| integer on 17 Dec 2000 09:31:12 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| [Nettime-bold] nn.buletin - eksam!n l!f kompletl! |
\/\ trusting teknologies - immune stimulazie - klozr +?
- - Netochka Nezvanova
has been nominated for:
Leaders of the Millennium - recognizes the achievements of women
who have made significant contributions to the advancement of technology
and to the advancement of women in technology related fields.
[apropoz - if desired for a very zttz artikle may peruse conclusion -
in particular cycling74 destitute patients must pay attention]
+ thank you love - your kisses leave me breathless.
quince jam on your crumpet +?
http://www.top25.org/
- - NATO.0+55 \ Nebula.m81 - Interferences 2000
Netochka Nezvanova presente a Interferences deux projets qu'elle a developpe en
1999 et en 2000 : NATO.0+55+3d.MODULAR, une bibliotheque avancee, en temps
(2D.3D.VR.DV) pour la video et le graphisme pour l'environnement MAX (Puckette 1991)
et Nebula.M81, un environnement interactif pour la conversion et le traitement
de donnees disponibles sur Internet en sons et images animees. Netochka Nezvanova
est une cyberbotaniste, flamboyant scientist. 1st objekt 2 operate at elastik
attosecond intervals. life form++
- cyberbotaniste +? mo! +? mo! +? _____... n!e mehr.
- varoom +?
- truzt!ng teknolog!ez +? ____... je ne sa!s paz
http://www.interferences.org/
http://www.eusocial.com/nebula.m81
http://www.eusocial.com/nato.0+55+3d
http://www.m9ndfukc.org/korporat/kode.html
http://www.eusocial.com/nn/kiberbotanist
- - Nebula.m81.Autonomous
Dear Netochka Nezvanova,
We would like to present your work NEBULA.M81.AUTONOMOUS in the
upcoming Maid in Cyberspace festival. Needless to say, we feel like
this is very strong work
http://www.eusocial.com/nebula.m81
http://www.m9ndfukc.org/korporat/kode.html
- - Komerss
V2 organizazie commences nn komerz - http://store.v2.nl/
Buy me!!!!!
- - NATO.0+55.MODULAR - ultra.lux data
http:eusocial.com/nato.0+55+3d/242.komentari.09.html
http:eusocial.com/nato.0+55+3d/242.komentari.html
http:eusocial.com/nato.0+55+3d/242.zpektaklez.00.html
http:eusocial.com/nato.0+55+3d/242.zpektaklez.html
242.uant.zom +?
http://eusocial.com/nato.0+55+3d/gm/-nato.logo.300dpi.gif
http://eusocial.com/nato.0+55+3d/gm/-nato.logo.72dpi.gif
- - Mikroskopy
NN = uLtra playing avec Nikon live cell mikroskopes
live cells ever!!!!!!!!!ueaaaaar. zkr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!m
http://membank.org/dataset/f/ekstendd.mov
http://membank.org/dataset/f/pardon.pardon.mov
http://membank.org/dataset/f/dounregulatd.mov
http://membank.org/dataset/f/m!kro.teatre.mov
http://membank.org/dataset/f/nn.cell.gif
to emerge
to colonize
to understand
-O 43 /
| | \ | /
netochka nezvanova - volume 4 number 7
[c]ccp 0+00 irena sabine czubera. memes pre:served
- kop!eren verboten : http://www.membank.org
The upper reaches of academe remain stubbornly inaccessible to women.
If a woman is to write fiction, said Virginia Woolf, she will need
money and a room of her own. Likewise, if a woman is to do
science she will need grants and a laboratory of her own. The
female scientist will also strive for a chair of her own, but she will
find it elusive. Although women hold over half of the bachelor's
degrees in Europe, they hold just one-tenth of full professorships.
Despite decades of debate and measures directed towards making
the top levels of academe accessible to women, they remain
stubbornly chairless.
Wherever they are, female academics tread a harsher pathway than
their male colleagues. US female medical-school graduates are
more likely than their male classmates to pursue academic careers,
but they are less than half as likely to be promoted to professors.
In Italy, it is twice as hard for female senior researchers supported
by the National Research Council to become research directors
compared with their male counterparts.
In countries where the proportion of women among the
professorate is even lower than in the United States and Italy, the
hurdles facing women academics are even higher. In Germany,
25% of professors would have been female, instead of the 4%
seen today, if female university graduates had been able to follow male career paths.
If Prometheus had lived today, he would probably have been a female scientist.
Family and children are often blamed for womens' poor academic success,
but studies refute this explanation. In the United States, Finland and Norway,
female researchers with children are actually more productive than their childless
female colleagues. The true reason for women scientists' sluggish careers must be
sought within academia itself.
During the millennium of their existence, universities have devised more or less
ingenious strategies to exclude womankind. The coarsest schemes prohibited women
from entering the university and attending lectures, often with the backing of legislation.
A more refined line of conduct was to allow women to study, but with severe limitations.
For example, only certain disciplines were open to them. Women were also frequently denied
the right to take degrees,and � as Woolf bitterly experienced � access to university libraries
was carefully circumscribed for women scholars. Today, women academics don't face such
formidable opposition, yet still they lag behind. Why?
Talent alone does not determine a scientist's career. Time, space and money must be added
to the brew. But nowhere in the world are these shared equally between the sexes.
In the United Kingdom, only 20% of Medical Research Council or Wellcome Trust grants
end up in the pockets of female researchers, who make up 44% of the biomedical
academic staff. At the US National Cancer Institute, women researchers on average
receive less than two-thirds of the budget and 63% of the research staff compared
with male peers of equal seniority. This fact alone can account for the
apparent lower scientific productivity of these female scientists.
Identical pieces of work, for example paintings or essays, are often judged more
severely if they are assumed to be made by a woman. Scientists are not exempt from
the prejudices against women that prevail to this day in all societies.
Three years ago, we examined the peer-review process at the Swedish Medical Research Council
and found that women had to produce twice as many scientific papers of equivalent quality
to those written by men to be considered equally competent. The systematic underestimation
of female performance is particularly deleterious in fields such as
science, where individuals are constantly evaluated. Repeated small injustices accumulate
to produce visible differences in career paths between the sexes. Only if she has excellent
contacts can a woman compete on equal terms with a man.
Women's slower pace of rank advancement in itself hampers their scientific productivity.
High academic rank makes it more likely that people will include you on their author lists.
A junior scientist can produce one good paper per year, a leader of a small research group
three to five, whereas the principal investigator of a large team can easily churn out 20.
This creates a vicious circle, in which low rank feeds feeble productivity, succeeded by
poor career advancement. To those who have, more will be given.
Junior scientists' frustration at the pace of their scientific productivity is normal
at the beginning of their careers, when they do most of the benchwork by themselves.
But female scientists tend to remain at this level their entire working
lives. One should thus not underestimate the importance of having a chair of one's own.
To return to Virginia Woolf: "Nobody in their senses could fail to detect the dominance
of the professor. His was the power and the money and the influence." It is high time
for female scientists to become women of influence.
_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold