Natalie Angier on Why More Women Are Not Scientists

In her latest exhalation on how it is so unfair that women only have 6% of the science jobs at the highest levels,
Natalie Angier unwittingly demonstrates the lack of women, at least in her own case, capable of high-level productive work at scientific institutes.

"‘Geek Chic’ and Obama, New Hope for Lifting Women in Science" shows that Angier herself is incapable of engaging in a serious dialogue, with a sample of her dialectic below:

Others have insisted that women just don’t like physics, perhaps because it seems cold and abstract, concerned with things rather than the flesh-and-blood focus of female-friendly fields like biology. But such reasoning, Dr. Gates said, cannot account for the fact that women earn half of the undergraduate degrees in chemistry, which is not quite plush toy material. “Something different is going on with physics, and we don’t know what it is yet,” she said. The culture? Bubble-headed television shows like “The Big Bang Theory,” with its four nerdy male physics prodigies and the fetching blond girl next door?

More seriously, Angier is simply dishonest. Here is one of those little splinters of fact which, unexplained, make perfect sense:

in an analysis of high school students’ performance on standardized math tests, published last summer in the journal Science, Janet Hyde and her colleagues found no gender differences in average performance, and even at the uppermost tails of achievement the discrepancies were minor and inconsistent: among whites who scored in the top 1 percent, there were two boys for every girl, whereas among Asian top scorers, there was one full girl for every nine-tenths of a boy. Besides, said Dr. Gates, female students earn half of the bachelor’s degrees in another math-heavy discipline called — mathematics.

Larry Summers got fired from his Harvard presidency for statements revealing the stupidity of Angiers solecism above. If at the high end, whites got two boys for every girl, perhaps there is an innate deficiency, at least in the white "genome sector." But of course, Angier's apodictic a priori doctrine that women are equal with men across the board cannot admit of such "scientific reality."

Heather MacDonald has more on the befuddled mindset of over-the-hill feminists whose "thinking" has been disproven by actual science.

As one scientist said, "science is objective, but scientists are human and subject to bias and error." Q.E.D. for Ms. Angier.