looking over their shoulders. Might it even be possible, that women have stronger social orientation then men and therefore a stronger sense of consequence for their actions. This would be consistent with research that suggest most female misconduct happens after menopause when estrogen drops and testosterone rises.
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of snooty little self serving bitches out there who use sex as a way to get ahead. You just want to notice "That Girl" inn't getting patted on the back or "high fived" by the other women in the office for her behavior, because most of us want to succeed on our merits, intelligence and personal dignity, and we see a little trollop screwing her way to the top as a cheater. Winning is less important to us, that contributing and leaving things better than we found them. Perhaps that is the important difference between women and men in general. Winning is great, winning at all costs, not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure AC was deliberately being misogynistic, but I assumed the first guy was trying to be funny. I shake my head at the insightful mod, though.
I'm a little disappointed that they didn't conduct a parallel study where they asked a random sampling of people the same question, though.
Re: (Score:2)
All I can think while scrolling through this trainwreck is, "oh. this thread again."
Come on, Slashdot, let's hear ALL OVER AGAIN about how a particular demographic has myriad unfair advantages over others, and yet mysteriously, has not managed to leverage those advantages into a superior social or economic position. Do your worst.
Re:Alternatively (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, so it's only ok for feminists to stereotype?
Re:Alternatively (Score:4, Insightful)
Please show me the woman who is working 180 hours a week.
Re: (Score:2)
So in how many societies on the planet are baby boys being slaughtered or dumped on orphanage porches to make way for female babies? How many men are being forced to stay in their houses under threat of death even when staying in that house may include starvation? How many men are surgically mutilated to ensure that they will never enjoy sex and remain faithful to their wives? How many men are being raped, mutilated, burned, disfigured or killed by women committing acts against society?
So you're saying women are less prone to scientific conduct because they don't want to be slaughtered in an orphanage? I guess that makes sense.
Re:Alternatively (Score:5, Interesting)
Two can play at this game. Genital mutilation is still regularly practiced on males in the US. Women are more physically violent in relationships (see any of the 200+ studies on this topic), but men are ridiculed if they ever complain about it, are arrested if they report it to the police, and any defensive action will result in a prison sentence.
Single fathers are rare because the legal system overwhelmingly favors taking children away from their father. Divorce is similar. The homeless are almost entirely men because there is far more government support for poor women. Women's reproductive health is a medical specialty paid for by insurance, while male contraceptives haven't fundamentally changed for a thousand years and "men's health" isn't really a thing (beyond some rare doctor's individual interest).
Something that is likely most relevant to Slashdot's user base is society's expectation that men drive the entire courtship process, and suffer countless painful rejections by women. Men are also pushed into the dangerous or unhealthy jobs, while society is perfectly accepting of women as homemakers.
Heck, 60% of men throughout history never had surviving children, so society has always treated men as expendable. Men are competitive because the prize for first place is one or more women of your choice and a position of authority, second place is being first place's servant, and third place is dead. Men have to go big or go home, so I'm not particularly surprised that this mentality would lead to academic misconduct. OTOH, men tend to be in more senior positions than women since feminism is somewhat recent, so that would skew the results. (It also skews the "three times harder" nonsense, as does maternity leave and the tendency of women to not negotiate salary or pursue jobs with long hours but high pay.)
Re:Alternatively (Score:5, Funny)
"Try this on, just as a possibility."
Calm down. Don't get your knickers in a twist.
According to OP, this analysis was done by three "microbiologists of wrongdoing". I would not place much faith in their accuracy. Unless I am mistaken, they belong to the same professional organization as the "physicists of pillage".
Re: (Score:3)
Alternatively, women face a much greater burden to be taken seriously in their profession than men do, and less leeway leads to cleaner habits.
