You win the internet today @CR_Shelton! @todayinscipic.twitter.com/prwBOZdHm3
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Nobel Scientists may be only 3.01% women, but you aren't just spotlighting Nobels. That's not an excuse.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
What the fuck. Irresponsible & ridiculous to assume that Nobel prizes reflect scientists on the ground.
-
Wonder whether the people of
@todayinsci (let's face it, they're all men) actually know any scientists let alone women sci -
That is purely ad hominem. Please stick to facts in a polite discussion.
-
It's a fair question.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I don't think I need to tell you that women aren't in sci history because they were *actively suppressed*
-
Don't think rhetorical questions are his forte. Been doing "I don't get sexism" for days but has been given refspic.twitter.com/Hb1qYXWdRf
-
yeah, at this point I have lost faith in about 97% of white male scis. Rational arguments don't work.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Which *exactly* proves the point that we live in a patriarchal, racist and violently classist society.
-
And it proves that you're not doing your historian job, presenting the untold histories of the women of science
-
That is not my job. The original goal is a chronology of science. It is not a job. Only while a pleasure.
-
"job" as in "task". But look better, you forgot half (or more) of your timeline.
@OtherSociology
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
-
And if you study science history, you know that women often worked the bckground, and you need to dig for them
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
that's a terrible excuse.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.