AllieKat

I agree with you. Upward trajectory is good, but I don't think that means we should be content / think that our work is done.
I see a huge juxtaposition of ideas here. You say that the system isn't perfect and has traditionally favoured men. This is discrimination against women. (The system doesn't only favour men, as you point out). Telling people to adapt to the system nicely glosses over the real issue (in my opinion), which is why is it that men like me get to benefit from a system that favours me? I don't want to be part of a system where I automatically get more respect and recognition because I present as male and have a male name. So I think I should work to change it, not demand that everyone change to the system that conveniently already favours me. In addition, how do we even know that the current system is actually the best one? If we were truly scholars/innovators and we desire to see a better world, we would not be afraid to lose our male privilege in order to create a better system.
Discrimination is not just overt actions like you have said here. And by the way, I have seen men in their 20s and 30s have the same attitudes and mentalities that you ascribe to these old guys. I agree that I notice it much more in the older generation of scholars but I don't think it's safe to say that all (or even a majority) of these people will disappear in the coming decades. For example, one case of overt sexism I know about from my school was spoken by a young assistant professor.
Perhaps you have heard of micro-aggressions? I only started to notice them more and more in recent years when I started to be more involved in addressing these issues and listened/read to more women about their experiences. They are little actions that generally create an impression on a woman (or minority group) scientist that suggests they don't belong in science. They are often unintentional in the sense that the person doing it does not intend to cause harm and often come from a system where there is already an imbalance in demographics.
Each micro-aggression on their own is usually pretty innocuous. You can often chalk it up to some other reason that isn't sexism. But the problem is that women and other minority groups face many of these throughout their career, much more than men, and it could lead to pushing these thinkers out of the field for no reason other than their gender. Here's one example article (although the article seems to focus on some of the more direct micro-aggressions): https://www.nature.com/news/speak-up-about-subtle-sexism-in-science-1.19829 and some stories shared because of the article: http://www.speakyourstory.net/stories
The article also makes an interesting point. The author tells a story from when her colleagues question her math background. She isn't sure if it was because of her biology background or because of her gender. If a man was questioned by his colleagues in the same way, he likely would have not wondered if it was because of his gender, only because of his training. The article mentions this as an example of not a microaggression, but it is an example of the not-overt discrimination I mentioned above. We are not operating in an level playing field because women (in this example, but is true for other minority groups too) due to this. (e.g. see also: http://mahalonottrash.blogspot.ca/2014/10/race-and-racism-why-wont-you-believe-me.html for a similar discussion).

I don't disagree with you at all that this is how things are, more so in some fields than others. 
But whereas you are saying this is the way it has to be, everyone needs to adopt this style, I'm saying that we should reconsider whether this way actually works or if the fields just got to be this way because these fields are/were dominated by men. 
Instead of seeking women who "have masculine qualities", why don't we actually we take a step back and decide what qualities are actually desirable. In the setting you describe here, the loudest opinion and/or the quickest opinion will win. Or whoever says it the most confidently will win. But that actually doesn't jive with what most people say they want when they talk about the goals of an academic discussion. Do we want to be publishing papers, awarding grants, and spending time/effort on science presented by the loudest, quickest, most confident people? Or do we want to publish, award and spend time on the best/correct/meritorious science cases?
In addition, if we do accept your statement that in some cases, we must take the first opinion and not wait for the best ones, I would hope that whatever field you work in is not one where shit hits the fan every day. Not every decision needs to be made this way and if we only hire/promote/train people who can think the way you describe, then we are missing other critical points of view, especially when we are in cases without this urgency. We are denying the opportunity to work in our field. And we are creating areas of weaknesses for our field because we are choosing to ignore important contributions.
But I actually think that even in most shit-hits-the-fan cases, there are ways to get to the best/right decision quickly without resorting to just listening to the loudest/fastest/most confident. Proper mitigation of risk may have some protocols in place such as a chain of command or key persons authorized to make important decisions and act on them. You can decide these key positions ahead of time through a careful selection process. You can also plan for several contingencies when it's not an emergency so that you can have the whole "circle discussion" thing in order to ensure you didn't miss out on the best solution because the source of that solution doesn't have these "alpha male" traits. 
In my opinion, the situations that you describe should be the exception, not the norm. And maybe when your team is new and inexperienced, they come up a lot. But the difference between a good team and a great team is that the great team should be going back and involving everyone in their debrief. Come up with new solutions so that these cases are avoided in the future. Handling situations with the loudest/quickest suggestion is an act of desperation, where you've already screwed up so badly that you can't even afford time to think of the best solution because every second of inaction is hurting you more. This is hardly an ideal model and I don't know why we would want to hire/promote people who can work in this way, instead of hiring for diversity of perspectives.

