Religious Empathy, Scientific Rigor

I am not religious, and aside from childhood belief in Santa Claus, I do not think I ever have been.  What does that mean, though?  An NPR piece quoted Alan de Botton as seeing religion as a vehicle to "satisfy our human need for connection, ritual and transcendence."  If religion is that vehicle, and not the belief itself, I still do not count myself among the religious.  However, I tend to think of religion as belief.  What is ritual without belief that it is meaningful?  What does it matter if the belief is in a deity, state of mind, or even lack thereof?  Religion as ritual or belief is not for me.

In my past, I have judged the religious harshly.  Jim Jeffers, in as offensive language possible, argues that atheists should be nice - after all, what do they care if they lie to a priest?  I think part of the harsh treatment of the religious, for me, was the perception that they judged me harshly.  While I may have questioned the basic intelligence of believing over questioning, I was offended that they would pass judgement on me, and condemn me to damnation, without consideration of me as a person.  In the end, mostly those feelings just left me angry and jaded.  It took years to learn to be nice, but empathy was quicker to come.

Interestingly, I began empathizing with the religious before I began accepting them kindly.  I recall a conversation with my university friend, Egypt, about microprocessors.  I still do not, for lack of effort, truly understand how a processor "decides" if two voltages are the same or different (or whatever, I apologize for my naivete).  At the heart of my lack of understanding, I see a question.  I think in moments like this, in religion, one sees god.  Simply put, I see questions, and the religious see answers.  I can empathize with that vision of the world, even if it is not quite the religious experience that others have.

Just because I found the empathy, I did not have the courage to not judge those who I thought were judging me.  I will not say I have found all of the courage to be kind to people of differing ideas all of the time, but I am getting better, because I really do not care what "hell" they believe I will suffer in (I don't think I will).

Part of what helped me understand that I did not need to judge the religious is that I worked with a couple of religious people (of varying religions), and how religious they were did not matter in how they treated me and others.  Some believers were kind, and others were not.  Some were judgmental, others were not, just like everyone else.  I worked, and lived in a tent, with a man named Scott, who described himself as, "bananas for Jesus."  In many ways, that was the biggest release, I did not have to judge Scott, he judged himself, and we accepted each other for who we were.

I imagine that there would be some irreconcilable differences in the way Scott and I perceive many issues.  I was freshly divorced at the time, and trying desperately to find myself, and he had found himself during a personal crisis, decades before, in religion.  It was an interesting perspective to hear someone talk about how they navigated their life, rather than having someone tell me how I should navigate mine.  In fact, the only time I ever heard Scott come close to telling me that religion was better than non-religion was when he stated that, in his experience, happy old people have two things, children and God.

I have no interest in having either of those two things, and perhaps that means I face unhappiness in my old age.  I have faced unhappiness at other stages of my life, and fear of more unhappiness does not make me desire to fill myself with belief to escape it.  When I am filled with feelings of sadness or loneliness, sometimes I want to have a dear friend there to comfort me, but generally, I tend to let it wash over me, maybe like what Lois CK thinks more people should do.

I have gone years without thinking of myself as a "happy person," and to think of an omnipotent being at the helm of fate does not help.  First, if I were to accept many religions, I would need to acknowledge that in being a good person, I would be rewarded with eternal life in paradise.  For the most part, my life has been quite rich, and I doubt that paradise for many disadvantaged people would look much different.  So if I wallow in sadness during 75 years in "paradise," eternity seems a little too long.  Second, I doubt I can feel comfort from knowing that someone is choosing for me to experience these things.  I understand the argument that in order for me to be here, now, I needed those experiences.  While that is true, to say that suffering is part of a planned path to enlightenment, makes the almighty seem a little less clever than what the creator of the universe deserves.

So, no matter how I approach it, I find that religion is not for me.  That is to say, believing in religion, or not believing in religion.  Questions are for me.  This leaves me solidly agnostic, which I have argued is the truest path for the religious (believers, deity or lack thereof notwithstanding).  That said, how one spends their Sundays does not change how that person should be treated by me.

Or does it?  I was talking to a neighbor the other night who said, "I used to think it was treat others how you want to be treated, but it isn't.  It is treat others how they want to be treated."  Obviously, he is right, and what one believes should have an affect on how I treat them.  Of course, I cannot really know the customs and desires of everyone I meet, but I can probably come close by using "emotional intelligence."

That, to me, is really the heart of religion.  Religion is belief that governs our emotional response.  When we "know" something, very rarely is emotion the biggest factor in governing our reaction.  When we encounter the unknown, we are guided by emotions, morality, rituals, etc.  In this way, science, with a strict method (ritual) that governs how one increases their understanding of the world is approaching belief.  For some, it is.  There are many who seem convinced that science will eventually answer every question, but many questions are inherently unanswerable.  This sets the limit of science, it can only answer answerable questions.

A problem in society is that science is, alarmingly, seen as competing with belief.  When it is observed in this way, people seem to want to fight against it.  The "due unto others" axioms of religion are stopping life saving care of women, stopping women's rights discovered through science, and barring science education in schools.  It is shocking what happens when people feel like they are being judged!

If some parents interpret teaching science as judgement, and some interpret not teaching it as judgement, society needs to reach some understanding on what knowledge is needed to advance ourselves.  The other day I was out for a run.  The road from the house where I am living has a gate.  It is low, maybe 30 inches high at the center, and 36 inches at the sides.  As I had done countless times before, I sprinted to pull ahead of my friend, and leapt, kicking my left foot high and forward.  Maybe I was too late in jumping, or maybe I just did not jump high enough.  Either way, I felt my toe catch on the gate, then I was falling, then hitting the ground.  My friend watched from behind, horrified, as I crashed to the ground.  For me, most of what happens next is blurry, I remember looking at my bloody hands and trying to catch my breath.  I remember standing up, and trying to walk it off, then laying back down worried I was going to faint.  I remember wanting a second opinion on how badly hurt I was, and when I decided to continue the run, I was surprised that I had managed to cross the gate back towards the house before laying back down.  That night, I covered my oozing wounds with gauze, wrapped my stiff, swollen, painful wrists in elastic bandages, and lay down to sleep.  After what felt like eternity of feeling pain from the pressure of the blankets on my wrists, ribs, hip, and shoulder, I struggled out of bed and took ibuprofen (something I do less than annually).

My fall relates to religion because while seeking the advice (and x-rays) of a physician was considered, seeking the healing powers of a priest was not.  Everything I did in response to an injury was motivated by my knowledge of medical sciences (and stubbornness to admit when I'm hurt).  While I am sure that many religious people would have said a little prayer in addition to the treatment I sought, I doubt many would have headed for the church.

