<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Valuable book; less than scholarly but more than truthful!
Review: A number of (male) chemistry and physics colleagues recommended this book to me before I read it. After I read it (one of my first books about gender and science) I had to agree with them that it was outstanding - a delightful and eye-opening book for scientists and science students who, like me, had never been exposed to more rigorous writings in gender studies. Wertheim's message is not one that the die-hard, non-feminist, scientist wants to hear. The looseness of the historical and philosophical writing gives feminism's detractors ample grounds, therefore, on which to denigrate it. But truth is truth - and this book rings true on all levels that I (a Full Professor of Physics) can probe. Now that I have read other books in the field of gender studies, I know that there are plenty of extremely tightly reasoned and readable books by e.g. Shapin, Noble and Sheibinger that one can follow up with. (These would convince the skeptical reader - if he will allow himself to be convinced - that Wertheim's conclusions are extremely well-founded!)
Rating:
Summary: Should be a compulsory read for all first-year uni students!
Review: As a female engineer -- somewhat cynical about organised religion and having experienced the maleness of scientific academia and profession -- I found this to be one of the most interesting, entertaining, and intelligent books I have read in a long time. Firstly, it presents a concise and very readable account of the illuminating history and sociology of science, mathematics and engineering (to which their students sadly gain far too little exposure). Secondly, the argument adds a new dimension and depth (for some reason hidden until now!) to our understanding of the perceived barriers facing women to the study and practice of science, mathematics, and engineering. This issue has gained increasing attention from universities and professional institutions, who at least claim to be attempting to remedy the situation. All our attempts would be wiser for a better understanding of the deep-seated cultural and institutional bases of this bias, and for a better appreciation of the significant but largely unsung contributions of women to our scientific progress. Concerning the debate about the "feminisation" of science: the author's point-of-view is not a new one, but she certainly argues the case with more vigour and valid evidence than previous accounts I have read. As a fresh and enlightened contribution to an ongoing debate, I think this book deserves a place in the literature. Credit where credit's due to the author for her hard work and boldness!
Rating: 
Summary: Wertheim's assesements were groundless and unsupported.
Review: As a student of an Ivy League Institution, I thought that Wertheim's "man-bashing" was inappropriate and unfounded. Her interpretation of historical facts were deceptive and misleading. She twisted these facts in conniving ways to support her feminist thesis.
Rating:
Summary: Wertheim's assesements were groundless and unsupported.
Review: I found this a very interesting book. I studied a lot of science and math in college, before turning to accounting and law, and the gender "wars" apply to those two fields as well. Wertheimer is to be congratulated on explaining the main findings in physics so simply and clearly. However I have a few quibbles:
Why the obsession with Nobel prizes? There are heaps of science-related prizes, and from a statistical point of view, it could be that the Nobel folks' gender problems could affect their choice of other catetory winners, too.
Why do we have to justify that women should be allowed into science to "humanise" it? Women do not have to justify their participation, or lack of participation in any field. As human beings, they are entitled to participate anywhere, anytime, anyhow.
I am rather annoyed at so many people wanting to blame teachers for girls and women not taking up certain subjects. Sure, I've had my share of teachers that made mefeel good about myself and those who totally ignored me (or my 4th grade teacher who made me reread books I read in 3rd grade --no, I STILL haven't forgetten that!).
But I think that more importantly we also need to look at the support and messages children get from their family units in terms of helping them with homework , going along to parent-teacher conferences and school nights (ie giving the message that school counts), and giving girls analytical toys like jigsaw puzzles, Legos, Lincoln Logs, Mr Wizard science kits, DIY radios, etc, and watching Nova together. I am so thankful that my parents helped me keep my sense of wonder and urged me to put my thinking cap on, even as far back(!) as the '60s, before the days of Title IX and EEO. I still wait each month for my Scientific American to come in the mail, and checked my e-mail a few months back for the latest Mars photos. That having been said, as a CPA, I sure wish I knew how to get more girls interested in accounting as well as science. We only have 4 women at my office, and we enjoy our work so much! I would like other girls to think about finance instead of supermodelling as a career possibility. I knew when I was a girl that it was either pure science or finance for me, and I was right.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting ideas, but a rushed and clumsy conclusion
Review: I found this a very interesting book. I studied a lot of science and math in college, before turning to accounting and law, and the gender "wars" apply to those two fields as well. Wertheimer is to be congratulated on explaining the main findings in physics so simply and clearly. However I have a few quibbles:
Why the obsession with Nobel prizes? There are heaps of science-related prizes, and from a statistical point of view, it could be that the Nobel folks' gender problems could affect their choice of other catetory winners, too.
Why do we have to justify that women should be allowed into science to "humanise" it? Women do not have to justify their participation, or lack of participation in any field. As human beings, they are entitled to participate anywhere, anytime, anyhow.
I am rather annoyed at so many people wanting to blame teachers for girls and women not taking up certain subjects. Sure, I've had my share of teachers that made mefeel good about myself and those who totally ignored me (or my 4th grade teacher who made me reread books I read in 3rd grade --no, I STILL haven't forgetten that!).
But I think that more importantly we also need to look at the support and messages children get from their family units in terms of helping them with homework , going along to parent-teacher conferences and school nights (ie giving the message that school counts), and giving girls analytical toys like jigsaw puzzles, Legos, Lincoln Logs, Mr Wizard science kits, DIY radios, etc, and watching Nova together. I am so thankful that my parents helped me keep my sense of wonder and urged me to put my thinking cap on, even as far back(!) as the '60s, before the days of Title IX and EEO. I still wait each month for my Scientific American to come in the mail, and checked my e-mail a few months back for the latest Mars photos. That having been said, as a CPA, I sure wish I knew how to get more girls interested in accounting as well as science. We only have 4 women at my office, and we enjoy our work so much! I would like other girls to think about finance instead of supermodelling as a career possibility. I knew when I was a girl that it was either pure science or finance for me, and I was right.
Rating:
Summary: An interesting argument, but an inadequate conclusion
Review: In the book Pythagoras' Trousers - God, Physics, and the Gender Wars, Margaret Wertheim makes the case that, in its origins, physics was intimately connected with religion. As such, physicists accrued the aura of a priestly caste. In addition, she claims that this religious culture within physics has prevented women from entering the field.
Though Wertheim attempts to show that women belong in the arena of physics, she actually concludes that the only way women will be comfortable in physics will be to change the assumptions upon which it is based. In addition, her lack of adequate documentation and reliable sources (at one point she cites a survey from Glamour magazine) damages her argument so fully that I believe that this work proves that Wertheim is a poor writer, and tends to support the antithesis of her argument. By providing a poor work to show the need for women in the realm of physics, Wertheim has show that she does not belong in that arena. Therefore, by extension, no women belong in that arena. Hence, Wertheim serves only to damage her claim through the poor quality and weak argumentation of the work.
As a student of mathematics and philosophy, I find Wertheim to be ultimately an insipid writer.
Rating:
Summary: Valuable book; less than scholarly but more than truthful!
Review: Pythagoras' Trousers Margaret Wertheim Wertheim attempts to show how Science, Religion, and Women have all been related over the course of humankind. Specifically she focuses on how the connection between mathematics, and later physics, and religion have combined ideals over the course of the last two and a half millennia which led to the downfall or lack of participation for women in the field of mathematics. She begins her book in about 500 BC with Pythagoras. Pythagoras studied mathematics with the Babylonians and began the theory that numbers were divine. Pythagoras then started a cult in the south of Italy that focused on the study of numbers. This was a male dominated cult that attempted to show that numbers stood for certain things. The number three represented men and the number two represented women. This led to or was caused by (I'm not sure) the idea that odd numbers were better than even numbers. The theory that men were better suited for scientific investigation was passed down to each following generation. Throughout her book Wertheim attempted to give the reader a history of mathematical science. She told about the work of many famous mathematicians including Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, and Einstein. In the case of most history books they only tell about what famous men did but she integrated information about what women scientists were doing during the same time periods. Some names mentioned included Bassi, Hypatia, Hildegard, and Noether. Over the course of the book she told of the relationship between religion (Christianity) and science. Mathematics, biology, chemistry, and physics became the religion of many scientists. Just as in religion men held all positions of power and were very reluctant to give them up. Even women who made incredible new findings in the sciences were never allowed into the upper societies of this scientific priesthood. To this day the number of women working in the sciences is much less than that of men. In her final chapter Werthheim attempts to incorporate this idea that mathematics followed the ideals of religion by not allowing women to participate. She also says that women would bring a much different and possibly better approach present day physics. This I disagree with. I think that women's involvement would be just the same as men's involvement. Some changes might occur if the number of women working in the field of physics were equal to that of men but I believe that would just be due to the larger number of people working in the field. The same changes would occur if the same number of people who entered the physics workforce were men. The number of areas being studied in any field is in direct relation to the total number of people working in the field.
