Curie was recognized in her lifetime, she won a ton of awards, including two nobel prizes. The enormity of her contribution to physics and chemistry compared to her co-winners has been slowly revealed over time, but she was considered a brilliant scientist during her life.
A better example could be Lise Meitner who, while in exodus from Nazi Germany, essentially figured out what fission was just by learning about the results of early nuclear physics experiments. But when people list the big names in nuclear physics, she’s not one of them.
According to a number of sources on STEM statistics worldwide in 2025, women still occupy less than half of all STEM positions. A higher percentage of female nurses is why there’s a majority in “life sciences.” Women hold fewer higher level/higher paid positions than men in all STEM fields as well, and minorities are still demographically under-represented across the board.
although it has to do with so many factors that are helping them intentionally.(example they made up majority labs in universities, preferred over men in probably hire situations as part of thier “demographic” goals.
Their comment reads a bit like “how do you do fellow kids non-misogynists”
yes i know that about women, but i think thats changing in the coming decades, as women are also in biotech/research in larger numbers than men, and the men currently in those exclusive positions are from a time when it was easier for them to achieve it.
You don’t know it because that’s not what you said.
According to the latest research on PubMed and Statistics provided by UNESCO, women do not outnumber men in any stem position except life sciences, which includes healthcare nurses. No one disagrees that the gender gap is closing, but to say women hold more positions than men because of demographic goals is wrong as hell.
Curie was recognized in her lifetime, she won a ton of awards, including two nobel prizes. The enormity of her contribution to physics and chemistry compared to her co-winners has been slowly revealed over time, but she was considered a brilliant scientist during her life.
A better example could be Lise Meitner who, while in exodus from Nazi Germany, essentially figured out what fission was just by learning about the results of early nuclear physics experiments. But when people list the big names in nuclear physics, she’s not one of them.
According to a number of sources on STEM statistics worldwide in 2025, women still occupy less than half of all STEM positions. A higher percentage of female nurses is why there’s a majority in “life sciences.” Women hold fewer higher level/higher paid positions than men in all STEM fields as well, and minorities are still demographically under-represented across the board.
Combined with their last two sentences
Their comment reads a bit like “how do you do fellow
kidsnon-misogynists”the ONLY woman to win two nobel prizes.
First person to win two Nobel prizes and the only person to win the Nobel prize in two different scientific fields.
yes i know that about women, but i think thats changing in the coming decades, as women are also in biotech/research in larger numbers than men, and the men currently in those exclusive positions are from a time when it was easier for them to achieve it.
You don’t know it because that’s not what you said.
According to the latest research on PubMed and Statistics provided by UNESCO, women do not outnumber men in any stem position except life sciences, which includes healthcare nurses. No one disagrees that the gender gap is closing, but to say women hold more positions than men because of demographic goals is wrong as hell.