No 2016 Nobel Prizes Went To Women — And That's Total Bullsh*t

[ismnotwasm]

Amid the furor surrounding Thursday's announcement that musician and world-famous mumbler Bob Dylan had won the 2016 Nobel Prize for Literature, the world's foremost literary award, some people noticed a little problem: this was the final Nobel announcement of the year. And not one of the six categories (physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, economics and peace) featured a single female Nobel prize winner. This is a radical step backwards from 2015, where 20 percent of the total winners were female (which, even by itself, is a pretty upsetting statistic). And, unfortunately, it continues a trend throughout the history of the Nobel Prize: over the awards' history, they've only been given to 49 women, versus 825 men. Yes, you read that statistic correctly.


The justifications for this 2016 woman-drought are varied: Perhaps "nobody was good enough" this year. (Considering that the Nobel Prize award work done years before, this isn't exactly a good argument.) Perhaps there will be a corrective influx of female winners next year. Perhaps political considerations shut out various female candidates. (If you don't think a lot of campaigning and outside hand-wringing goes into the nomination of various candidates, you obviously haven't been paying attention. One of the reasons the Syrian poet Adonis, a favorite, likely didn't win this year is the situation in Syria; the Nobel committee, New Republic predicted accurately, "won't touch it with a ten-foot pole.&quot But it should make us consider other options: that perhaps the Nobel Prize is the crowning aspect of a wider global culture that doesn't give sufficient means or attention to female achievement.

The growth of female representation among the Nobel Prize Laureates has been growing, from a total of 23 Laureates between the years of 1901 to 1960 to a total of 19 just in the last 15 years. That may, to be honest, be commensurate with the increasing participation of women in the workforce, particularly in STEM fields. In the past century, women have received far more opportunities to attain excellence in their fields than ever before in history; but the Nobel Prize selection lays out, starkly, that the journey is still far from over. It's not just a matter of finding the "best possible people" every year; getting a Nobel is an intricate accumulation of factors, many of which may still be prejudiced towards men.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/189443-no-2016-nobel-prizes-went-to-women-and-thats-total-bullsht

[LisaM]

1. It's more the overall trend than one particular year

I think you can generally make a case for most winners. The problem is that you can also make a case for plenty of the candidates. But the subjective element trends masculine.

[ismnotwasm]

2. Very true

I saw a post on this that was simply and mostly mocked-like it wasn't a problem or area of concern. So I brought the topic here.

[Stargleamer]

3. If they wanted to honor folksingers/writers. . .

why not Joni Mitchell?? Or at least award the prize to both Joni Mitchell and Bob Dylan?? Also, unlike Bob Dylan, there are no credible plagiarism charges against Joni Mitchell

[ismnotwasm]

4. Exactly

Or Joan Baez?