Attractive women don't go into neuroscience?

[Coito ergo sum]

http://jezebel.com/5952624/university-o ... ent-sexier

A small hubbub has ensued about some Italian neuroscientist who posted a twitter comment that he thought there were a dearth of attractive (physically, I suppose)women in neuroscience. The Skechick and Apelust world is up in arms, of course, and I am sure they are going to their therapists to up their Xanax dosages over this guy's crass comment. And, I will say that I can't imagine why he posted that, as it is insulting to the women that go to the conferences on neuroscience that he was referring to, and he will have to interact with them going forward. He just called them all ugly, and even if people are ugly it is impolite to call them that.

Beyond the etiquette of it all, though, there is the larger question of him being correct. Why do really attractive women GENERALLY not go into technical and scientific fields? I say GENERALLY because there are some around -- I know people will respond to this post posting pictures of Kari Byron and other geek girls who are hot. But, for the most part, those prominent ones aren't in the technical and scientific fields, but rather they are in the entertainment side of the biz.

I think the answer is that it's not just attractive women who are underrepresented in the scientific fields. The men are no picnic either. I mean -- what's this dude talking about? He looks like every other bearded geek that goes to tech and science conferences. I am sure that based purely on physical attributes, he isn't offering much to women, and neither are most of the men who are in science.


Here is another blurb about the issue and a link:

There is a very simple response here. Don't do this. It's sexist, juvenile, offensive and stupid. For a senior scientist it is yet another contribution to the othering of women in science. In his lab, in his subfield, in his University and in his academic societies. We should not tolerate this crap.

http://scientopia.org/blogs/drugmonkey/ ... ing-badly/

[cronus]

I'm attractive.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm attractive.

Are you a woman in neuroscience?

[Audley Strange]

The guy's clearly a tool. I worked in a place where there were hundreds of women and they were predominantly fat ugly and stupid.

However I worked for a football team and their customers were predominately male, fat ugly and stupid.

Perhaps some instinct makes such bovine creatures herd rather than branch out on their own.

[Coito ergo sum]

The guy's clearly a tool. I worked in a place where there were hundreds of women and they were predominantly fat ugly and stupid.

However I worked for a football team and their customers were predominately male, fat ugly and stupid.

Perhaps some instinct makes such bovine creatures herd rather than branch out on their own.

I suppose most people are within about a standard deviation from the norm in terms of physical attractiveness. Given that model quality people probably become....well...models...at greater rates than they become neuroscientists, I guess he should be able to puzzle out why most neuroscientists don't look like models...lol

[Cormac]

"Othering"

What bollox.

Don't do that.

Wankers.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Attractive women don't go into neuroscience exactly, sure. There's a remainder.

[Cormac]

Attractive women don't go into neuroscience exactly, sure. There's a remainder.

Leftovers?

[charlou]

Attractiveness isn't just about physical appearance. He could just mean he's not attracted to the personalities of the women he's encountered in that field.

[Tero]

The guy's clearly a tool. I worked in a place where there were hundreds of women and they were predominantly fat ugly and stupid.

However I worked for a football team and their customers were predominately male, fat ugly and stupid.

Perhaps some instinct makes such bovine creatures herd rather than branch out on their own.

You are describing Merrikins there.

[JimC]

It is possible that a certain number of women who are extremely attractive in the conventional sense, but also potentially with the cognitive wherewithal to be high level scientists, find that options based on their physical nature are simply the easiest option...

[rasetsu]

It's possible that some attractive neuroscience geeks don't attend conferences where we'll likely be hit upon in elevators when we decide to retire.


Actually, I have attended a few such conferences, but money and interest is limited in my case.

[Tyrannical]

No more sexist than the stereotype of dumb jocks, and probably just as accurate

These skepchicks are just as bad as creationists when science or facts interfere with their views on morality. Maybe smart women are on average less comely than women of average or less intellect? If that is true, their is a genetic basis caused by natural selection. Being offended by that difference does not make it any less true.

[rasetsu]

Being smart can be a curse. You see all their mistakes and they see none of your brilliance.

[Coito ergo sum]

No more sexist than the stereotype of dumb jocks, and probably just as accurate

These skepchicks are just as bad as creationists when science or facts interfere with their views on morality. Maybe smart women are on average less comely than women of average or less intellect? If that is true, their is a genetic basis caused by natural selection. Being offended by that difference does not make it any less true.

I'm not at all convinced that male neuroscientists are any more physically attractive than female neuroscientists. From the images I've seen connected with this article, it appears demonstrably that male neuroscientists are fugly too. My guess is that the importance placed on physical appearance by men, as epitomized by this Italian scientist's tweet comment, is really what the issue is. This guy is no picnic, no Brad Pitt, no Adonis. He is the opposite of tall, dark and handsome -- he looks short, bald and pudgy, as are most science guys.

I think women tend to be less overt about physical appearance. Women seem to like a good looking guy. But, they seem to consistently say they value intellect, sense of humor, confidence, ambition and power/authority over looks; whereas, guys rank looks much higher.

Overall, it's a stupid and sexist comment. I am not sure why he said it out loud. Even if people really are ugly, it's in poor taste to tell them so. It's like visiting someone's house and telling them their kids are fat. They may well be fat, but it's in poor taste to tell them.