Ok, the title of this post is probably more provocative than advisable for a man in a post Larry Summers world. Anyway, because my partner is both female and a scientist, this topic comes up regularly and not only at the dinner table. I was reminded of it again by this article in The Scientist. The author writes:
The last part prompted me to write this post. With the average postdoc working 55h per week (and let's be honest: there's no way the 'average' post-doc will get a tenured position at a univerity), clearly, science is not the kind of job you do on the side. Even without considering career prospects, it's obvious that science is more of a passion than a profession. People are driven to do science. Thus, in today's scientific environment, we have the perfect constellation which would prevent anybody who wants to see their children grow up from getting very far: not only does everybody around you work 12h days, 7 days a week, you won't be able to get a job if you don't do that either.
This is where I wonder if childcare and maternity leave is going to cut it. Whatever the reasons, biological or cultural (most likely, as usual, a complex mixture of both), couldn't it be possible that fewer women today are willing to only see their children a few hours each day, then are men? Bascially, if you have a working position in a research intitution, you won't see your kids at all until they're old enough to be awake when you get home at night. Couldn't it be that this is less palatable an outlook for women than for men?

This all of course doesn't mean that we should give up on women in science, this would be ridiculous (and my significant other would rightfully beat me with a frying pan if I said or even implied that )! But it does question if a 50/50 distribution between men and women in science is realistic and if not, how a realistic distribution could be derived.