Misconduct (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this news? I mean, really: In every aspect of society, men are more aggressive and prone to antisocial behavior than women. The headline might as well be reading "Sky found to be blue, water wet." It might be interesting if it turned out that the ratios were significantly skewed only in scientific endeavors compared to the baseline, but I'm not seeing that here. I'm seeing someone study a sample from a specific subculture and realize that... it's just like a random sample from the general population. It isn't new or groundbreaking. It's simply confirmatory... extra empirical findings that support what's already established.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I'm sure there's some value in finding more detailed statistics for the scientific community, but we already knew men are disproportionately represented in crime and high-risk activities in general.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm don't think what you are saying is proven. The article abstract states that 94% of the misconduct was fraud, not being aggressive or antisocial as you indicate.
That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
an.ti.so.cial adj.
1. Shunning the society of others; not sociable.
2. Hostile to or disruptive of the established social order; marked by or engaging in behavior that violates accepted mores: gangs engaging in vandalism and other antisocial behavior.
3. Antagonistic toward or disrespectful of others; rude.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you automatically assume the difference in fraudulent behaviour is tied to a biological mechanism? For sure testosterone has an influence on behaviour, but why implictly discount 'boys will be boys' and the 'old boys network'?
Mart
Re: (Score:3)
Putting a figure on how much is news. I honestly would not have expected the figure to be 88%, which does seem skewed compared to baseline at first glance. That's like the violent crime gap, which is often state to be more significant than the nonviolent crime gap.
Also I wouldn't be so sure without studying it that academic misconduct directly relates to aggressiveness.
Majority far more likely to collude than minority (Score:2)
I'm willing to bet that this discrepancy is more a factor of groups vs. individuals than male vs. female. Aka "peer pressure" aka "everyone is doing it" etc.
What if it went the other way? (Score:5, Interesting)
The opposite result would be unpublishable, and in an academic setting unspeakable. Can it be credible science if only one result was permissible?
Posting as AC for the obvious reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Posting as AC for the obvious reason.
Because you lack the courage of your convictions?
I believe it (Score:2)
I believe it. And I don't care. I would also not be surprised that a higher percentage of male athletes use steroids. Cheating is an unfortunate byproduct of being competitive (although maybe an evolutionarily advantageous one).
It does piss me off though to see garbage like
They then compared the gender balance — or imbalance, in this case
in the summary.
Re:I believe it (Score:4, Informative)
The summary (and perhaps the article... I don't know, couldn't care less) is a study in sexism. It states the absolute percentage of male misconduct, not the rate. Then it uses the well known technique of stating the proportional change ("one-third of what one would expect") to make the difference seem really big.
I certainly believe men are more prone to getting caught cheating in science. I think it's reasonable that they may even be more prone to doing it. But the summary reads like a cancer scare piece or a political message.
Correlation with gender imbalance not gender (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Correlation with gender imbalance not gender (Score:4, Interesting)
RTA y'all before you get your skivies in a bunch (Score:4, Interesting)
FTA
The trend seems clear, but the authors did admit that "[w]e cannot exclude the possibility that females commit research misconduct as frequently as males but are less likely to be detected."
I remember reading once that as a child Mao Tse-tung often witnessed his parents fight. He concluded the more effective tactics were the indirect ones used by his mother. These recollections lodged in his memory -- it is no mistake that the Art of War, of which many of the tactics described therein are predicated on deceptiveness, became the revolutionary army's bible.
Well there you go (Score:2)
Women make up 16% of scientists in industry (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Unscientific study (Score:2)
A remarkable 88% of faculty members who committed misconduct were men, or 63 out of 72 individuals.
Since the majority of the study consisted of men, they should normalize it based on the percentage of men in the study. Considering that only 72 individuals were examined, there isn't a scientific conclusion that can be drawn from this study.
Since they didn't have enough females to make a male vs female comparison, they could have done it as "a percentage of scientists are prone to misconduct".
Re: (Score:2)
And the results are inconsistent as well. 100% of the men and 100% of the women who performed this study did not follow the scientific method and did not collect a significant sample set and yet still published the results. For shame!
Real point: fraud leads to retractions (Score:3)
The summary and its linked article are both unclear as to what "misconduct" is being discussed. Fortunately, clarity is available through the original paper [asm.org]:
. . . we found that misconduct is responsible for most retracted articles and that fraud or suspected fraud is the most common form of misconduct. Moreover, the incidence of retractions due to fraud is increasing, a trend that should be concerning to scientists and non-scientists alike.