I think calling those things "masculine qualities" is right at the root of the issues. 

(emphasis added)
To me, this is a description of one of the ways gender discrimination is indeed happening in STEM settings. We (well, the people in power) get to decide how STEM settings work and the choice to organize them in ways that favour traditionally masculine qualities is one of the ways discrimination manifests itself. And when the field (especially the group of people in power, which are often more senior) is over-represented in one gender, it creates possibilites for that gender to choose to favour traits that they have themselves instead of valuing diversity/differences.

YOU GUYS. I GOT IN!!! 
I was sitting on 5 rejections and 1 waitlist (for my top choice school) with very little communication about what was happening with the adcomm. I got a phone call from my POI today and they said I was their first choice (they did not extend an offer to anyone else) and that the reason for the delay/waitlist was that they had a lot to figure out internally. I'm still waiting on the official letter with the funding offer, but I'm so excited, and relieved, and a little bit in shock. This late in the game, I had more than prepared myself for applying again next year. Holy wow.
This thread was a life-saver for me throughout the wait process; I appreciate it so much.

OMG ALSO MADE IT OFF THE WAITLIST WTF IS HAPPENING

Haha wow the video wasn't too far off, especially for the bars and touristy areas.
So for the low down...I live walking distance to Vandy's med center (not sure where your English classes would be, but also walking distance from my apartment, I'm willing to bet), and I pay $1000/mo for my 1BR apartment (no pets allowed and no space for the doggos anyway, sorry). If you're looking for a house for $1400/mo, you might be able to find a 2BR/1Ba in Sylvan Park, East Nashville , possibly even Germantown for that price. If you're willing to get a roommate or two, you could easily find a 3BR house in any of those areas or closer to campus and pay more like $1000 apiece, perhaps less.
You're right, the argument over East Nashville is settled, and it can be summed up by one interaction I've had: some guys came up to me one night to ask, "what's the seediest part of Nashville?" I said, "you're pretty much in it, sorry," and their reply was "Seriously? This is the whitest, most gentified piece of shit." (if anyone's wondering, they were looking for cocaine). It's gentrifying (FAST) for better or for worse. Still not nearly as kitschy as Broadway, the Gulch, etc; it's more akin to 12th Ave with the hipster restaurants, speakeasies, tourists seeking out hot chicken. There are a few sketchy areas, but if you walk around your neighborhood beforehand, you'll know pretty immediately whether you'll feel safe there or not. Or you could probably do a google maps search and base it on how many coffee shops are within a 1 mile radius.
From what I can tell, there are definitely still places you'll only find if you drive around and look for signs out front. They don't have to advertise all that much in Nashville with tons of people moving here and renting temporary apartments til they find homes. I did find my (individually owned) apartment via internet, though, for what that's worth.
Hope that was helpful! Also, if anyone without pets wants my apartment, PM me (my lease is up the end of June).

Maybe she wrote her SOP about gender discrimination she's experienced or how she was discouraged from pursuing the field from a young age. That would've made her essay stand out for sure. With that said, graduate admissions is a bit of a crapshoot to begin with--with many outstanding candidates having applications of equal quality, but a program having only a few spots to fill.
As far as positively selecting for diversity in gender (and other factors), why is that surprising or egregious...? If dozens of qualified applicants are up for a limited number of spots and a school's first choice stand-outs (who likely have had the most opportunities/best education/most help with applications) are almost entirely men, why not give the last spot to a woman (and/or an ethnic/racial minority, a first gen college student, an LGBTQ+ person) who is equally qualified as other applicants from traditionally advantaged socioeconomic groups, but who will add to the diversity and the breadth of life experience in a cohort?
I'm not trying to comment on your individual privilege, because I know absolutely nothing about you except that you seem to be a male applying to math programs. I'm just trying to bring up points as to why underrepresented points of view (which you may also have in your own way) are valuable to a university. Given how few women pursue advanced math degrees, however, it makes sense as to why their perspective is easier to sell to admissions committees.

Just sent in my letter for Baylor's biochem and molecular biology program!! What a RELIEF that this is over.

