Why we need more women in science - with Athene Donald
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 02. 2024
- Times have changed since women were barred from laboratories and unable to take science degrees. But have they changed enough?
Watch the Q&A for this talk here (exclusively for CZcams Channel Members): • Q&A: Why we need more ...
Buy Athene's book here: geni.us/JaH6Y
This talk was recorded at the Royal Institution on 16 November 2023, with collaboration with Digital Science. Find out more here: www.digital-science.com/
Despite making great strides, the numbers of women studying physics and engineering remain small, and those who go on to successful careers are very few.
Join Dame Athene Donald as she explores, using her own experience and those of other top scientists who are women, the factors that drive women to give up on a career in science. From societal expectations, prejudice, hostility, and condescension to unconscious and systemic bias, particularly in science research, as evidenced by recent studies.
In this talk, discover how diversity is crucial to solving the problems of today, and why women should have their proper place as equals, in the lab, and in the committees where top-level decisions are made.
Dame Athene Donald is Professor Emerita in Experimental Physics and Master of Churchill College, University of Cambridge. She has spent her career in Cambridge, specializing in soft matter physics and physics at the interface with biology. She was the University of Cambridge's first Gender Equality Champion and has been involved in numerous initiatives concerning women in science. Athene has served on a variety of committees at the Royal Society, chaired its Education Committee from 2010-14 and currently serves on its Council (as she has before) and is a member of the Science Policy Committee. She served on the Scientific Council of the European Research Council from 2013-18 and was a Trustee of the Science Museum from 2011-16.
She was elected Fellow of the Royal Society in 1999 and appointed DBE for services to Physics in 2010.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @theroyalinstitution
Subscribe for regular science videos: bit.ly/RiSubscRibe
The Ri is on Twitter: / ri_science
and Facebook: / royalinstitution
and TikTok: / ri_science
Listen to the Ri podcast: podcasters.spotify.com/pod/sh...
Donate to the RI and help us bring you more lectures: www.rigb.org/support-us/donat...
Our editorial policy: www.rigb.org/editing-ri-talks...
Subscribe for the latest science videos: bit.ly/RiNewsletter
Product links on this page may be affiliate links which means it won't cost you any extra but we may earn a small commission if you decide to purchase through the link. - Věda a technologie
Our position at the RI is that science is for everyone. We make our home in London and our online spaces welcoming, respectful and safe for all. We will not tolerate abuse or harassment of our people, nor of our audiences. We support and welcome freedom of speech - science is, after all, a world of exploration and debate - but we expect those sharing our online and in-person spaces to be respectful to all. Free speech doesn’t give anyone the right to be racist or sexist or transphobic, nor to mis-use the power of science to incite hatred. We are not open to those who seek to use science as an excuse for prejudice, discrimination and hate.
We will remove comments that are offensive to our speaker or to our audiences, and we encourage those commenting to watch the full video before responding, rather than just reading the title.
This stuff only makes people angry and causes people convinced by it, to make good people, objects of it. The net effect is that good people get beat over the head. And is a source of hatred while claiming to be fighting hatred.
The barbies are now biased in your image. And you feel as righteous about it as the last person.
No, we don't need more scientists of a particular group. We need more good scientists. Your whole attitude is incredibly unscientific
It's simply about not discouraging people with a potential aptitude for science away from it.
@@Safetytrousers This is one of the saddest comment sections I've ever seen :/
I know, I've felt dirty trying to correct these people.@@edumazieri
@@Safetytrousers So where in the U.S. or U.K. are people with a potential aptitude for science discouraged from going into it? You keep making this same comment, so you must have a specific and significant answer to my question.
Did you watch the video?@@tomjacobson7623
This way of thinking only lead to sexism and prejudice. What about just welcoming everybody. What about just treating people as they are instead of trying to sort them using characteristics they didn’t decide… which is exactly what you are trying (I hope) to fight.
This isn't about forcing people into science, it's about not discouraging people with a potential/defiinite aptitude away from it.
You keep making this comment. So again, no one is discouraging women. They are being relentlessly pushed into stem and they don’t want it. Deal with it.
I make the same comment because people get alerted when a reply is made to their comment.
