Do you think that in science there is still a sexist bias? the question of the week

Prejudice or discrimination based on sex or gender is called sexist bias. Due to the exclusively masculine formation of the new Greek government, the debate on sexism in all orders of power and also in the works has been put on the table again.

While it must be borne in mind that, on average, men can perform a specific job better than a woman, and vice versa, to what extent do we know that this presumed advantage is due to the social trust that such stereotype receives or not? An idea that we could develop in the stereotype that women are more incompetent in mathematics. And in science in general? What happens where perfectly informed minds are supposed to work on biases and evolutionary pressures?

Do you think that in science there is still a sexist bias?

Remember that you must leave your answers in the Questions and answers section of Xataka Science.

Last week's question

Last week's question was: Do you think you can ridicule certain ideas? and we have received a good amount of responses, among which we highlight the following:

pedrovillarroel: Someone told me that I cannot speak ill of the Pope, that all ideologies deserve respect. No, absolutely not! Not all ideologies deserve respect. There are ideologies that throw acid on a woman's face by looking out the window of her house, or mutilate her clitoris to 9-year-old girls. There are ideologies that condemn whips to those who have new ideas. There are ideologies that believe that blacks do not deserve to be more than slaves. Resisting evil ideologies is what has made us grow as humanity, accepting ideologies for fear of offending has never left us more than terrible injustices.

yippiekayyay: The problem is not in the one who offends, but in the one who feels offended. The evidence on evolution, for example, is so overwhelming that it is something that can be defended as a damn fact. From time to time I end up in a video by Richard Dawkins where some "enlighten me" tells me that the second law of thermodynamics violates the theory of evolution (through a reasoning that would not only deny evolution, but its own existence) or They ask me the bland question of why science has failed to turn a fish into a pig (true story). It is most common to try to ridicule a fucking scientific fact. I get offended? No, I usually try to explain why he is wrong, he usually ends up in a futile debate and after a while I just give up. This happens with a fact, with something objective, measurable and demonstrable: the bad thing is not that they try to ridicule it, the bad thing is that they stop being guided by common sense, the bad thing is that an ideology with little empirical base closes their eyes. That ridicule is not bad, gives rise to debate and debate is healthy. And if it's not bad to ridicule an accurate idea, how could it be bad to ridicule a delusive idea?

Video: Skeptic Check: Data Bias - Big Picture Science (April 2020).