Woman give birth to 100% of the babies born in the world and men a whopping 0. I don't think those numbers will ever change either. =

The 1980s were not so long ago really. The 1960s, yeah, probably so..When I was in high school, the girls appeared to be much smarter than the boys who were too busy proving their prowess as athletes, Cassanovas, or budding criminals to care much about academic achievement. I did not fit any of those stereotypes, therefore, did not fit, period. Lo, these many years later---when my graduating class now lives in antiquity, I feel somehow vindicated. Why? I have not earned kudos as a jock---although the money might have been helpful; my love interests have not damaged a plethora of females---perhaps only one;-or two,at most; and, finally, I have not robbed,embezzled,raped,murdered or otherwise crooked anyone. Save sadly, my parents---who prayed I might amount to more. My regret is late, but admitted freely. Michael's comment is almost universally true. Also true (almost universally) is the aphorism which says: ninety-nine percent of the people who have ever lived on earth are alive today and one-hundred percent of those who died are dead.
规则经常有例外。规则是不可靠的。正如塔利班所宣称的，黑天鹅是例外。我们这些见过他们的人都知道有黑天鹅。
Neuman

Interesting topic, even in 2014 when we should not have to discuss such things any more.
就像在每个专业领域一样，女性逐渐进入，并首先在某一领域的某一个方面得到容忍——例如，在日本，想要成为医生的女性被允许成为眼科医生;在美国和其他地方的音乐中，女性被允许成为歌唱家，而不是乐器演奏家，等等。
As for the contention that the smartest and the dumbest people are men, I agree about the "dumbest" part, but the fact is that men are too emotional about being considered smartest and would rather the world blow up than admit the opposite. Bottom line is men are more emotionally invested in being best, smartest, first, and biggest than in curing cancer.
这就引出了我的下一个观点:为什么不讨论一下男性暴力?当女性暴力时，这是新闻，但为什么我们的文化如此多地被男性犯下的暴力所驱动，为什么它被容忍?

I recently joined this page in the hopes of finding articulate fact based discussions about philosophical issues. Needless to say, I am extremely disappointed.
Although I agree with the opinions stated in the responses, unlike the main text, they are not supported by scientific facts. They are simply persohal opinions indicting whole genders, not unlike the bias that causes the original post. My opinion of the purpose for the study of philosophy is far different than simple "name calling" disguised as science.
My personal experiences (that's all they are) are; that, we are making some progress in the area of women in science. In support of that, I would direct attention to the apparent substantial growth in the number of women as doctors over the last fifty years. Is that enough? Hell no!!! In my opinion, the most greatest benefit of philosophy is its objective search for truth. In the process, we can find the root causes of problems, such as gender bias, and thus, determine on going solutions.
我有一个39岁的女儿，她在西蒙斯大学获得营养学的本科学位。她的学位是理科;尽管这是一个传统女子学校的传统“女子”学科。然而，在西蒙斯学院时，她辅导生理学和其他“硬科学”。当我们讨论它的时候，没有性别参与讨论。她在西蒙斯的那段时间让我对女性在整个科学领域的机会充满希望。
As a new peson to this page, I would like to make a personal request: if you are going to "state fact," ie. boys were too busy trying to impress; or, boys were too busy playing sports, please support this with documentation. "There are many studies to support this." does not fulfill your requirement to supply. "...many studies" are not making the statement.
我们似乎在所有平等领域都取得了进展。我相信;在包括科学在内的许多领域，妇女的机会领域需要做很多工作。谢谢你让这成为一个问题。我有一个非常聪明的女儿和孙女，我希望他们继续有成长的机会。

Sorry to hear about your travails, but articulate, fact-based discussions are better suited to the sciences---they do not fare so well within theology and/or philosophy. You'll have that. Check your spelling, Mike. It matters if you wish to be taken seriously.
Warmest,
Neuman.

I should have left this topic alone. But, no one else, so far, has commented on how we complain and moan about OPPORTUNITY. There may be several dozen reasons why individuals fail in the twentieth and twenty-first century world economy. At this moment in time, there are, in my humble estimation, only two or three (no, not dozens---just two or three...as in less than ten...): 1.) You cannot get a job with an employer who is merely playing the numbers game---showing efforts (on paper) to hire, in order to get state or federal contracts or assistance of some other sort; 2.) You cannot get a job if you are "over-qualified". Over-qualification means you will leave in six months, offering no bottom line gain for the employer who took a chance on you in the first place. 3.) Do not assume that your educational credentials will earn a free ride to the top of the heap. The paradigm is changing. Companies are (finally) realizing that highly educated and educationally decorated idiots do not necessarily fit their corporate ladders. These are not new insights. But, they do represent a new economic reality...which has been been building for at least twenty years. If you did not know---now you do.
Neuman.

I think that the statistical gender disparity in science (as in all of sociology) is a complex issue, and that most (but not all) of it is due to the standing biology of human gender. Cultural inequities aside (many of which, I think, are not as simple as an ignorantly a-gendered glance would have it), the question of the gender distribution of ?intelligence? is, I think, as complex as is the nature of human intelligence itself. But, even then, given the central respective needs of the genders, I think there is bound to have been more men than women in ?science? to begin with (though not as many as there shall be in any more-or-less male-centric ?culture?).
Most basically, I think it's just biologically efficient for the genders to have respective socio-biological advantages (disparities). And, I would think it obvious as to what those respective advantages most centrally are in regard to: gestation-of-the-young versus concurrent occupations-of-the-non-gestating-gender (to put it overly simply). I know, I know, there?s so much that even a ?-trimester woman can do besides be waited on.
But, even on this point, the philosophically atomist geek in us suggests the fanciful idea that there really need be only one all-purpose blended gender. But, I think this idea to be so much fantastic philosophic contingency in face of cultural gender inequities. And, if my thinking so far here is not unreasonable, then I think it also not unreasonable to say that our reproductive biology, and our standing cultural gender inequities, cannot best be treated by thinking as if the genders ought not, by simple virtue of their respective biologies, have respective bio-sociological advantages. The de-triple-negatived version of my statement here is this: Both our reproductive biology and our standing cultural gender inequities cannot best be treated by thinking as if the genders, as such, have no cultural value.
So, personally, I think that a psycho-culturalogical reactionism to cultural gender disparities cannot help but cause broad cultural inequities even as it manages, case-by-case, to partly solve others. Or, as the character Bren Cameron said as only the second-to-last statement in the end of C. J. Cherryh?s second Foreigner novel, Invader, ?Welcome to the world.?

What do you all think of this as a complicating factor:
http://suzannevenker.com/do-women-have-to-work/
It seems to me that women as full-time scientists is but a subcategory of a much deeper and broader issue.

我认为这很简单。成为特定性别并不会降低你成为科学家的资格。仅仅因为你是男性，并不意味着你会成为一个更好的科学家。重要的是，你要有成为科学家的心，要有成为科学家的头脑。性永远不应该成为界限，补充一点，女人情绪化并不意味着她们不聪明。