It is generally held that medicine (science) helps in tangible ways in this situation.  While most people do not think about the scientists in a lab working on better gauze pads, drugs, and treatments, when they take ibuprofen after a fall, they owe their comfort to those scientists.  Scientists, who may have believed in a religion, but had an understanding of math, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and evolution.  Advancements in knowledge of medical sciences depends upon high school students learning scientific theories and hypotheses that will be built upon in university and graduate or professional school.

Maybe the world was created by a creator, that is an unanswerable question, but the world, created or not, when analyzed scientifically has attributes, like evolution, that help our understanding of how to treat maladies.  This is where my empathy fails me with the religious, or at least the extremely religious.  I can accept that the way we see the world is different.  I can accept that some religions pass judgement on me for not believing in them.  I cannot accept that religion should replace science, where science has a proven track record of improving quality of life, and religion does not.

I do not wish to belabor the point, but I suppose that is what I am going to do.  When looking for mineral wealth, one hires a geologist.  When creating medical imaging devices, better cell phones, and faster computers, one hires a physicist.  When creating more powerful computers or software, one seeks computer scientists and engineers.  When building cars, buildings, and infrastructure, society turns to engineers.  Drugs are created by chemists and pharmacists.  Medical treatments are developed by biologists and physicians.  Mental health issues are addressed by psychologists, as are new treatments for those conditions.  In all these things science and math are the foundation.  Some, when in need of emotional comfort and moral guidance will turn to religion, but the limitations of what this thinking can accomplish is self-evident in the absence of theology in the STEM fields.

In essence, I no longer feel the need to judge the religious harshly - they are people just like the non-religious.  I think many in religious circles could benefit a fair bit by leaving judgement to their creators, but more importantly, I think they will continue to benefit by keeping parable in the church, and science in the classroom.

Political Extremism

Reports of proto-genocide in South Sudan, Al Qaeda fighters creating the makings of civil war, and Tea Party factions pulling apart the fabric of the Republican party bring my attention to the repercussions of extreme factions given too much power.  In South Sudan, ethnic tensions lie along political lines, and the barely held peace is undone.  Countrymen are killing countrymen based on ethnicity and politics.  In Iraq, armed men shout about defending the people from the government, while limiting the rights of people, particularly women.  In the US, the Tea Party (and Christian extremists) is destabilizing the Republican Party, and in many ways the country as a whole, by insisting on access to military weapons, limiting the access of women to modern medicine, and eroding educational standards.  While it is anathema to constructive discourse to vilify those with opposing views by rash comparison to notorious groups, the politics and rhetoric of extremism forms a pattern that cannot be dealt with logically.  It seems increasingly so that there is shockingly little difference between the political tactics of the Tea Party and extremists like Al Qaeda.

The Tea Party has no official religion, but certainly Christianity is to the Tea Party what Islam is to Al Qaeda.  One philosophy unites the members of each group, and the more extreme the interpretation of their respective holy texts, the tighter the bond.  I acknowledge that there may be many Tea Party members who regard themselves as non-fundamentalists, but when the moral compass of an organization aligns to the guidance of hate-filled religious teachers of the Jerry Falwell kind, an exclusive fundamentalism reveals itself at the heart of the organization.  This type of religious zeal lends itself to the xenophobia that these extremist groups rely upon to perpetuate their agenda.

In Iraq, Al Qaeda fighters align themselves with the religious sect that is not in power.  In South Sudan, ethnicity fuels the political hate.  The xenophobia that fuels these conflicts is key: keep the good life for us, not them, is the sentiment.  In the United States, the propaganda of the extreme right dictate the closing of borders and limiting the abilities of immigrants and foreigners to enjoy the American Dream.  Admittedly, new immigrants have been excluded from the American Dream by the immigrants of decades past.  However, when Facebook memes that tout closing borders are proliferated by those who fail to consider the patriotic diversity that drives their nation, the extremism of the Tea Party is advanced by thoughtless repetition. Unfortunately, Tea Party xenophobia does not stop at policy, but extends to violence.

When a Wisconsin Sikh temple was the target of a mass shooting, most Americans were outraged.  Paul Ryan sponsored a house bill that condemned the acts.  Americans are quick to condemn violence, but in the matter of preventing violence, the Tea Party lacks enthusiasm.  Ryan’s bill merely sought to condemn the act, not limit access to the legally-purchased, 19-round ammunition magazines that were used to kill the Sikhs and shoot a responding police officer 15 times.  The Tea Party is not a white supremacist organization, but it can be accused of using xenophobia on the national political spectrum to encourage xenophobia in smaller, more extreme communities.  Given the hate crimes perpetrated by well-armed xenophobes in the United States, is it unreasonable to think that should a second civil war ever begin, that Muslims, Latinos, Blacks, the LGBT community, or minority immigrant communities would be some of the first to be targeted?  Would that be American genocide?

No political movement is free from violence.  Governments of the extreme left have committed heinous atrocities along with their extreme right brethren.  "Grassroots" political organizations, left and right, have committed acts of violence.  Yet, the modern extreme right, including incarnations that preceded or feed off the Tea Party movement have committed some of the most striking acts of American terrorism.  In 1995 the Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City was bombed by those sympathetic to the Militia Movement.  While the Militia Movement is not the Tea Party, Timothy McVeigh's political view certainly sound at home among those of the Tea Party.  Consider these quotes compiled on Wikipedia:

"Taxes are a joke. Regardless of what a political candidate "promises," they will increase. More taxes are always the answer to government mismanagement."

"The government is afraid of the guns people have because they have to have control of the people at all times. Once you take away the guns, you can do anything to the people. You give them an inch and they take a mile. I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist government. The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful and the people need to prepare to defend themselves against government control."

Mistrust of government, the desire for low taxes, and the idea of gun-rights are not in themselves vehicles of terrorism.  However, when combined with xenophobia, the "government," and the "socialists" (liberals?) become them, the enemy.  “The right to bear arms,” whatever that legally means, provides extremists a way to hide their desire to destabilize society behind a veil of constitutional legitimacy.  Literal interpretations of the constitution equate military weapons to black powder muskets, a weapon with limited applications in mass shootings.  A nation armed with tools (e.g., hunting rifles), may suffer heart-wrenching gun violence, but will not face the destabilizing, daily terror of military weapons in the hands of the disaffected.

