Give people power and a bunch of white lab coats and, sure, there’s going to be sexism, some of it quite overt. I’ve spent most of my adulthood in computer-related fields and it is obvious there too.
But I would submit that it may just be natural. Women aren’t attracted to science as much as men because the pursuit of true science seems somewhat cold and sterile. Facts don’t change just because you want them to (as opposed to junk science and climate change, which is another story). Most women (not all) would rather exist in a field where there are choices and she can choose the facts she likes best.
Those women who truly want to study and learn science should be encouraged to do so but I expect there will always be a disparity between the percentage of male scientists and female scientists. IMO, there’s nothing wrong or unnatural about that.
Or would you have to actually measure how many men WANTED to be in that profession as a correction?
As for women in science I am ALL FOR IT. Hire more, real smart ones and/or ones that look cute in a lab coat and glasses!
Dating a real smart gal who also has a degree in science. She works in regulatory affairs - while I still actually do science. Great career move on her part, but it was motivated by her interests. Bench-top science wasn't it.
Trying to think here in the leftist moonbat mode:
Less women in science is proof that science itself is a social construct, and is a tool of the white male patriarchal oppressors. So science and technology is evil, and prevents us from becoming attuned to Mother Gaia.
Yes, I have run into some people who think this way (in Minneapolis), however, they can not do without their MacBook and Facebook and IPhone and......
A leading feminist has been quoted as saying that women shouldn’t be “allowed” to make the choice to stay at home and raise children precisely because so many would choose to do so.
There are tons of very bright women out there who don't need any special treatment to do exceptionally well, and now there are few if any institutional hurdles to success that women face that men don't.
Women, in general, tend to place more emphasis on ‘having a life’ and having a family, and I think that therefore there are less of them willing to put up with the BS and politics that are involved in becoming department chairs etc. This, in my opinion is the biggest reason why there aren't more women in those positions.
I played ball, and had several friends who played in the minors. They were good, and were progressing up the ranks at acceptable speed, but they weren't willing to keep riding buses and living that life indefinitely, with only the possibility that they would ‘make it’. So they went on to other things (happily all have been successful). On the other hand, there are plenty of players in the minors who come from Latin countries who stick with it. For them, the salary they are making, and the lifestyle, is as good or better than what they can generally have in their home countries. They hang in there, and eventually some make it to the majors.
My point is that lots of things in life are a choice, and those choices often relate to how much you are willing to sacrifice, and how long you are willing to make those sacrifices.
I have a problem with people who aren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve what they want, but try to find other reasons why they don't have what they want, usually involving blaming others (these people tend to be democrats).