The study is looking into why scientific papers are being retracted and what trends there are in the retractions.
It's too bad that the summary was so generic it could have meant anything from nosepicking to marital infidelity to fabricating data. This is an interesting topic, and it's sad that the frequency of fraudulent publications is increasing.
Risk adverse (Score:5, Interesting)
Did they correct for risk aversion? Not being adverse to cheating, but being adverse to entering a field where luck / risk plays a pretty big part in success which means more motivation for cheating?
For example, lots more women in lib arts, where pretty much any result is acceptable. In the hard sciences, negative results are pretty much unacceptable, although in many ways they're just as important as positive results.
Examples:
Say you wanna prove women don't make as much money as men in field XYZ. Doesn't really matter what the result is, you get to publish, and in a publish or perish world, you win.
Say you wanna methylate some weird hydrocarbon. And you just Freaking Cannot Do it. Perhaps because its impossible. Oh well I guess you fail and become homeless and live under a bridge. Or you could bend the rules just a tiny bit just this one time....
I would stand by my lifetime observation that women are dramatically less tolerant of risk.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, lots more women in lib arts, where pretty much any result is acceptable. In the hard sciences, negative results are pretty much unacceptable, although in many ways they're just as important as positive results.
I don't see how that makes any difference. It's a proven fact that men take risks even when there is not a clear advantage to doing so. In laymans terms, the "hold my beer" effect. While a competitive field may amplify this tendancy, numerous studies have shown it to be present regardless of circumstances and even present when detrimental to the individual/group being observed.
I would stand by my lifetime observation that women are dramatically less tolerant of risk.
Yes... They have to stay home and raise the kids, so if you run off and get yourself killed methylating hydrocarbons and lying to la
This... (Score:2)
Ummmm Null Hypothesis Anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
It looked to me from the article that P=0.24.
That is really not a reasonable basis to draw all these conclusions from.
"Misconduct"? (Score:3)
After having actually read TFA, I still don't know what they mean by "misconduct." Are we talking academic, i.e. falsifying data or plagiarizing, or sexual misconduct, or what? The article carefully avoids ever joining an adjective to it.
Because come on...in general, does anybody believe males if they report being accosted?
obProfessorFarnsworth (Score:2)
Flatter bell curve for males (Score:2)
In almost any study of gender behavior, males tend to fall on the extremes of both ends (the good and bad). We soar higher, but also crash more. Males score the very top in math, but also tend to fill up the very bottom. Male behavior just plain seems to be more varied than females, at least when objectively measured.
It could be because over the course of human evolution, male roles have been more varied than females such that nature gambles more with the male brain so that males can find or create differen
That's a research paper? (Score:2)
It's 3 pages long, the last page is half references, the first page is a title page, the second page is half abstract.
It's got one page of content.
It fails to account for gender ratio in each of the job categories. It's not even mentioned other than to say it is comparable with other areas of science.
Mad Scientists... (Score:2)
At first glance I thought the title said "Mad Scientists More Prone To Misconduct" and thought this could be an interesting article.
Nothing to add to scientific misconduct discussion (Score:2)
I just wanted to say that I fervently hope that Ferric Fang goes by the nickname 'Iron'.
Mad? (Score:2)
sample size? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And... isn't this akin to the Muslim world, who ask that the women cover themselves so as to not incite the lust of men? If men get excited, it's women's fault.
Nonsense, of course - just in case you thought I was being serious.
Re:Not exactly (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Excuse me, but I've been in business settings now for nearly 40 years... I've never, ever seen a woman pat a man's ass, wait... there was a pediatrician and the man was about 14 months old... but that's it. Guys, face it. Take responsibility for it. Just own the simple fact that testosterone is an amazingly powerful chemical. Here's a trick, give estrogen to a biological male... sexual impulse goes BYE BYE. Give testosterone to a biological female, she becomes a freaking sex fiend. Its not your fault, test
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, asking for sources or *gasp* investing a little of your own intellectual effort of your own and providing your own sources contradicting the original claim was standard. [Citation Needed] has pretty much always been one step shy of trolling at best, especially since it's most often used as a drive by or as part of the "accuse the other guy of what you're guilty of" trick...