This is not a conspiracy.  Violence is not a plan being delivered by a secret movement.  Violence is the result of mass-produced, widely available weapons.  The concept that the availability of weapons produces violence is not new, nor secular.  In the Bible, Isaiah 2:3-4 encourages swords to plowshares, spears to pruning hooks, and discourages war.  The Bible passage, like the Second Amendment, is not entirely clear in its fullest meaning, but tools for farming seem more important than tools for defense.  In the Bill of Rights, what threat is perceived that requires defense?  Is it foreign nations?  The central government?  Each other?  With widely available weapons, threats are shrouded by irrational fears.  Daily gun violence is terrorism inflicted on the American public by gun lobbyists to justify more guns.  The central government’s mission to provide medical care to the sick, the poor, and the meek is a perceived threat that should be met with, according to some associated with the Tea Party, a military coup.  Yet, a military coup is probably the threat James Madison envisioned coming from the central government when he penned the Second Amendment, as the constitution specifically forbids the presence of a standing army.  With the current (unconstitutional) military being the largest part of government, and more powerful than something like the next ten most powerful militaries combined, the threat of a foreign power is moot.  In essence, it seems that the Second Amendment is held in greater esteem than the Bible to defend against the gun violence that the defense of the Second Amendment has created!

The violence perpetuated by the extreme right is not a Tea Party tradition, but is condoned by their rhetoric and actions.  When Sarah Palin used a political graphic that used gun scope cross hairs to identify democrat-held districts, she was condoning violence, though not intentionally.  When Alaskan separatists (to potentially include Todd Palin) argue for the right to own military-style weapons, they are, inadvertently, condoning violence against the government.  It was, in fact, separatism over states’ rights that led to the civil war (which was also drawn along racial lines).  Violence, then, is tied to Tea Party thinking; this includes mass shootings that kill children.

Real violence spilling from rhetoric is a tragedy that is preventable.  First, though, we must answer a question.  Where and how does rhetoric escalate, or not, to violence?  In a New York Times magazine piece, it was implied that John McCain is tired of discussing the selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate.  That political move, however misguided, may have been the point where the Tea Party seceded from the Republican Party.  It legitimized the extremist fringe on the national scale.  I, like McCain, am tired of talking about Palin, but I think that was a pivotal point that should be understood.  If we can understand an event that put extremists in a position of power in the country, can we understand the circumstances that will legitimate violence and war as a political party?

I am not proposing that we currently sit on the eve of war.  Instead, I am proposing that the Tea Party, in an uniquely American way, represents much of the extremism seen in Al Qaeda, and that fuels conflicts of genocide.  I am proposing that we need to analyze and understand when violent rhetoric becomes violence.  How do we know that when Charlton Heston said, "...from my cold dead hands," it was not a call to arms for felons barred from owning weapons?  We learn these things through law enforcement actions.  After the shooting in Newtown, Wayne LaPierre called for a vast increase in the size of government to protect schools from the guns that his organization defend.  It is through increasing the size of government, and decreasing liberty, that Americans seek to live with military weapons in their daily lives.  To my mind, the NSA spying on telephones is the product of Americans making access to deadly weapons a “right” of greater importance than food for hungry children (e.g., reducing funding for food stamps).

Unfortunately, the NSA was caught protecting us from ourselves, and the Tea Party is responding with vehement small government rhetoric, pitting the citizen against the government: us versus them.  Meanwhile, a rebel in Fallujah takes the stage to proclaim his protection of Iraqis from their government.

Learning math may be boring, but is it without reward?

The New York Times thinks math is boring.  They suggest that most high school students are not planning to pursue STEM fields in university; though this is a questionable measure of the inherent excitement of math, it also seems to have limited use.  How many high school students should be planning to pursue STEM majors?  Pre-medical and medical degrees are not always included in STEM, nor are students interested in law, business, or the arts.  It is not an alarming statistic to say that most high school students are not planning to pursue a law degree.  While it is not clear how many students ought to pursue a law degree, it is clear that most people are not lawyers.  While STEM is a broad category, given that math- and science-heavy programs like accounting and medicine are not included in STEM, I do not think the number of students planning on majoring in STEM university programs is a measure of the likability of or interest in math in our society.

The NYT piece also references a study that compared American students to international students.  In the Program for International Student Assessment, the US consistently ranks in the middle of the analyzed countries, right at the average, since the first assessment in 2003.  The National Center for Education Statistics also has results from an assessment called the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), which dates back to 1995.  Combing the results of the two shows that the US, for about the last twenty years, has been about average compared to other countries.  The US may be slipping a little on the TIMSS, but what the meaning of a change of a couple of points is not clear.  Basically, despite the strong reaction to these results, the US remains more or less where it has always been - the middle.

I cannot comment on the nature of these rankings directly, but it should be noted that the US has one of the most open education systems in the world.  English language learners, the disabled, the poor, and the unmotivated students are all required to be in school, and participate in tests that rank the US against other nations.  Some of the other nations test students to allow them to continue their education (excluding unmotivated students).  Some nations exclude disabled students.  Some nations exclude the poor.  If the US can maintain an "average" ranking, while treating, or striving to treat, all students equally, and accordingly, testing them equally, then I do not see the average ranking as an issue.

Beyond the average ranking, the flat trend of the US rank in the world means that the education system is not failing compared to where it once was.  This is also reflected in American universities outranking every other post-secondary education system in the world, and the American economy being stronger than any other in the world.  Could the average numbers be a "canary in the coal mine"?  I suppose, but given that the universities have remained the strongest in the world, despite decades of tests that report supposedly failing American schools, it seems like these tests are unrelated to any measure of successful societies.

More evidence of boring mathematics comes from an Equation for Change study that suggests Americans are not confident when it comes to math.  The numbers are presented as ominous; for example:  "Although some Americans report positive feelings when they have to do math, like feeling confident (36%), knowledgeable (34%), at ease (30%) and prepared (20%), one in five Americans report that they typically feel frustrated (21%) or anxious (18%) when they have to do math."  Apparently the people at Equation for Change are counting on Americans being bad at math!  The rhetoric does not reflect that twice as many people report feeling confident while doing math than anxious.  The whole analysis is rife with loaded language, but some of the statements allude to a bewildering notion of what "math" actually is.  Apparently 35% of Americans have difficulty estimating weight or distance, which is a sign of failing math education, despite 65% of Americans reporting positive abilities in this decidedly unrelated-to-math assessment of mathematics.  Is the ability to accurately name the paint swatches at a hardware store art?