Rating: 
Summary: Pythagoras' Trousers
Review: Pythagoras' Trousers Margaret Wertheim Wertheim attempts to show how Science, Religion, and Women have all been related over the course of humankind. Specifically she focuses on how the connection between mathematics, and later physics, and religion have combined ideals over the course of the last two and a half millennia which led to the downfall or lack of participation for women in the field of mathematics. She begins her book in about 500 BC with Pythagoras. Pythagoras studied mathematics with the Babylonians and began the theory that numbers were divine. Pythagoras then started a cult in the south of Italy that focused on the study of numbers. This was a male dominated cult that attempted to show that numbers stood for certain things. The number three represented men and the number two represented women. This led to or was caused by (I'm not sure) the idea that odd numbers were better than even numbers. The theory that men were better suited for scientific investigation was passed down to each following generation. Throughout her book Wertheim attempted to give the reader a history of mathematical science. She told about the work of many famous mathematicians including Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, and Einstein. In the case of most history books they only tell about what famous men did but she integrated information about what women scientists were doing during the same time periods. Some names mentioned included Bassi, Hypatia, Hildegard, and Noether. Over the course of the book she told of the relationship between religion (Christianity) and science. Mathematics, biology, chemistry, and physics became the religion of many scientists. Just as in religion men held all positions of power and were very reluctant to give them up. Even women who made incredible new findings in the sciences were never allowed into the upper societies of this scientific priesthood. To this day the number of women working in the sciences is much less than that of men. In her final chapter Werthheim attempts to incorporate this idea that mathematics followed the ideals of religion by not allowing women to participate. She also says that women would bring a much different and possibly better approach present day physics. This I disagree with. I think that women's involvement would be just the same as men's involvement. Some changes might occur if the number of women working in the field of physics were equal to that of men but I believe that would just be due to the larger number of people working in the field. The same changes would occur if the same number of people who entered the physics workforce were men. The number of areas being studied in any field is in direct relation to the total number of people working in the field.
Rating:
Summary: Pythagoras' Trousers
Review: Pythagoras' Trousers Margaret Wertheim Wertheim attempts to show how Science, Religion, and Women have all been related over the course of humankind. Specifically she focuses on how the connection between mathematics, and later physics, and religion have combined ideals over the course of the last two and a half millennia which led to the downfall or lack of participation for women in the field of mathematics. She begins her book in about 500 BC with Pythagoras. Pythagoras studied mathematics with the Babylonians and began the theory that numbers were divine. Pythagoras then started a cult in the south of Italy that focused on the study of numbers. This was a male dominated cult that attempted to show that numbers stood for certain things. The number three represented men and the number two represented women. This led to or was caused by (I'm not sure) the idea that odd numbers were better than even numbers. The theory that men were better suited for scientific investigation was passed down to each following generation. Throughout her book Wertheim attempted to give the reader a history of mathematical science. She told about the work of many famous mathematicians including Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, and Einstein. In the case of most history books they only tell about what famous men did but she integrated information about what women scientists were doing during the same time periods. Some names mentioned included Bassi, Hypatia, Hildegard, and Noether. Over the course of the book she told of the relationship between religion (Christianity) and science. Mathematics, biology, chemistry, and physics became the religion of many scientists. Just as in religion men held all positions of power and were very reluctant to give them up. Even women who made incredible new findings in the sciences were never allowed into the upper societies of this scientific priesthood. To this day the number of women working in the sciences is much less than that of men. In her final chapter Werthheim attempts to incorporate this idea that mathematics followed the ideals of religion by not allowing women to participate. She also says that women would bring a much different and possibly better approach present day physics. This I disagree with. I think that women's involvement would be just the same as men's involvement. Some changes might occur if the number of women working in the field of physics were equal to that of men but I believe that would just be due to the larger number of people working in the field. The same changes would occur if the same number of people who entered the physics workforce were men. The number of areas being studied in any field is in direct relation to the total number of people working in the field.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting history, disappointing conclusion
Review: Wertheim manages to count an interesting story of the history of natural science. The heroes in the stories are the female scientists (and their supporting spouses and fathers) that through the ages managed to overcome the semi-religious forces that excluded them from the scientific society.
I can of course only agree with her that the situation for women in science still is far from easy. Measures should indeed be taken to encourage girls to study the sciences, to prevent teachers from (unknowingly) give more attention to boys than to girls, etc... Undoubtedly, some brilliant discoveries came to humanity centuries late (or not al all?) because only half of the thinking population was given the chance to explore the 'wonders of nature'.
It escapes me however why Wertheim thinks that female scientists would change the face (and not only the pace) of science. First she writes about how men and women have the same intellectual capabilities and how all differences between them can be traced back to different educations, and then in the final chapter she starts predicting how female particle scientists would be inclined to investigate more 'earthly' domains and how their research would serve manhood better than that of their male colleagues. I'm afraid that particle scientists will always, male or female, be the kind of people spending billions of dollars looking for some abstract and useless 'truth'. But then again, it might not be so stupid to spend some money on research you don't expect any 'use' from. It's a proven method.
<< 1 >>
|
