Female Nobel Prize in Physics Winners
- Marie Curie (1903): Awarded for her pioneering research on radiation phenomena, making her the first woman to win a Nobel Prize.
- Maria Goeppert Mayer (1963): Honored for her discoveries concerning the nuclear shell structure.
- Donna Strickland (2018): Recognized for her method of generating high-intensity, ultra-short optical pulses (chirped pulse amplification).
- Andrea Ghez (2020): Awarded for the discovery of a supermassive compact object at the center of our galaxy.
- Anne L’Huillier (2023): Recognized for experimental methods that generate attosecond pulses of light for studying electron dynamics in matter.
Female Nuclear Physicists
Female Astronomers
English Female Scientists
French Female Scientists
My List of Women Physicists
1. Maria the Jewess
2. Hypatia
3. Nicole Reine Etable de la Briere Le Ponte
4. Emily du Chatelet
5. Laura Bassi
6. Eunice Foote
7. Maria Mitchell
8. Hertha Ayrton
9. Marie Curie
10. Emmy Noether
11. Grete Hermann
12. Lise Meitner
13. Maria Goebbert Mayers
14. Charlotte Moore Sitterly
15. Rosalind Franklin
16. Chien-Shiung Wu
17. Jocelyn Bell Burnell
18. Vera Rubin
19. Helen Quinn
20. Lisa Randall
21. Donna Strickland
22. Andrea Ghez
23. Anne L’Huillier
Nobody complains about the fact that nurses are 90% women, that secretaries are 90% women, that elementary school teachers are 90% women, or that fashion models are 90% women. You are not trying to encourage more whites to play basketball because you assume that it’s a problem that the NBA is 95% African-American. If you walk down the streets of Little Havana in Miami, you see old Cuban men playing dominoes. Do you think that group should be more diverse in terms of age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, etc? The top chess players in the world are disproportionally Russian. Do you assume that must be due to prejudice against non-Russians? Is it a problem that African-Americans are over represented among basketball players, that Cubans are over represented among domino players, that Russians are over represented among chess players? In all these cases listed above, everyone assumes that the fact that the demographics of different jobs, hobbies, interests, don’t mirror the general population is because of cultural differences, that people in different groups are more likely to be interested in different things, and nobody thinks there’s anything wrong with that. However, if a demographic group just happens to be a traditionally oppressed minority, everyone assumes that the only explanation for supposed under representation must be prejudice and discrimination. They do not cite any evidence for this. They just assume it. Correlation does not imply causality.
The only reason why physicists are 80% men 20% women is because girls are less likely than boys to choose to major in physics. That is their choice. If you believe that the percentage of physicists that are men should be higher than it currently is, that means that you are therefore criticizing girls for choosing to not major in physics. If a girl in high school is filling out her college application, and gets to the part where you are supposed to write down your choice of major, she can write down anything she wants. If she chooses to not write “physics”, that was her choice. She chose to not write it down. The girl fills out her own college application. Nobody else fills it out. Nobody is looking over her shoulder while she fills it out. If you believe that the percentage of physicists that are women should be higher than it currently is, that means that you are therefore, by definition, blaming girls since there is nobody else responsible.
What you are doing is you are somehow dismissing the girl’s ability to decide for themselves what they want to major in. You somehow assume that they must have have put enough thought it into it. You are assuming that they did not weigh all the options and make a well thought out, well considered decision. That is insulting to girls.
If a boy majored in subject X, you would not criticize him for not majoring in subject Y. Yet if a girl majors in subject X, you criticize her for not majoring in subject Y.
If a boy majors in subject X, you don’t assume, “Oh, he must have secretly majored in subject Y”. Yet, if a girl majors in subject X, you assume “Oh, she must have secretly wanted to major in subject Y”.
If a boy majors in subect X, you would not assume, “Someone must have told him to not major in subject Y”. Yet if a girl majors in subject X, you assume “Someone must have told her to not major in subject Y”.
You would never think that if a boy wanted to major in subject X that he would instead major in subject Y just because someone told him not to major in subject X. Yet you assume that girls are so malleable or weak minded that if a girl wanted to major in subject X, she would instead major in subject Y, just because someone told her to not major in subject X. There is nobidy telling girls not to major in subject X anyway. In fact, there are a lot more people trying to encourage girls to major in physics, then trying to encourage boys to major in physics.
If a boy majored in subject X, you would never think “Maybe he didn’t know that subject Y was an option”. Yet you assume that girls are so ignorant that if a girl majored in subject X, you think “Maybe she didn’t know that subject Y was an option”.
These people have this extremely insulting attitude towards girls where you are dismissive of their choice about what to major in. You are not respecting their own decision about what to major in. They assume that they can’t decide for themselves what to major in so they need you to tell them what to major in. Who the hell are you to tell somebody else what to major in? It’s none of your business what other people choose to major in.
People who say that we should increase the percentage of physicists that are women often toss out this bogus misleading statistic that high school physics classes are 50% girls. Incoming college freshman are slightly over 50% women. You are REQUIRED to take physics in high school in order to enter college! That is the ONLY reason why high school physics classes are 50% girls! It is NOT because girls are as interested in physics as boys. It is because they are REQUIRED to take the class in order to enter college! If, hypothetically, you were required to take a home ec class in high school in order to enter college, then high school home ec classes would be 50% boys.
There are lots of other professions that predominately one gender. Nurses are 90% women, 10% men. Secretaries are 90% women, 10% men. Elementary school teachers are 90% women, 10% men. Fashion models are 90% women, 10% men. Nobody says that we should increase the percentage of men in those jobs. There are lots of subjects are hobbies where one gender is more likely to be interested than the other gender. Boys are likely to be interested in BMX bikes and skateboards. Girls are more likely to be to interested in fashion. What’s wrong with that? Is that a problem? If girls are less likely than boys to be interested in physics, what’s wrong with that? Are you upset about the fact that men are more likely to be interested in football? Are you out there trying to get more women to watch football on television because you believe that men and women should be equally interested in all subjects?
Someone on Facebook replied by saying, “People actually do talk about those imbalances all the time. They’re relates to this one. Women often end up dominating the professions that you’ve listed merely because they are barred from entering others. You make mistake of assuming that all people have equal access to all choices. They don’t. When boys from infancy are taught to be intelligent and strong and girls are taught to be silent and pretty, there is no point in time at which their access to all options is equal. Not when they’re filling out their college application, not when they’re choosing what courses to take in high school, and not when they’re choosing which activities to pursue as young children. The imbalances we see in employment and career success are the result of restricted options that begins at birth. Some people will overcome that, but that doesn’t mean the rest are opting out by choice.”
I then replied by writing the following.
What profession are you claiming that women are “barred” from entering? You are implying that the only reason why nurses are 90% women is because women are not allowed to be doctors….oh, wait a minute….women are allowed to be doctors. Women are allowed to be doctors so that’s not why nurses are 90% women. Women are allowed to be business leaders, so that’s not why secretaries are 90% women. Women are allowed to be school principals, so that’s not why elementary school teachers are 90% women. These facts disprove your claim. You then make this ludicrous claim that “there is no point in time at which their access to all options is equal”, which is patently false. If an elementary school has a field trip to a science museum, they take both the boys and the girls. Both boys and girls are required to take the same math and science classes in high school in order to get into college. A girl is just as capable as a boy of checking a science book out of the library or watching a science show on TV. Girls as children are just as much exposed to science as boys as children. A girl is just as much allowed to major in physics as a boy, and despite that, they are still less likely to choose to do it, which means they are really less likely to be interested. What’s wrong with that? Why do you demand that boys and girls be equally interested in all things? Does it make you angry that women are less likely than men to be football fans? Are you trying to encourage more women to watch football because you believe that men and women should have identical interests in all subjects?
Physicists are about 20% women, 80% men, and you think that it “should” be 50% women, 50% men, so you are trying to encourage girls to major in physics. Therefore, you have a situation where physicists are A% women, B% men, and you think it should be C% women, D% men, and so you are trying to influence girls decision about what to major in, in order to change the percentage to get it closer to what you think it should be. Another example of the same thing would be if physicists were 20% women, 80% men, and you believed that it “should” be 0% women, 100% men, and so you were trying to discourage girls from majoring in physics. What you are doing is the same as that. It is morally wrong to preselect a percentage that you believe it supposedly “should” be, and then insult girls by not respecting their choice about what to major in, and assume that they are so weak minded that you can change what they are interested in, to try to get the percentage closer to what you think it supposedly “should” be.
If you’re a white man, and somehow things don’t go your way, such as you don’t get a job, you don’t get a promotion, you are given a smaller office than you think you should get, or whatever, you can’t attribute it to prejudice or discrimination. However, if the same thing happens to a woman or a traditionally oppressed minority, they just reflexively assume that it must be because they are the victim of prejudice or discrimination, even if that is not the reason. A man might make an innocent remark, and woman might misinterpret it as a sexist remark. A woman might imagine that her comments were not taken seriously when they were taken seriously, or if her remarks weren’t taken seriously, assume that the reason was because she was a woman, when that had nothing to do with it. The problem with social science studies on these issues is that they base their conclusions entirely on surveys and self-reporting which is unreliable as opposed to something that can be objectively measured. If X% of women responding to a survey, report being sexually harassed, it is reported in the media that X% of women were sexually harassed. However, if X% people responding to a survey report being abducted by aliens, it is not reported in the media that X% of people have been abducted by aliens. Why are the results of the first survey reported differently than the second survey? The women filling out these surveys are not required to provide any evidence to back up their claim. Imagine you are a woman filling out a survey that asks you if you have ever been sexually harassed. You know that the woman who wrote or handed you the survey wants you to say “yes”. If you say no, there is a subtle implication, even it is not your intention, that you are minimizing the bad experiences of other women. There is this subtle implication that you are saying “Well, that never happened to me”, and sort of implying that it has not happened to other women. This is in the mind of the women handed these surveys, so they feel obligated to say “yes”. If they don’t say “yes”, they are betraying the sisterhood.
physics613 
Leave a comment