The Times claims that teachers are not sufficiently trained in mathematics, so students are not getting the education they deserve.  I agree that educators should have more math education, and I do think that it would encourage students to perform better at math if it was unacceptable for their teachers to say, "oh, I'm not so good at math, I've always been better at grammar."  However, a huge part of teachers making such statements is not a lack of training in math, but that it is socially acceptable to have these attitudes.  I am absolutely confident that my elementary school teachers lacked a developed knowledge of, for example, comma use.  Beyond the comma, I do not think the en dash or em dash were ever even mentioned as a topic pertinent to proper grammar in my 13 years in public school.  (Yes, I am including an artifact of typeface as grammar, as typeface has been affecting grammar for about 1000 years, longer than the existence of the modern comma.)  By this argument, teachers should be getting more education on almost every topic, but when society pays teachers so little, it is hard to convince education students to study hard in anticipation of such low pay.

Motivation in math does not just come from pay.  If students were driven only by income, all high school students would want to be petroleum engineers.  Students are motivated by emotion, interest, pay, inspiration, and perceived limitations.  The TV show 30 Rock dealt with one of these issues when an inner city youth baseball team discusses their dreams.  One of them says, "one day, I'll have an office just like this - to clean"!  For as much as Americans talk about following dreams, our socioeconomic classes do not offer mobility, and it is a sad but true reality that those 30 Rock little leaguers are not free to dream of being the executive in the office.

Yet, the world needs janitors, not only executives.  This should not be determined by one's parents, but the student him/herself.  P-Tech, the high school in the Times piece, is inspiring students to study enough math to be technicians, not necessarily presidents.  Blue-collar dreams are attainable if the students learn mathematics, but is a traditional math education what holds the students back?  Does math need to be made relevant to be not boring?  My uncle once told me that when he took geometry he did not bother to learn the theorems, but as a carpenter, deduced the Pythagorean theorem.  While an instructor may have been able to reach him more effectively by applying a different teaching style, some of the onus should stay on the student, shouldn't it?

I am not sure that I have ever seen an extended piece about how boring it is to learn a language.  The Rosetta Stone software advertises that it is not boring, but I do not think major news papers publish many op-eds about how foreign language education needs to be made relevant and fun.  It is boring, though.  I have never taken the time to learn to speak Spanish.  I have taken some classes, I have the Rosetta Stone, I study endless vocabulary, and I memorize numbers and the alphabet.  It is boring.  Many days while studying Spanish I long to do something exciting like read One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish, but I soldier on through vocabulary.  Why do this boring task?  Because when I wander around Barcelona and find a vegan-friendly cafe, I can ask if everything is vegan, and I can order one black doughnut and one pink doughnut well enough that I get a flirty smile from the girl behind the counter.  That is why learning Spanish warrants my time and attention, but I have to know that the ability is worth it to find the motivation to do so.

According to the Times, one of the most important aspects of math education is pre-school level math education.  (Interestingly, the "problem" with math education is elementary and secondary school math teachers, not the parents who are not enrolling the children in preschool.)  Valuing and understanding math must be a societal and parental imperative in order to instill the drive to achieve.  Most high school students do not have the luxury of motivating to learn through personal experience.  High schoolers, and to a larger degree elementary students, must rely on the advice of their mentors.  How do you make math important to these mentors?  That may well be the $64,000 question.

I think better teacher pay is part of the equation.  I think being realistic about educating people according to their needs and abilities is also important; rather than comparing and berating them with arbitrary international tests.  Most important of all, though, is a shift in the perception.  As long as the New York Times Editorial Board is empowering people to be bad at "boring" math, they will be. 

Nye is the Time, Before Oil Buys Science

I have taken a recent interest in Bill Nye, of "Science Guy" fame.  The internet is full of free content featuring Nye, including, on iTunes, a video of his 2006 lecture at Eastern Connecticut University.  He has interesting stories about science, sun dials, and ideas about the ways individuals can "change the world."  While discussing climate change, he displayed an image of an enormous hurricane that hit the gulf region in 2005.  The storm was not Katrina, though - it was Rita.

Occurring less than a month after Katrina, Rita was a more powerful storm, but was less costly in terms of lives lost and damage.  People rarely remember Rita, and seem to only recall Katrina when talking about the ongoings in New Orleans.  Rita, though more powerful than Katrina, was not the most powerful hurricane during the 2005 season.  That storm was Wilma, the most powerful one ever recorded in the North Atlantic.  These three storms are all in the top ten of most powerful hurricanes in the North Atlantic, and they all occurred in one season.

The storms of eight years ago may seem like a distant calamity, so let us consider a more recent example, cyclone Haiyan.  As the death toll in the Philippines in the wake of cyclone Haiyan nears 4000, reports have judged it to be one of the most powerful cyclones in the history of weather measurements.  The seeming escalation of these storms is only observation.

Observation of weather events is a past time of humans.  While pre-historic peoples did not leave a written record of the climate, I imagine they discussed the weather.  Perhaps chit-chat about the weather drove the development of language.  One can only imagine the importance of sun, rain, and moderate temperatures for early people, and what they must have said and thought when nature failed to deliver the anticipated norms.  This tradition continues today, and science has come to be able to predict and explain it.  Scientists record the extremes and the normalcy.  Through these observations and studies, an alarming trend has emerged.

Climate is changing.

Using the scientific method, making that observation is the first step.  Most people, through personal observations, have, in one way or another, come to this conclusion.  Colloquially, the statement, "so much for global warming," on a cold day damages the reputation of what these people know from their own observations; but at the core, no intelligent, thinking, reasonable person doubts global climate change.  What people doubt is the role of human industry in that change.

The subsequent steps of the scientific method is to ask testable questions about those observations, and then test them.  Following this proven method, a method that has provided the basis of scientific advancement from demonstrating a round Earth, to curing disease, the scientific community has come to a consensus - an overwhelming consensus - that humans are causing global climate change.  Through this, "climate change," has become synonymous with "anthropogenic climate change," but I think that dropping the implicating term of "antrhopogenic" implies room for doubt, so in the following discussion, I will use anthropogenic climate change.

Anthropogenic climate change has its doubters.  Most of these people use psuedo-science, economics, or self-interest to question the science.  A great example is an NPR piece about Judith Curry's feeling of uncertainty about a 97% consensus among scientists concerning anthropogenic climate change.  Dr. Curry defensively argues for self-created environmentalism.  She turns out lights and drives a Prius.  Her argument is that a 97% consensus is insufficient given her "unknown unknowns."  These questions, though not necessarily Dr. Curry's, are often things like: "if humans weren't on the planet, would temperatures rise any way"?  "Will curbing pollution curb a disaster, or will it come anyway"?  These are not scientific questions, and shame on Dr. Curry for posing them (or similar ones) as such!