And it's not me saying it, I am explaining what the video is saying. Counter the video if you can, not me.
And it's easy to make a blanket unevidenced comment. My evidence is the video.@e-sh6bi
Is she advocating for more women bricklayers and oil rig workers also?
She is indirectly by advocating we see more men in traditionally female areas like Languages and Psychology
If a person can do and wants to do something they should be allowed and enabled to do it no matter what they are.
If she isn´t, then I am.
No, they only ever agitate for more high status white collar jobs.
We really don’t tho. We need the best person for the job. When I read a white paper the gender of the person that wrote it means nothing to me
Especially when the authors are from cultures so foreign that one just can't tell whether the name is a female or male one.
Women are already a majority in stem colleges, about 60% I don’t know about the numbers in America but in Europe the careers in the sciences are about 47% women now. Any chance we update the narrative a bit please because at this point it feels like a dead horse being beaten into the ground and people just don’t know how to change their tune despite the world changing around them
Someone else who didn't even watch 2 min into the video where she shows those stats. 😂
The woke never fudge stats to support their ideological bent. Ever. Promise.
@@sharpsheep4148 cool, I’m glad she did. My point still stands though. The Royal Institute is pretty good at keeping its fingers on the pulse with its guests usually so I’m glad places are starting to update the narrative but there’s still quite a way to go with corporations, advocate groups and governments listening
@@sharpsheep4148 Does the cognitive dissonance not bother you? There is a 20% gap of women graduating more with degrees in life sciences compared to men globally, but I am expected to believe that women are still oppressed and not given opportunities? Give me a break. The constant shifting of goal posts has made a lot of people unsympathetic to any perceived grievances of women in STEM. When will you be satisfied, does there have to be a 40% gap in graduation?
She addresses this. She notes at the beginning of the video when discussing the types of STEM roles where women are involved. Also that even within STEM there are women’s roles (biology, chemistry) and men’s roles (physics, engineering). She concludes that that a disproportionate amount of women in one role vs another (high or low) is problematic.
Seeing as men are minorities in biology and chemistry, will she be writing a book to say more men are needed in those fields? If not, why not?
These people couldn't care less about discrimination or "equity", they just want more power and prestige for themselves. That's how cultural marxism works, you get rid of actual merit and real world competence and replace it with the thirst for moral credibility and the illusions of self-righteousness.
The best of the best is all thats required.
Indeed.
You won't get the best of the best if you discourage people who could be the best of the best away from fields that need it.
Women, eternal victims of forces beyond their control...
@@Safetytrousers Blah blah blah, same reply over and over again without giving a single significant real world example. (western world, not Afghanistan or somewhere like that.)
What are you talking about?@@tomjacobson7623
What does gender have to do with science?
@@jmc90213 After hearing her speak, it is obvious that the book is not worth reading and will have zero insight into anything at all
Gender bias restricts the talent pool science can draw from.
@@Mandragara Only an artificial gender bias created by trying to reach "parity" for no other reason than reaching parity.
It's about not discouraging people with a potential aptitude away from science.
that is a great question, watch the video and find out.
As someone with a masters in Engineering and PhD in physics chem. and Barbie fan, i see no connection between my degree and my play interests.
… i believe the message in terms of how engineer type should look and behave is the key. I was repairing barbies since my stay at home mom was repairing stuff. There is nothing wrong with loving make up, clothes, wanting family and being an engineer. Its important not to go against women are: primarily mothers. Its ok to be a mom and a scientist.
She took a picture of the structure of DNA, yes, but the complete model was developed by Watson and Crick a year later. The picture Franklin was able to capture was a massive help and building block on which Watson and Crick buildt their model. That is hardly proof that there is an anti-women agenda here. Not everyone who helped get a result gets a nobel price.
Do we need more men in childcare rolls?
I am sorry what? Smh. Just let people do what they want. We don't need more of any group. We just need the best regardless. *facepalm*.
If this was before 2010, I would gladly back the notion, but sadly I would have to disagree to it.
Surely you mean 1910?
It's simply about not discouraging people with a potential aptitude for science away from it. What's wrong with that?
@@Safetytrousers No gatekeeping involved, besides the fact that there are more individuals thinking in an emotionally-logical basis over being technically-logical. I know a few women (and men) who are not stable, yet are in such fields where they can take advantage of vulnerable individuals just because they felt like it... Now there are so many of them, that it feels like we are out numbered. No genuinity nor technicality. It is already a shadow dystopia of a world we live in, wait and see what happens to us in a few decades...
@@Safetytrousers Where in the west is there a significant discouragement of people with a potential aptitude for science from going into it?
Did you watch the video?@@tomjacobson7623
And I thought the Hyperloop lecture was the worst RI lecture ever….and then they did this one.
You can count ovaries all you want, but at the top 10 (American) STEM university my son attended, despite the bias toward women in admissions, there were literally zero women remaining in the most difficult, 4th year math classes when my son graduated. All the women were weeded out, either from a lack of aptitude or lack of desire. It is nonsense to force women into a field that they cannot handle or do not want to pursue.
Exactly! They will rather burn the world down, then accept reality of the fact.
Im so happy that most people in the comments are aware of the social engineering.
Who are "we" and whyvis the situation a "problem". 😂
We should be making science as accessible as possible to anyone & everyone & then let the people do what they want. Turns out, when freedom of choice is increased, delineation of career choice by gender goes up. Women go into STEM even less.
Don't force things. Encourage, create equal opportunity for everyone. From there, it's a meritocracy.
This isn't about forcing people into science, it's about not discouraging people with a potential aptitude away from it.
@@acmhfmggruwhy are acting so tribalist about the issue? This isn't men vs women. Women aren't thinking "I'm so much better than you." They're people trying to pursue their lives just like you. The fact that you feel victimized by this presentation is absolutely wild.
I was the only male in my academic group at the uni. I am the only one who is working in science.
You need more women to want to be in science. I used to work for an engineering company, unlike finance and HR very few women applied for engineering or IT positions, those that did were good at their jobs. Just like the men some went on to advance their careers and others didn't.
Boys and Girls are not the same. The physical differences are obvious, but it is important to recognize differences in their interests and in the ways of thinking. We need to recognize the differences and applaud them. Pretending they don't exist puts everyone in the worst position.
Listen to 16:20. She doesn't say it should be 50 50
@@Mandragara If it doesn't have be 50 : 50 then what is the problem? What is the point of bringing up any of these numbers? As long as both sexes are given equal opportunity there should be no issue with the distribution of sexes in particular fields.
@@Blackmore278 Her point is that the numbers are so skewed as to suggest that there is not equal opportunity. Later in the talk she maps performance metrics to outcomes to provide some evidence for it. You can pick holes in the talk, absolutely, but she's just not making the "it should be 50:50" argument.
The problem is that we don't know where preferences really lie, until unnecessary social/societal biases are removed. Remember that we come from a society that didn't think women should have a right to vote, or that medical research should only be done on men. We've come a long way, but we're not yet at the point, where we can say: "Oh, all of this is just preference"... the point is not for it to be equal.. it's for it to be fair.
@@Mandragara
I'm not going to listen to a biased 50 minute video. Can you list a single piece of evidence she states (time stamps will do) that actually provide evidence of gender bias against women?
"Times have changed since women were barred from laboratories and unable to take science degrees. But have they changed enough?"
For the people who demand more "diversity" it will never be enough.
No person who wants diversity wants more than 50/50 if that.
No person who advocates for more diversity wants more than 50/50.
The presenter says, It's healthy when women have the minority in one field and not healthy when men have a majority in another field of study.
Just when I was feeling alone amidst all the madness we're seeing from videos like this, I saw the comment section filled with like-minded, rational people expressing the common sense I've missed oh so much. It gives me hope to see so many people who care about science and learning take a stand against dogma and stand up for a more classically liberal, if not simply sensible, way of viewing science.
Your so smart
@@innerfield5481 Well said.
talk about a loaded question..
We need to convince as many women as we can to spend 4 years and many 10's of thousands of dollars in a field that when they get out to the work place they realize they f'n hate it.
It's simply about not discouraging people with a potential aptitude for science away from it.
@@Safetytrousers if people have the aptitude they wouldnt be discouraged. Its also simply about not processing other peoples emotions for them, and letting them breath instead
A suitability for STEM subjects would not manifest in the same way clear way drawing or singing would. You don't have children writing equations around the place.
