In reading this thread, I had to wonder if maybe this sense of disconnect between the theoretical / experimental and the applicable / practical - in emergence, mathematics, physics, or other sciences - is part of the reason that there are less women in those fields. It seems that there may be something about seeing the direct connection, the immediate results, that makes other fields more "justifiable" for certain people. So, why is it that some people feel the need for their work to be justifiable in this sense? Could this explain why there are less women in the science and math fields? I'm going to take an uneducated stab at a partial explanation, but I want to be clear that I'm in no way trying to psychoanalyze other posters here - there are many possible reasons for a person's opinion on something. It's said that women tend not to self-promote as much as men do. At the same time, women still lag behind in wages and in accreditation. I admit to having felt, at times in my life, that as a woman I needed to accomplish a bit extra to prove myself (not at BMC). When accomplishments are not clear-cut and are dependent on peer review, I can imagine women could feel (or actually be) disadvantaged. Maybe Doug or Paul could offer some insight on this.