In response to an article posted here, I made a long-winded comment. I’m
sure it’ll cause some stir, but I think each point needed to be said.
Feel free to read the article here before addressing my comment:

My comment:

Just 15 women in the history of the Nobel prize, and this year adds 3

more? Either this was a very good year for women in science, or the
Nobel committee is making politically correct decisions on top of
awarding good science. I don’t know myself because I don’t pay attention
to these awards ceremonies and the people that were in consideration that lost to these ladies.
I will say giving an award to a President before he’s actually done
anything speaks toward the possibility of a PC direction on the committee’s part.
As for the point of the article, I’m sure the job market could be more
flexible with women who have had kids or are pregnant. But like all
things funded, results are required by deadlines. Having people working
part-time means you would wait up to twice as long for the results,
which might not be what the people paying for the project want to do.
I’m not saying the results wouldn’t be equal or better than someone who
worked on it full-time, just that the results would obviously take longer to reach.
From the last paragraph it sounds like Alfred Nobel hosed the
foundations with the requirement to put all the money is safe
securities. There was nothing safe about any securities in the past
couple years, and they could’ve weathered the storm better if they had
managed their money differently.