The point the video is that it would be best if people with that suitability were not steered away from it at an early age and boys-clubbed out of it at an older age.@@thomasss9293
No. We need more competence. Stop it with the diversity ideology.
You won't get more competenece if you discourage people who could have that competence away from fields that need it.
Who could have? How's this a conditional issue? They are competent scientists now, men and women@@Safetytrousers
@@Safetytrousers Stop spaming this half arsed comments about "disocuragement" or brink examples for it (in the last 50 years and in the western world).
This just makes you look like a fool for white knighting without anything to back it up.
The video is the back up. You need to provide evidence to counter points in the video.
People get notified when there is a reply to their comment. That's why I post on several comments.@@ickebins6948
we do not
My wife has a PhD in chemistry and is now a stay at home mother entirely of her own choice.. Can’t force women to do anything right?…
What to you need is more people that love* science to be in research because it’s their passion and not for a paycheck.
This isn't about forcing people into science, it's about not discouraging people with a potential aptitude away from it.
@@Safetytrousers who is discouraging women from science? TikTok? Who… people follow whatever path they choose.
If you want and are talented for something no one can discourage you. IF you need constant encouragement and shoulder taps you are not fit for the top of any field... @@Safetytrousers
I can't quite figure out if it's my impression of her confirmation bias or my own confirmation bias that bothers me in this case. She makes the argument that she wants the most talent present everywhere for the sake of progress - That absolutely makes sense. I don't see her making a case for why it isn't already like that? I also hear different voices on the matter about women's career choices, and she directly states that that is not true, without backing up her argument.
All in all, I wasn't convinced things would be much better with a different composition of representation in science.
Happy to have finished university before discriminating against white male became fashionable
We need more of everyone on science. Nor for the sake of diversity, but because the world as a whole is not scientifically minded.
Women get the majority of STEM degrees
There's no end to the number of programs meant to encourage young women to go into STEM fields. We do not live in the early 1500s, women are not doomed to being chained to the stove and have not been in a long, long while. The problem is that the STEM fields are a lot of work, and thus not appealing to most people. Difficult jobs are mostly staffed by men, it's just the harsh reality of self-selecting populations. If you want more women in STEM and the many incentives aren't doing for it, the alternative is forcing them in at gunpoint. Fairytales about how women are ridiculed for going into science aren't going to cut it, either; if you're working through a bachelor's degree in science you have better things to do than make fun of the lady in class.
Women, for the most part, *_don't want_* to go into STEM. It's not a good thing, nor is it a tragedy; it's just the nature of reality. The *correct* number of women in STEM fields should only be calculated like this: *_people_* working in STEM should be there 1) if they want to and 2) only if they can make the cut and show they're capable. Tokenism just leads to lowered standards.
Now, before anyone assumes I'm a big ol' scary misogynist, I encourage _anyone_ passionate in science to go for it, regardless of which fiddly bits they've got. It's a passion I myself lack, but if someone came up to me and said "we need more men in nursing" (or some other traditionally female-saturated profession) they'd have to hold me at gunpoint, and even then the problem would remain where I'd be uninterested and not very good at it. Or at least, I quite enjoyed working as an assistant pharmacy technician, and I've only ever seen women working that job besides me, so it's idiotic to make sweeping claims like "We need more X in Y" when the problem is one of personal interest and opportunity. Which, again... women have lots of incentives to going into STEM.
You're talking about forcing people to do something they don't want to do. _Everyone_ has heard of women in science. Think it through. And then look at the Norway Gender Equality Paradox for a clue of why your only alternative is force.
You really want to solve this problem? Get feminists to stop propagating the myth that women aren't welcome in science; their persecution complex recruitment tool does most of the harm. Because (and I feel I must constantly stress this point) *women ARE welcome in science.* We do not live in the dark ages anymore. There's things like, oh, I don't know, just to pick an example at random, *the many incentives for women to go into STEM.* A moment's google returned "Advancing Women in STEM in the Government of Canada" on our government's own website, for crying out loud. That chain keeping women at their stoves _is all in their own minds._
And yes, I'm fully cognizant that there are a handful of smoothbrain throwbacks sprinkled here and there in society who still live like it's 500 BCE. If we're going to base policy on a handful of nutjobs then we better start burning all the devil-machines you're _reading this comment on._
Grow up. You're not oppressed, you're punching yourself in the face.
