Rod Liddle in The Times - women not studying Physics because they aren't very good at it?

[SeaRabbit]

In today's Times Rod 'provocative' Liddle wrote:

...my contention that the minuscule number of women studying physics at degree level is not because of conditioning or sexism, but because a much smaller proportion of women are adept at the subject, despite 30 years of expensive programmes to redress the balance. Is that misogyny on my part? What if it’s true?

I have seen some statistics that in some countries there is a far higher proportion of women in those studying STEM subjects. It was in a book I got out of the library so I can't send him the details. Has anyone got anything I can link to? I don't know what the proportion of those studying physics as opposed to STEM in general is, so if the is anything on physics in particular it would be helpful.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/stella-creasy-listen-sweetie-i-love-women-and-youve-got-it-all-wrong-about-misogyny-0tcffnc0c?shareToken=838251ba2a29b47a73917d04d99d93d0

[Copyright materiel removed by MNHQ]

Becuase I thought the part I included made my point sufficiently, although I think that extract also illustrates my point .

How does that extract support the idea that he feels sympathy for women? The bit you missed out?

Have I run into his fan club or something?

the first part absolutely does say those things, other posters have chosen to believe he's "joking" for some reason.

What other interpretation can be put onhis comment about women in newcastle? I'm baffled.

This man is a cunt. Cunt cunt cunt cunt.

Sorry if that upsets his fans

You think that saying that women want their slice of the lavishly iced victimhood cake, shows that he sympathises with women?

Wow.

A major reason for the discrepancy in numbers between girls and boys doing physics A level is probably because it (and the careers dependent on it, eg physics and engineering) is seen as a 'boys' subject in this country so only the girls who really want to do it will, whereas boys who aren't sure what subject to take or are a bit mediocre are much more likely to. This effect is somewhat mitigated by single sex education - the physics set in a girls sixth form is explicitly meant for girls.

Ugh. He should literally go fuck himself. No self respecting woman would ever touch that sinister little creep after reading that window into his horrible thoughts.
He genuinely thinks he’s funny and big and clever.

I said he has more sympathy with women than other 'victim' groups as he would call them.

The second part of the paragraph you pasted confirms this; he's saying that within the 'victimhood' groups women have been overlooked and are 'narked', and when you put this with the second part of the paragraph I linked to, you'll see he says that he thinks we have have basis to feel narked as there is still discrimination against women.

You can be outraged at his view of 'victimhood' , and disagree with his premise, but that doesn't alter the logic of the piece.

I think your rage is seriously impairing your reading comprehension.

numbers of girls taking physics at all girls schools shows a slight increase on co ed schools : from 1.8% to 4.3%.

That's not a "slight increase", that's over double. All-girl schools and all-woman colleges remain necessary.

Hi OP,

We've removed the text from your opening post. If you'd like us to replace it with a link, just report your post to us and include the link to the article. We'll get that done.

40 years isn't very long though is it
Most men don't do physics either

We've added the link into the opening post now. Thanks, OP.

Hmmm. I read this too and it gave me the rage.

But I studied Physics at A level (many years ago) and got a solid grade A. But didn't go on and do it at uni. I picked Chemistry instead as the employment opportunities (to my 17 year old mind) and sponsorship were better. So maybe 17 year old girls are more financial security minded than silly boys. Not crapper at physics. Could be any number of reasons.

Anyway, I was better than all the boys. Even those who did it at uni. And at maths and chemistry too for that matter.

I assume you mean the same Rod Liddle who who wrote this: "My new year's resolution for 2012 was to become disabled. Nothing too serious, maybe just a bit of a bad back or one of those newly invented illnesses which make you a bit peaky for decades – fibromyalgia, or ME … I think we should all pretend to be disabled for a month or so, claim benefits and hope this persuades the authorities to sort out the mess."

He is, like the majority of anti-feminists, a hateful, venomous troll.

My son got a A in physics, in the new style exams too. He did not find it easy, and isn't going on with it, though what he has will be useful to him.

Roy Liddle is a twat.

I'm a physicist (degree, MSc, worked in it all my adult life), and though in my degree there were 12 women in a year group of around 150, in my chosen speciality the professional body is now just about 50:50, with some sub specialities in that actually having more women than men.
I was particularly delighted this year at the American Association of Physicist in Medicine award ceremony that 25% of those elected to fellowship (typically attained around 50, you have to have a really solid track record in publications etc) were women which shows how women are entering the field, staying in it, and being prominent in the field.

I am, however, constantly annoyed by the number of women who giggle at me that they were never any good at physics (and maths) like it is something to be proud of. No man has ever done this. We don't have to all be good at everything (I was spectactularly shit at drama), but its not a positive thing. And I agree that girls are conditioned from an early age to regard space, tech etc as a boys thing

I am, however, constantly annoyed by the number of women who giggle at me that they were never any good at physics (and maths) like it is something to be proud of.

This.

I think the majority of posters here didn't have the benefit of the full article. At least I hope so, because otherwise it is hard to imagine how so many people on the thread failed to understand what he was saying. He wasn't actually commenting at all about women in STEM subjects. He was discussing misogyny as a hate crime, and used an example of a clearly misogynistic statement (women not being good at STEM) and then asking whether that should be construed as a crime. And if so, what does that mean for freedom of debate.

I think the majority of posters here didn't have the benefit of the full article

I agree. But STEM is a holy grail on here along with climbing trees and may never be treated with anything other than awe.

It was a serious article written in a flippant tone. Liddle does not hate women and is not a venomous troll.

Arkengarthdale wrote....

"Oh and I went to a school where the girls ended up just sitting in on the physics lessons, they weren't taught as part of the class. It was all geared to the boys and the girls were very much 'othered'

Crickey, when was this and what school was it?

I am, however, constantly annoyed by the number of women who giggle at me that they were never any good at physics (and maths) like it is something to be proud of.

Do you think they're proud of it? Or just embarrassed?

I was always more of a "girly" girl and was fine with the idea that guys were better at math and technology, while women were better at jobs they felt emotionally connected to. Now that I'm in a job where technical skills are required I discovered I'm a lot more interested in tools and technology now that I have reason to be. Tools are actually quite fascinating to work with, all the things you can build and fix. I wondered why it took me so long to discover this other side of me and remember now that my father only taught my brother this type of stuff growing up and I was also forced to take Home Economics at my religious school while the boys were forced to take Shop. Of course people will be more interested in things later in life that they were most engaged with growing up.

I take every he says with a pinch of salt, same with Jeremy Clarkson. I do wonder why the ‘wind-up’ columnists tend to be men. Maybe there is demand for a female columnist whose primary purpose is to annoy and be rude to men?

Hackmum - no. It gets said almost with pride. Almost 'oh, i was never any good at necromancy' like its something you shouldn't aspire to be good at.

I don't think anyone thinks it is wrong to be good at math or that it should come with some sort of shame. I think people make a joke of it because it's actually really embarrassing.

I'm objectively terrible at math, all of it. So much so, that it would almost be the equivalent of total illiteracy. Doubly annoying is that I see this as a massive feminist fail, so all I can do is own it and laugh it off.