To be fair, most of her arguments against government mandated pollution controls stem from two ideas.  First, the idea that Americans (who use more natural resources than any other nation) should not have to practice any form of restraint because China will continue to modernize, using the natural resources we could have used first.  This is obviously the greedy rant of a spoiled child.  Second, the idea that the economy is so very fragile it cannot support new technology as government mandates.  I am certain that some of the Koch brothers' 36 billion dollars (each) would be lost to them if Americans kept their tires properly inflated, but that money would be available for the American consumer to spend elsewhere.  If the government had continued the fuel efficiency trend from the 1980's, how many people in the STEM fields would have been employed improving the 1985 Chevette's fuel economy (36 mpg), rather than seeing it erode to the 34 mpg 2013 Spark?  To doubt American ingenuity is not only unpatriotic - it turns out it is also bad for the advancement of human kind.

In model year 2000, Honda released the Insight.  It had an EPA fuel economy rating of 53 miles per gallon.  In 2013, the (larger) Honda Insight obtains an EPA rating of 42 mpg.  In 13 years of research, development, and marketing, Honda managed to reduce the fuel economy of their car by 20%!  The ever affected Prius environmentalist can claim an impressive 50 mpg, still lower than a car designed without the technological advances of more than a decade!  It seems that the non-science of people like Dr. Curry has either led engineers to stop innovating, or for marketing departments to ignore those innovations.  Either way, I question the economic ideology that argues for status quo over technological advance.

In reality though, the difference between 50 mpg and 53 mpg is far less important than the difference between 10 mpg and 13 mpg (The New York Times "Wheels" blog has a good explanation of this).  Which is to say, buying a Prius over a Spark (or a 1985 Chevette), is not as important as the SUV buyer purchasing an Explorer over an Expedition.  By some arguments, based on the increased rare earth elements required for the Prius, the Spark may be a better choice.  Why is it undesirable to have the government mandating clear labeling for the consumer to know the environmental difference between different types of cars (for example)?  Will it really hurt the economy if SUV buyers save $700 on their gasoline bills and apply that to other sectors of the economy, say sectors within the US or local communities?  Would it benefit the US in other ways if foreign oil was 20% less important to the country?  It becomes evident that experts and politicians who make these claims are serving a different master than the pursuit of knowledge and the best interest of their constituents.

Who is that master?  Without looking for sources, it seems to me that Americans in 1999 (the year of the Insight) were pretty convinced that their was a finite supply of oil, that the climate was changing anthropogenically, and that inoculating children against mortal or paralyzing illnesses was a good thing.  In all of these sectors, it seems, there has been an erosion of scientific literacy over the past 14 years.  I could be imagining this, but it seems like it was pretty uncommon for entire congregations to get measles, to have whooping cough outbreaks, and unthinkable to have 10% of Washington State's children go unvaccinated against horrific illnesses.  It seems like the Honda Insight was ushered in with advertisements featuring wind turbines because our consumption rates had to change.  Obviously, much of this shift in thinking was long in the making, but it seems like scientific literacy has declined in the past decade, much of it by the "choosing" of the populace.

The public chose this erosion in intellect by electing easily digested soundbites over earned knowledge.  The public sees Jenny McCarthy telling them that her child is disabled because of vaccines, but finds it challenging to understand CDC studies.  The public sees Fox News questioning science daily, but finds reading scientific abstracts time consuming.  "Grassroots" Tea Party activists and ideas are bought and paid for by the Koch brothers, tested and tuned to mobilize and unite the far right.  The issue is that people are being told what to think by the uninformed (Jenny McCarthy) and the wealthy (Tea Party), rather than using scientific advancement to think for themselves.  In a word, the problem is laziness.

In the press, the Millennial generation often has negative coverage about its inability to think and its overprotective parents - basically, its laziness.  The rag goes something along the lines that millennial children were raised with constant rewards and encouragement, but when they turn into adults, the world is actually a hard place with a shrinking middle class.  This, supposedly, leaves them unprepared to actually work through the challenges they face.  While the Millennial children have a challenging world to face when they grow into adults (which may make them unhappy), they did not make these decisions.  The Tea Party is made up of old, conservative, religious, white men, and it is this demographic that decided to make cars less fuel efficient, and the world less scientific.

While the last ten years may have been revealing in the changing tide of the American opinion of science, it has been the last thirty years (or more) that has seen the silent work of the very wealthy to change this perception.   Newt Gingrich taught politicians how to attach negative associations to people, groups, or ideas, rather than debate the issues in the nineties.  Gingrich did not invent this method of politics, but he was essential in uniting a party (in his case the Republicans) to create the same negative associations.  Today we see the effects of this when President Obama is associated with socialism.  (A politician does not have to call Mr. Obama a socialist directly, s/he may say "Obama's socialist medicine plan," enough that Obama becomes linked to socialism.  Conversely, "Romney's corporate agenda," repeated enough, and Romney himself becomes corporate.  Not great examples, but the point remains.)  This seems like a simple degradation of the American statesman.  Unfortunately, it implies to the American conscience that it is not the issues that need to be debated, but the person, i.e. it is the scientist, not the science that matters.

Given a debate between Jenny McCarthy-sex icon turned mom- and some stuffy medical doctor or PhD from the CDC, the science becomes unimportant.  What is actually being decided is a popularity contest between our "first crush," and the person who jabs needles into crying children.  Young parents rush to abandon public health.  Obviously, philanthropic, cancer-crusading David Koch would not support this.  Yet, his libertarian views always place profits over public health.  If the public will choose to not vaccinate their children, they may also accept the argument that pollution prevents skin cancer.

Koch began his unraveling of a thinking America more than a decade before Gingrich.  Koch ran (as the vice-presidential candidate) in a campaign against Reagan.  Contrary to popularly held sentiments, Reagan was not an ultra-conservative.  One reason he did so well in the polls was that he appealed to the middle of the political spectrum.  The Libertarian ticket was rejected without memory, persuading the Kochs that with enough money, the thinking ability of Americans could be purchased.  Thirty years later, the oil embargo long forgotten, cars are less fuel efficient, and the Kochs are vastly more wealthy.

Up against the millions of dollars that the Kochs pump into American politics and the Smithsonian Institute (and other purveyors of science), are celebrity scientists.  "Real" scientists are often members of the lower (middle) classes.  Yes, they have led lives of privilege or luck that allowed them to pursue advanced degrees, but like most of us, they are not fit to be thrust into the public eye.  A volcanologist may be interviewed during an eruption, but they will report the science of the situation, which fails to grab the attention of a Michael Bay-inspired idea of natural disasters (full of excitement, where the beautiful survive).  The next day, the scientist will be forgotten, but Glenn Beck (who may never have said this) will be shouting through his microphone that volcanic eruptions are caused by socialists; leaving the celebrity scientists to fight these battles.