RI lectures are not what they used to be, sadly.
As a someone who grew up indoctrinated into this type of thinking and then got to observe his own kids and tried not to impose gender stereotypes on them, I compelled to admit that the idea that gendered toys and books like that have any effect is total bs. Kids absolutely have innate preferences and do just what they want. They won't play with a car no matter how good it is if they don't want to. They will make a car out of a random stick or box if they want to play with one but don't have it. The same goes for clothing. I have always hated gender-stereotyped colours and designs. My kids just love this! I have no clue where this is coming from, and this actually annoys me from time to time.
Only 30% women, too little and unhealthy.
Only 30% men, much healthier.
What?
social engineering..
The embarrassing reality of a half empty lecture hall says it all 47:33
None of these RI videos have a full hall. The embarrassing reality of your comment.
Wow, how brave
I kinda find fascinating that academia has a huge problem of lack of diversity and I often see academics reporting this problem, but things don't seem to change. Are not they the same people who hire and create the problem? Or there's maybe something I'm missing? Same for reproducibility and a lot of editorials about this. Are not the journals themselves that accept the papers that they claim are not reproducible? 🤔
The underlying falsehood is that lack of so-called "diversity" is a "huge problem" in the first place. The best and brightest should rise to the top, irrespective of ovaries or skin color.
a fine example of why we don't need diversity and inclusion programs
Imagine a society with no stereotype. Whatever it is, its not human anymore. And thats actually what she wants.
Isn't that an argument you can use to never improve anything ?
We do not need more women in science but in management. Science is a volatile field, it's always in motion, what you're sure about today can change tomorrow. Men are good with this kind of irregularities. Women are good with maintaining the standard.
More middle class white women in the workforce instead of working class men of colour ????
Nope we just need the best people in stem not based of gender or any other identity marker
You clearly didn't watch the video and so I'll assume that you haven't read the book, either.
@@NYlivinginTNShe cites White Men as a problem. Thoroughly indoctrinated.
@@mimetypeJust because you have a fragile ego doesn't make you right
@@bentucker2301You have me at a disadvantage madam! Where did you hone such cutting rhetoric?
That's exactly her point though. Her point is that gendering subjects is bad because it restricts the talent pool the subject draws from. By lifting restrictions on people it let's individuals with talent flow to their areas of excellence more freely.
I know why: to reduce natality (women with a carreer tend to have less to no children). But maybe also to provide some inspiration and motivation for male scientists. Different ways of thinking are always welcome in any field.
We need more women in science so we don't get any more talks from women about how more women are needed in science...
Great talk, scanning the comments for controversy one can see you struck a cord with many fools.
What is a woman ?
A scientician's definition of a woman would be: One that is timeless and stunning.
someone most of this comment section has never touched, apparently
@@patrikcath1025 Apparently? Don't you mean thankfully? because to do so in this context would mean cries of misogyny and that word that rhymes with grape.
Im timeless and stunning yet i have 8 inch third leg? Am I a woman?😂😂 @@mimetype
Thank you. Unfortunately the CZcams comments make it quite evident that there's a lot more progress to be made.
We couldn't agree more - thank you for your support.
Unsubscribed. This is not science, it's identity politics.
It's extremely relevant to science.
@@Safetytrousersno it isn't
This is not about forcing people into science, it is about not discouraging people with an aptitude for it away from it. Science needs the best minds for it. Missing out on a number of those minds is highly relevant.@@MrJC1
This isn't about forcing people into science, it's about not discouraging people with a potential aptitude away from it.
Science needs the best minds for it, and missing out on a number of those minds is bad, and highly relevant to the field.@@MrJC1
that's it, RI will now stop holding these lectures because someone unsubscribed from their youtube channel
Where are all the female binmen or "refuse collectors" I've never seen one. Where are all the male primary school teachers?
Edit: to clarify even further...
Can I name a female scientist, yes, of course, Dr Becky (Smethurst) and Prof. Alice Roberts are two that come to mind. Awesome, both of them.
