My Zen Arcade

Well, I hate it when I agree with Ms. Malkin, but I ended up at the following link from her site.
While I think it is probably a good idea to shift the narrow focus of how science programs and research are handled, the idea that, because the nature of the beast isn’t pleasant to many women (”where winning is everything, and women find it repulsive”) is, well, just plain old tough titties.  I find the nature of working a job, being rated based on accomplishing tasks and how hard I work, to be VERY unpleasant.  I wanted to go to law school, but memorizing everything was really annoying.
My point is that there probably is a great deal to be gained by shifting how science/research/engineering programs (both academic and professional) are structured, but the fact that many women don’t like how it works now is hardly a justifiable reason.  Title IX should prevent women from being actively discriminated against, should ensure that women have equal access to such positions and programs, should ensure that women are not arbitrarily ignored based on their gender.  But it should not be used to change how research is run just so women are happier with it.
Thats a change that has to come because it HELPS science, not just to make it prettier.

Why Can’t a Woman Be More Like a Man? — The American, A Magazine of Ideas

There is another essential difference between sports and science: in science, men and women play on the same teams. Very few women can compete on equal terms with men in lacrosse, wrestling, or basketball; by contrast, there are many brilliant women in the top ranks of every field of science and technology, and no one doubts their ability to compete on equal terms. Yet a centerpiece of STEM activism is the idea that science, as currently organized and practiced, is intrinsically hostile to women and a barrier to the realization of their unique intellectual potential. MIT biologist Nancy Hopkins, an effective leader of the science equity campaign (and a prominent accuser of Harvard president Lawrence Summers when he committed the solecism of suggesting that men and women might have different propensities and aptitudes), points to the hidden sexism of the obsessive and competitive work ethic of institutions like MIT.“It is a system,” Hopkins says, “where winning is everything, and women find it repulsive.” This viewpoint explains the constant emphasis, by equity activists such as Shalala, Rolison, and Olsen, on the need to transform the “entire culture” of academic science and engineering. Indeed, the charter for the October 17 congressional hearing placed primary emphasis on academic culture: “The list of cultural norms that appear to disadvantage women…includes the favoring of disciplinary over interdisciplinary research and publications, and the only token attention given to teaching and other service during the tenure review process. Thus it seems that it is not necessarily conscious bias against women but an ingrained idea of how the academic enterprise ‘should be’ that presents the greatest challenge to women seeking academic S&E [science and engineering] careers.”