Name a celebrity scientist who is alive (this means Carl Sagan is out).  The Wikipedia page about scientific celebrities has a useful list (of living and dead scientists) if you can't think of any.  The two that come to my mind are Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye.  The Harvard and Columbia educated Dr. Tyson is a scientist, and makes appearances on talk shows.  Through this, he may reach people.  Nye, a Cornell educated mechanical engineer is more a personality than a scientist.  All the same, he is doing what he can to educate adults who have chosen to be ignorant, a valiant effort for the advancement of science.  Mr. Nye mostly reaches out to children through a 15 year old television show.  This, sadly, is the American media attention given to science.

I respect, and maybe even envy, both Nye and Tyson.  I appreciate the hard work they are doing.  But when they are up against the forces of ignorance that are fronted by Jenny McCarthy and Janine Turner (Maggie O'Connel in Northern Exposure), and backed by two of the richest men in the world, how will a couple of bow-tied nerds convince people that science matters?  That inoculations save lives?  That fuel economy matters in the economy, the environment, and foreign policy?  That thinking scientifically is American and Patriotic?

I am not sure they can.  Not until people choose to remember that climate is changing anthropogenically.  That in 2005 there were three big hurricanes, not just one.  That the future is when dreams happen, not when the wealthy prosper at the expense of the rest of us.  In short, not until people decide that their thoughts are not for sale, and their children should dream of tax-payer created national heroes flying through space, just like the Tea Party did when they were kids. 

American Monarchy from a Skeptical Perspective

I have "lived" in three monarchies.  Life, for most people, most of the time, seems unchanged by what title the head of state has, or how they are selected.  As an American, to merely ask a citizen of a monarchy about monarchs gives you have an American perspective.  It seems assumed on both sides that without being born in a monarchy, one cannot understand it.

I am unwilling to accept that by birthright, certain individuals are inherently better than myself.  This seems like an American idea, that we are all created equal.  In reality, Americans are not born equal.  Disregarding the near caste system Americans have based on race, the rich and powerful have rich and powerful children.  Money is the American caste system, and those born into abject, generational poverty are no more likely to be elected to positions of power, or make millions of dollars, than are the Untouchables of India.

Yet, the American Dream requires us to hope that anyone can be elected president.  Barack Obama gives some credibility to this dream, but at the end of the day, the children of the Bush family will always be more influential than the children on the streets of American cities.

A monarchy, like the Indian caste system, is more honest.  Only one child in a generation will be the head of the United Kingdom, and that child is the first-born of the king and queen.  Despite the exclusivity of this honest system, the British, along with their colonists, will love their Queen, and I will be left with questions.

Beyond my questions of birthrights, I cannot understand it from a perspective of fiscal policy.  I am not an economist specializing in monarchies, but without a doubt, in every monarchy there is a starving child, or an underfunded social program.  In New Zealand, it seemed that the socialized medicine was going bankrupt, yet the Queen was maintained as head of state, despite having a head of state in the Prime Minister.  In Spain, the king made headlines, apparently, when he broke his hip on a hunting safari.  The Spainish people are tightening their belts with cruel unemployment rates, but the King takes a publicly funded holiday.  Fiscally, this is ludicrous.

What makes the people in these countries believe in their monarchs?  In all of my time conversing with subjects of one crown or another, I have heard only one person question the fiscal responsibility of the institution.  The rest seem to believe so strongly in the power of the crown, that even discussions of fiscal policy are out of the question.  This is not government, but dogma.

Of course, the megalomaniacal early kings did fancy themselves chosen by a deity.  How could they not?  When one wins the throne through battle, and the church teaches that god chooses our fate, that would indicate divine preference.  If, however far removed from the original battle, the national mythology holds the monarchy as chosen by god, then most subjects would continue to believe in the power of the monarchy.  I can no more understand the British love of their queen, than I can understand a Christian's or Muslim's love of Jesus or Mohammed, respectively.

Americans are more religious than Iranians, and much more so than European monarchies.  While royal subjects have lost the faith, Americans are still wont to believe in the benevolent power of invisible, flying hominids.  Americans, even many staunchly anti-tax Americans, are willing to pay extra, optional "taxes" (through tithes or donations) to support an elite, privileged class.  About one quarter of Americans identify as Catholics, a religion that, arguably, has its own royalty (though not by birth).  Almost four out of five Americans report themselves as Christian, and nearly nine out of ten Americans report being religious in some way.  Is religion substituted for monarchy in America?

The curious thing about the belief in religion versus monarchy is that, to my knowledge, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye do not challenge the belief in monarchs.  This is not to argue that Bill Nye's Disney shows were secretly supporting a royalist agenda.  It is simply curious that tens of millions of people carry out their daily lives believing that Queen Elizabeth II is a better, more entitled human than they are, and their does not seem to be a skeptics society questioning that.  The situation is vastly more complex, as Queen Elizabeth does not make a habit of lambasting Nye for arguing positions that the Earth is four billion years old, that evolution is observable, or that the moon does not glow.  The fervency of these beliefs is fascinating!

America seems to have a Monarch.  It exists in the minds of 90% of us.  It endows favors upon some, and hardship on others.  It guides political will, acceptance (or not) of scientific thought, education, and social interaction.  It has all the hallmarks of other monarchs, including its questionable fiscal policy.  When you ask an American about the role of religion, most of us discuss benevolence, the need for social order, political guidance, community service, and pride in something greater than oneself.  Americans, like their royal subject peers, never seem to talk about the fiscal nonsense of sending donations to palatial opulence, rather than space programs, education, science, and medicine.

What is Wrong with Girls?

When people discuss gender gaps in society, it always becomes a difficult issue to address in a politically correct manner.  Are there differences between men and women?  Are men genetically better at math?  Are women genetically predisposed to grammar?  The answer to these questions are all, in my opinion, a moot point.

It seems clear that people will succeed where their talents lie, and where they have been encouraged to succeed.  Others will fail to capitalize on their talents, or fail to enjoy the full benefits bestowed upon them.  But, according to a study reported on by a recent NPR piece women are more likely to be swayed by their perception of how people in a field are perceived.  To determine this, the study assessed the interest of women in a career in computer science while they were in a room decorated with either a nature-themed poster, or a Star Trek poster.  In other words, women's interest in the career was strongly influenced by insignificant cues in their surroundings that affected their perception of those associated with that field.  I think that requires a bit of reflection.