Like yourself, for example. You start out with [citation needed] before claiming you had sources proving something else. Sources tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, please all you want. Men do have problems, but being treated worse than women is not one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, you need to get laid. That way, you'd stop getting overly excited whenever something without a beard walks around.
Although, I do understand that with your kind of attitude, getting laid by any self-respecting woman could be a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh yeah, because everyone knows that women scientists like to work in their lingerie. Women in the middle east wear black gunny sacks, and the men still piss all over themselves to get a glimpse of fingernail... dude, its your hormones, your erection, your behavior, blaming other people because you have poor self control is like blaming fast food because it tastes good. That's the way its made, welcome to biology. Now take responsibility for your behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, let me put the dots a wee bit closer so you can follow the line. Women aren't meat. Women aren't things. They are fully functional, distinct human beings complete with rights. If the law allows a woman to legally walk done the street buck naked, she has the right to do so without you attacking her because you refuse to put your libido on a short leash. A woman's choice of social presentation is not a pass on your ability to function in a social manner. Sorry. I know its not fair, but you're the one wi
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, because everyone knows that women scientists like to work in their lingerie. Women in the middle east wear black gunny sacks, and the men still piss all over themselves to get a glimpse of fingernail... dude, its your hormones, your erection, your behavior, blaming other people because you have poor self control is like blaming fast food because it tastes good. That's the way its made, welcome to biology. Now take responsibility for your behavior.
Better put than I managed - thanks Genda...
Re: (Score:2)
Stop spreading your religious indoctrination.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your extremely misogynistic views as well as your poor usage of English suggests you're an Islamist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense.
Women earn degrees at just about every educational lever at a higher rate than men. Women account for the majority of post secondary degrees [ed.gov] in the US.
The old idea that women have to work harder to achieve degrees simply has very little data to support it.
As far as facing more scrutiny, why would that be the case since they are caught far fewer times than men? If some one is going to be scrutinized its most likely the person with a higher than average statistical propensity to bend the rules. In
Re:Probably because women can't get away with it (Score:4, Informative)
You've made a large number of presumptions here, most of which don't hold water. The first is that life sciences have been dominated by men for many decades and only now are beginning to get access from women. I personally had three girl friends who went to prestigious schools (Cal Tech, Stanford and Carnegie Melon) in the 70s and did very well in Biological Studies receiving Masters and PhDs degrees. Each woman was sat down and told that nobody would hire them. Nobody would fund them. That they exactly 0 future in life science and that their only avenue of expression in the field was to go into medicine. All three women became doctors.
Even today, women only account for less than 38% of the life science researchers. So the fraud finding among female scientists being 12% suggests a 3X lower fraud rate than their male counterparts. They do have to work harder in life science which is still male dominated. The people who will review your work are men. The people who set the directions for rewarding researchers are men. Pretty much all the rule in life science are made by men. The competition is fierce, funding is a winner take all proposition and they only fund publishers of successful research. Men get the lion's share of research dollars. So pretty much everything you said is simply refuted by the facts.
Things may change in the future, but this is the current state of affairs.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, because everyone knows that the uterus contains an invisibility field... sorry girls, I know, we all took the oath not to tell the men about the powers of the uterus, but its time they understood just what they're up against. At least I didn't mention the nipple death rays... Oops!
Re: (Score:2)
The Vagina Lobby! you just made me blow peanuts out my nose... owww! So what exactly is a Vagina Lobby??? A place for Vaginas to go and wait while a Penis movie is playing? The all powerful vagina lobby... oh yeah baby! Like if that existed there'd be insured women's reproductive rights insurance before a man's right to fixing erectile dysfunction. But I don't see that, damn Vagina Lobby must be sleeping on the job! Friend, I don't know what planet you're from but women in the United States (at least) have
Re: (Score:2)
Show me a statistic, or you're just making crap up...
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on how pretty the man or woman, and whether the hittee is straight or gay... but yeah, pretty much.