Maybe if you concentrate on ideas it would be better.
If as she says, you should speak out, then I will, as I am now, speak out against untruths, not this whole fake "woke"/ "inclusion stuff", yes, ideas, yes good people, yes good people for the job. No, do not force people to accept this kind of mentality where everyone is the same and can do the same.
HR department employees. I have changed many jobs. I am yet to interact with a male HR staff.
Women : we are good in our studies.
Men: are you any good in that job?
The only diversity "the science" needs more of is the diversity of ideas. And this is actively discouraged for at least a decade. When it comes to worldview, dogma is enforced with such zeal that it would put many religious extremists to shame.
You never see " we want more men in health or childcare " which are women dominated occupations.. why ?
Apologies for discovering you this late, but just wanted to add my example. My daughter was predicted max grade in her IB, 350 ucas points, great statement and 6-8 TMUA, but did not even rate an interview for her Cambridge CompSci application this year.
Nope, we need more scientists, based on merit. We need to have diversity of ideas - lose the monopoly on string theory and explore truly new ideas. And being a scientist she must understand statistics, yet she is obsessed with a diverse workforce and whines about physics and engineering. If she truly believes in forced equity rather than freedom of choice and merit, then she needs to force for parity in welders, roadworkers, garbage collectors, soldiers, truck drivers, bricklayers - basically every unsavoury, arduous, unfulfilling and yet essential role that created and sustains our modern world. Let’s have that discussion and then we can entertain your targeted STEM complaint.
P.S. I noticed 4 out of the last 5 videos of RI lectures were from women - interesting… 🤔
You're right, our last 4 out of 5 videos are all from women - that's because we're posting our videos from last year's Ada Lovelace Day ahead of International Day of Women and Girls in Science which is on Sunday 11 February. We are proud of our commitment to diversity in STEM and we're committed to continuing to diversify our lecture output here on CZcams.
@@TheRoyalInstitution You seem to be pro "inject women into STEM at any cost" rather than pro diversity.
Just shove em where ever its not cold, or too hot, or too wet, or too dry, or too stressful..@@tomjacobson7623
Its one thing to encourage women to go into STEM, but its another thing to force diversity in all fields of science. Its a solution to a problem that does not exist. Is it sexist that a company has 70% men or 70% women employed? What if they picked the most knowledgeable candidates from the pool? If I roll a dice and get 3 sixes in a row is it rigged? If women and men are equal and one can be perfectly replaced by the other is it not a contraintuitive take to enforce 50/50 everywhere?
Ok. Explain want all the great scientific breakthrough in physics were men even before modern education.
Genuinely impressive the amount of people that seemed to have seen nothing except the title and immediately flocked to the comments to start argueing. At least watch the video before so you can say something that isn't plainly and openly addressed within the first 5-10 minutes of the video.
I watched it to the end. Bs, although she is Indeed more temperate than one could expect from the start.
Minenfeld...
I really like RI BUT this is one of those videos....
Please don't do this
Spot on comment
what is wrong with the comment section? D: where did all this people come from?
What a disappointing video.
1. Why is it bad that representation int 50%?
2. Why is it “healthy” when women are the majority but
“Unhealthy” when men are?
3. Why give a policy lecture in a chamber dedicated to learning about the world? This place is where the few come who still are more passionate about curiosity than half-cooked revolutionary delusions.
Just laughing to myself about all the people in this comment section who think that this is "unscientific" but listen to everything Jordan Peterson says without questioning it...
It is unscientific. Youve made a discovery of the "the white male scientist" and instead of studying what theyre doing right. You study what they are doing wrong to women? Not exactly keeping track of your coordinate system.
What a shame that this talk is so poorly attended, I sincerely hope that the message comes across. As is pointed out, the planning required to redress the shortfall in women working in science and technology will not be achieved if women are not central to that process. The much broader issue of early years development also has a class demographic issue which will just not get a hearing in under privileged sectors of society.
The "Faith schools" counter reformation fed by falling standards in inner city schools will undoubtedly reinforce conservative gender role perceptions. It's very sad.
None of these RI videos have a full hall.
Let's see how Royal Institution viewers conduct themselves below, shall we...