Everyone, or near enough to everyone who takes part in society, is concerned with how others perceive them.  It is, I assume, part of what allows us to take part in society.  Without concern of the opinion of others, it would be difficult to agree upon social constructs like law and manners, let alone enforce these ethics.  Yet, when people are overly concerned of the superficial, say, the display of a Star Trek poster, society judges them harshly as well.  One who would lie about their interests in "nerdy" subjects based their judgmental view of nerds, is either consciously or unconsciously shallow.

When NPR asks if STEM fields should be made "more cool" to encourage the shallow to enter the fields, I reject even consideration of the proposition!  Should STEM fields be accessible through outreach of interesting and intelligent people?  Yes, I have long argued that universities should recruit by partnering with school districts to have guest lectures from interesting, young, energetic people.  Should those people deny their affinity to Dr. Who to entice a "cooler vibe"?  Preposterous!

As a scientist and engineer, I fancy myself a nerd, or a geek - I am nonplussed which label is applied.  I am fascinated by the natural world, and by how civilization uses that knowledge to improve our collective experience.  I also enjoy riding and working on bicycles.  I enjoy running, yoga, and cooking.  I enjoy reading, and debating the proper use of grammar.  Most of this is insufferably nerdy, and like many celebrities, apparently, I am not afraid of the nerd moniker.  The most striking thing about my nerdy ambitions, and the nerdy and geeky passions of the CNN-interviewed celebrities, is the variety of nerdy subjects!  Christian Louboutin is certainly a nerd, regardless of his opinion of sci-fi, though I have no idea how cool he is.

Once again, back to the NPR piece that suggests women are more likely to be swayed by their perception of how people in a field are perceived.  Cosmopolitan Australia recently had a piece that had an almost surprised tone about the feminism of nerdom.  With no intent to suggest that Cosmo is a leading light in women's rights, it does suggest that women are perhaps more surprised than men at the existence of enviable women nerds.

If interest in a subject fails to excite enough passion in a person for that person to pursue that field (and, thereby be a nerd), is it a crisis?  I am not talking about the difference between the sexes, nor whether society has given any group a particular disadvantage.  What I am asking is that if a person thinks that being a nerd would be too horrific to follow their dream of programming computers, was it really a dream?

I have pondered whether compulsory military service would not benefit this country.  First, I think most 18 year olds do not have the experience to make a career choice.  For example, in the geosciences, to attain any sort of career stability, the average geologist will need an advanced degree in a niche area.  Every autumn, Americans who have never taken an earth sciences course are asked if they want to spend the next 10 years preparing for a career they have never really been exposed to.  Obviously, they cannot truly make an informed decision.  Second, it seems that many young people are unable to afford life on their own.  They continue into adulthood without having realized that they need to make the bed, buy the groceries, and sort out difficulties on their own.  Some time away from their parents would do wonders to expose young people to new ideas.

A friend, after a long discussion of the benefits of compulsory service to the individual and society (which are also numerous), asked an ex-Marine what he thought of compulsory service.  His response to the notion that the military would be a good venue to groom these grown children for the world was along the lines of, "I don't want the worthless people in the military, just as much as you don't want them in the sciences"!  While I disagree with the ex-Marine on the value of compulsory military service, his perspective is striking.  I want people in any career to be passionate about that field, at least to the point that they do not base their opinion of it on what television show their colleagues watch.  To put it more bluntly, to any person who washes out of a field of study owing to a Star Trek poster, good riddance.

Yet, being rid of the problem does not necessarily solve it, and as a nerd, I cannot help but ponder the questions I see in the world.  Why are women more likely than men to be swayed out of STEM by the possible presence of nerds?  Nerds are sexy to me, but obviously this does not hold true for the studied group of college women.  On the other hand, to me, jocks are awful.  If I perceived that a certain field was full of sports-crazed, good-ol'-boy rednecks, would it keep me out of that field?  It seems not, as I have made a living in exploration geology and hazardous waste management, and was educated in mining engineering.  These fields abound with said types, but the study suggests that men are less swayed by these perceptions.  Thus, it seems, I am not qualified to sympathize with the concerns of these young women.

Instead, what I am left with is a question: why would young women not want to be interesting, educated, intellectual, motivated, passionate, and sexy?  More simply put, why would they not want to be nerdy?  What is wrong with these girls?

It seems like there is a quick conclusion that the girls who shy away from STEM because it may induce them to watch too much Office Space, BBC, or Star Wars is a cultural problem.  It may be quickly offered that science needs to be rebranded as "cool," but from my experience, cool is just shorthand for popular jerk.  Some might say that these women have been influenced by public education, media, or stereotypes to choose image over interest.  Yet, women nerds abound, and are successful in every field; clearly, most women are happy to be nerdy in one way or another.

Public figures have been made or celebrated in their advancement of women nerdom.  In Sense and Sensibility, the protagonists are criticized for their reading, making Austen a potential force in convincing women to be nerdy from the 19th Century.  Has 200 years of encouragement fallen upon deaf ears?  Again, from the wealth of nerdy women today, it seems that the problem with girls is a problem with only some girls.

Here then, is the heart of the matter.  It is no great tragedy if, for some unknowable reason, women are genetically less adept at computer science, or genetically less interested in the field, though current research suggests otherwise.  Furthermore, it is no great tragedy if women continue to be underrepresented in computer science, though I doubt this will persist into future generations.  However, it is a great tragedy if society identifies that some women choosing to value being "cool" over being passionate, as a women's issue.

Society must encourage individuals to meet their full potential in fields that interest them, and should combat hurtful stereotypes - including gender stereotypes, in and out of science.  However, society should not confuse the personal responsibility of people to follow their passions with a social contract to make them cool enough for the shallow.

Gender Notwithstanding

Discussing the difference between any two groups of people presents endless possibilities to offend.  It is nearly always an emotional issue.  Yet, the Supreme Court has decided that minorities are no longer disadvantaged at the polls, a New York Times columnist decided women can't do pull-ups, and a recent article in the New York Times Magazine has acknowledged that women are still under-represented in the sciences.

Owing to the high risk of offense on these subjects I want to state a few things at the very beginning.  I think that minorities should be empowered and encouraged to vote, as should everyone else.  I think that women should be encouraged to be physically fit and healthy, as should men.  I think that everyone should be encouraged to have a more developed understanding of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), gender notwithstanding.  I think that historically (to include all time that occurred before the present, even yesterday) people have not been given entirely fair opportunities based on stereotypes, and that is wrong.

