Re: MentorNet (one woman's response)

[Jim Green <JMGreen@SISNA.COM>]

At 13:08 11 10 2002 , the following was  received:
> So, what shall we do?  A. Shall we require that every new physics hire
> at University X shall be a woman until the % of women in physics becomes
> equal to ~50%?  (regardless of whether or not an equally or better
> qualified male applies or not).

Well, James, I think that I agree with your conclusions, but just one quibble:

Non-males (at this point I don't know how to refer to this kind of humans)
as a class are NOT equivalent to men and probably can't be.  They certainly
don't want to be. -- They are almost a different species -- at least they
think that men are.  In some ways they are not as talented/capable as
men.  In some ways they are typically much better qualified for a task that
men.   They are certainly welcome in any of my classes -- because I think
that they as a group turn out to  be better physicists than men -- however,
most have better judgement and don't follow this path.

The idea that non-males are the same as males is fiction.  The idea that
there "should" (whatever "should' might mean) be 50% of non-males and 50%
of males in any position is folly. IMVHO.



Jim Green
mailto:JMGreen@sisna.com
http://users.sisna.com/jmgreen

This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.