I guess most of them with thoughtful insights and a few not. I guess these few will be taken as an exemple for the whole group. That is how it work
Are you using the word conduct as a synonym for comply?
Yes, we better report anyone who disagrees to the thought police.
People can have different views...you could actually debate this views if you wanted to...or if you could...
It doesn't account for the people who just saw the title and peddled out their odious mysonogy.
The number of people writing comments without watching the video is staggering.
You only need the first five minutes to realise exactly what's going on.
@@mimetype You hear her perspective, then skip all her evidence and just declare her wrong. Very logical process, zero prejudice at play.
@@mimetype Critical thinking isn't your strong suit is it? Maybe you should have studied harder.
@@MandragaraYou hypocrite, her diatribe is loaded with prejudice.
@@BardianAngelYou're upset, try and calm down. Get a grip.
If you’re reading the comments, just recognise RI has an audience problem. Or rather, a problem audience (vocal but not representative of the whole)
Exactly when the audience disagrees you just insist the audience is incorrect instead of dealing with the actual point they made
I love how most of the comments are reacting to the title. Some of the criticism are literally addressed within 10min of the video. 😂
Don't make such broad sweeping assumptions.
I don't see any carefully argued naysaying of the video.@@mimetype
There's a dearth of intelligent thought in the comments. A few people have clearly been triggered by the title and stopped using their brains.
@@BardianAngelIt's a special kind of arrogance, borderline sociopathy that assumes opposition to political dogma to be a mental defect.
It's simply about not discouraging people with an aptitude for science away from it. What's wrong with that?@@mimetype
Anyone thinking this battle is won isn't paying attention. I can get why people are uncomfortable about this, because I am as well, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth trying to level the playing field.
By this I don't mean pandering or setting attendance requirements at schools or workplaces, as in my experience this just causes resentment. Real meaningful change is much more difficult than changing a couple policies.
If you don't mean pandering, what do you mean?
Hmmm, how do we deprive opportunities from men and not make them resentful? Quite the conundrum. Guess we need to brainwash them into believing their lost aspirations and dreams are all in service of a greater societal good.
@@mimetype It's a matter of changing the systemic perception of STEM early. The sciences are for everyone, and we as a species benefit from better collaboration.
66% of biology degrees in my uni were attained by women! Can I get a like please RI or does this go against the narrative
@@Blackmore278 Pretty sick to think that by having more women in STEM somehow deprives men. I am a man in the civil construction field and in college for mechanical engineering, in an affirmative action state no less. While I feel those policies are a bit of a copout and really fail to get to the heart of the issue, there is absolutely no lack of opportunities for me or any other man I know.
Enforcing diversity is a fools errand. Encouraging all students that show aptitude or interest in science at a young age, and creating welcoming environments, is not.
Science is gender neutral idealistically. However, women are not generally encouraged from a young age to explore scientific pursuits, even in the current societal climate. I find it inevitable yet sad.
Preach! Shout it from the rooftops. Because, to use a clunky metaphor, no engine can run 100% efficiently, whilst only making use of 30% of the potentially available, uhm, fuel, as it were. With everything we face as a species, we can't afford to only mine our scientific talent (mainly) from the limited pool of the wealthy white male upper middle class. Talent is evenly distributed throughout the ENTIRE human population. Somewhere out there, there's a mildly depressed emigrant filipino manicurist from a poor family that, in a parallel universe would have solved fusion energy ten years ago. But we told her mother, Kim Kardashian is the only realistic role model for people 'like her', and her daughter. And that was that. It matters who our heroes are. But you can´t aspire to what you've never seen.
We are bombarded daily by messaging of girls can be anything what are you on about. Maybe it’s a generational gap thing but I have no idea how old you are so I can’t say that first certain but I do see that trend of older men with hearts in the right place being a bit out of touch with this
Talent is definitely NOT distributed evenly throughout the entire human population, you've been drinking the delusional social justice nonsense cool-aid. And by the way, having worked previously in the nuclear power field, it is very possible that we will NEVER achieve economically viable fusion energy production.
Fact of the matter is, that change requires discomfort. It is an unpleasant feeling. No wonder people are against it.
🙄
I don't know why she keeps saying "white" men. As if that matters when comparing genders...