To begin, I think a few personal examples from my childhood are relevant.  As a child, I was told that being a boy who was good at math precluded me from being good at grammar.  The mostly female teachers that ruled out my grammar probably had less of a handle on the field than I do now.  I was told that as a boy who was good at math, I am not creative, nor good at the arts.  I have acted in plays, been an avid photographer, written speeches and performances, created award-winning scientific posters (a visual media), and maintain a fairly active blog.  I am not sure what part of the arts my elementary school teachers felt I was not going to be able to participate in, but I think I have done okay.  As a "nerd," I was also told that I was never going to be athletic; as an adult, I have been an enthusiast in rock and ice climbing, mountain biking, and long distance running.  I feel somewhat vindicated against the jocks (mostly men) of my youth who discouraged me from attaining my full potential.  In all of these accomplishments my arrogance, more than anything else, has propelled me to levels I was discouraged from achieving.  If those negative influences on my life had told me that the arrogance that propelled me would make me unlikable, they at least could have been correct, for the most part.

When I read the article claiming a paucity of women in the sciences, a few things were very striking to me.  First, I chose to give up some level of likability to attain what I have.  I had lonely Friday nights, and a lot of romantic interests "turn away" from men like me because I see the world differently than they do.  So, I could relate to being discouraged from achieving one's full potential, and being unpopular for trying anyway.  I can, in more ways than is prudent to discuss now, relate to the women in the story.  While this allowed me to feel empathy for their individual hardships, it was most striking that the author chose to not offer a single path forward.

Women who were "mathematically precocious 12-year-olds," the article points out, are equally likely as their male peers to enter "law, medicine, and the social sciences."  Why medicine does not count as a STEM field is beyond me, but the advances of women in medicine is apparently not an accomplishment equal to a woman succeeding in math or physics.  Regardless of the STEM hierarchy that physicists see in the sciences, a glaring omission in the article is an explanation why women are succeeding in medicine, but not other branches of the sciences.

Next, a major concern of the author was that she was never encouraged to attend graduate school.  I mean no disrespect to Ms. Pollack, but if she behaved like a meek and ill-prepared student, then she should not have expected to be treated differently.  A student attending lab in stockings (presumably with a skirt), should not be admitted to the lab for safety reasons.  This is not to place those who wear skirts at a disadvantage, but to keep lab workers safe.  During my time in academia, I do not recall witnessing a single student being encouraged to attend graduate school based on academic merit.  In the geosciences, an advanced degree is requisite for a successful career, so students who are employable are often encouraged to continue.  A student who fits a project and is liked by a supervisor may be encouraged to apply, but that is simply an employer recruiting a valuable employee.  The general rule is that students are not encouraged to continue in academia.  Many academics, in fact, view attrition as key to eliminating weaker students.  Ms. Pollack probably received a 32 on her exam to convince her to leave the program; her professor telling her to stay in the course was encouragement.

I have encountered numerous professors who were the "first women."  Many of them want to prevent their current (female) students from enduring the same loneliness that they did.  I know some women in industry who still are the "first women," and I respect and appreciate their contribution and hard work for the improvement of themselves and society.  Yet, because once the second woman achieves her post, the struggles have been changed so deeply that the previous solution can no longer be applied.

The faculty in the UNLV Geoscience department is 32% women.  Obviously, women, among the faculty, are underrepresented.  While I was a student there, a proposal was being considered to pay a considerable sum of money to enroll the university in a social networking site that would connect female students to female faculty, so women could have women role models.  This network would not connect male students to potential role models, nor would it connect minority students to minority role models, and it would not connect LGBT students to LGBT role models.

Faculty and students listened to the proposal in the department's lecture hall.  After the presentation concluded, the only black student excused himself, a black role model conspicuously absent.  The two Asian faculty left to go back to work shortly thereafter, then the only openly gay faculty member also excused himself.  The straight, white, female professors continued to argue for a program that would, according to them, "increase diversity" in the department, and while I am sure that some of the 58%-female student body would have positive experiences with such a program, it seems like it was addressing a problem that did not exist.

This, I think, is at the core of the problem with the issue of women in STEM.  Society is changing too slowly, so programs do need to help it along.  However, many of the issues are not "women's" issues.  A university that does not offer childcare is not a very good workplace, but to address this issue do we need to be so sexist as to say that women deserve childcare, rather than parents?  If one's potential spouse has an unfair view of domestic affairs, it seems reasonable to find a person who thinks childcare is a family issue.

In the case of John and Jennifer, the imaginary students that illustrate gender bias in the sciences.  If, as the article seems to suggest, Jennifer is less likely to get grant funding, is more likely to request child care, is more likely to leave the sciences, and is less likely to "give everything up" for her career, is she not a less valuable employee?  In my experience, men are much less enjoyable to work with, so I can associate with giving Jennifer some points for likability.  That said, I find both sexes are equally likely to have a change of heart, and I have no knowledge of grant funding disparities between the sexes.  Thus, from my experience, I am more inclined to work with women.  That all said, I would appreciate if the article contained some solutions to the broad problem, not just merely restating the issue, again.

In thinking about the lack of a level field between men and women when it comes to work, I have some solutions.  First, childcare, like parking, costs an employer money.  Every employee should get an allowance for parking and childcare, valued at exactly (or slightly less than) the cost of the service.  Those who choose to live a more environmentally responsible (and cheaper for the employer) lifestyle who live within walking distance of their workplace get "paid" slightly more in exchange for not using a service.  Those who choose to have less home commitments, i.e. no children, get "paid" slightly more in exchange for not using the childcare service (not to mention the potential of a higher attendance rate).  The employer, considering a new employee knows that each employee costs their salary, plus childcare and parking.

It seems that mothers are more likely to take time off than fathers after a child is born.  Parents are more likely to take time off for the birth of a child than non-parents.  This puts future mothers below future fathers, who are both below eunuchs, in the predicted longevity and reliability of the employee.  If, however, every employee was given 1 year of "life-experience leave," an employer would know, regardless if used for one child, ten children, or to travel Africa by bicycle, that each employee would take a year off.  Mothers, parents, and the childless become equal employees.

These types of solutions fix the issues that we are currently struggling through.  Yet, they do not address the root cause of these issues.  Society, it seems, wants male engineers and female elementary school teachers.  Accordingly, boys are pushed to be engineers who watch sports, and girls are told to be the second income and primary parent.  I think teachers could improve this by having more rigorous training, but more importantly, if education was open to men in the primary grades.  I think parents could encourage this by accepting their children as individuals, rather than stereotypes and vessels of vicarious living.  I think communities could support this by letting the football fields fall into disuse while attending the Academic Decathlon.  In reality though, I think none of this will happen because our society does not like STEM subjects as they are perceived as "hard."

Once we accept that, as a society, we cannot do things that are hard, women can't do pull-ups, nerds can't be athletes, and we can't think through solutions to encourage everyone to meet their full potential.