Maybe she wrote her SOP about gender discrimination she's experienced or how she was discouraged from pursuing the field from a young age. That would've made her essay stand out for sure. With that said, graduate admissions is a bit of a crapshoot to begin with--with many outstanding candidates having applications of equal quality, but a program having only a few spots to fill.
As far as positively selecting for diversity in gender (and other factors), why is that surprising or egregious...? If dozens of qualified applicants are up for a limited number of spots and a school's first choice stand-outs (who likely have had the most opportunities/best education/most help with applications) are almost entirely men, why not give the last spot to a woman (and/or an ethnic/racial minority, a first gen college student, an LGBTQ+ person) who is equally qualified as other applicants from traditionally advantaged socioeconomic groups, but who will add to the diversity and the breadth of life experience in a cohort?
I'm not trying to comment on your individual privilege, because I know absolutely nothing about you except that you seem to be a male applying to math programs. I'm just trying to bring up points as to why underrepresented points of view (which you may also have in your own way) are valuable to a university. Given how few women pursue advanced math degrees, however, it makes sense as to why their perspective is easier to sell to admissions committees.

Honestly your first statement sounds like a perfect example of confirmation bias. You, and the others who pay attention to it, expect to see women getting into "higher tier programs" since you think they are getting chosen because of their gender, so you do and because you are looking for this "evidence/pattern" you focus on it to strengthen your argument that this trend is occurring even though it might not actually be a real trend. Have you looked for evidence that contradicts your belief that women get an advantage getting into higher tier math programs? Because recognizing contradicting evidence is one of the best ways to thwart confirmation bias tainting your personal view of something.
But since you are so upset about people citing your lack of evidence for this trend, I will also address your question as to whether this trend (if it is occurring) should be happening.  Women are routinely told they shouldn't/can't excel in math and often get harassed in these "boys club" type settings, so maybe it is okay if they are getting chosen because they are women. If women aren't encouraged to be in this setting, maybe having some opportunities that are open to them that are not open to similarly qualified men is not a bad thing since this can lead to changes in the system as these women enter the field which will then hopefully make the field that much more open to women following them.

I got the GRFP! And I contacted the school that had initially not funded me but that felt like a good fit for both of us. They matched my grant with 2 more years guaranteed to round out a PhD and I had a really good honest conversation with the advisor about my concerns. Less students are coming and the initial lack of money wasn't a huge reflection of how he felt about me (committee things) so I'm going to lead on my project of choice with him there. I was really sad to turn down my most favorite advisors (at the school my fiance didn't have a great opportunity at) but I know it will all be good for both of us . I am relieved because I don't know what we would have done. Before this happened we were leaning towards going to the school that I wanted (because it is very well ranked and has lots of resources and would have equipped us for the careers we want even if it wasn't the most perfect match for him....it being so good also would have maybe helped us do well in PhD apps if we had bailed after our MS degrees if he was that unhappy), but it was also a total crap shoot because I was starting to soften towards his school at the same time because of the lifestyle/location and other things that would have been nice about living there. I don't envy you and I'm sorry I'm not more help.  we both lamented the lack of good ways to make this decision. I think if there's a middle ground type option it is best--like if you're both willing to give up your #1 to be happy at your collective #2. I think both people have to be aware of what the other needs in a career, but also willing to concede certain things to make sure you both thrive--I know this will be how our whole careers are if we both stay in academia and I can only predict/hope we'll get better at it. 

.....
Honestly, you don't seem to really want to have a discussion. You either call other people's arguments absurd, narrow the field of your arguments so they can't possibly be as much of an expert as you are.... And at the same time want other people to provide sources and then argue that that's an "absurdly high standard of evidence". 
On an academic forum, for a discussion among academics, proper citations and peer-reviewed research with data is pretty much the expected standard of evidence, not "well I've heard" or "I know people who say..."

I was going to write a thoughtful long response, as someone who is active in advocating against gender discrimination in my field. I have a lot to say, both from personal experience and based on a large dataset I've collected along with a committee I'm active on showing bias in almost all aspects of a woman academic's life once she graduates from college. (Before you ask for the data, it's confidential and we're in the process of writing up a paper, so if you're *actually* curious, ask me about it in a few months.) I'm in a field where there are more women undergraduates and about as many graduate students as male students. But fewer women get onto shortlists for academic positions; in fact, even once on a short list, they are still less likely to get hired than a man on the same list; fewer women currently serve as faculty members; fewer women get chosen to present papers at conferences; fewer women have their papers published in peer-reviewed journals; fewer women get invited to contribute to handbook articles, which feature the top scholars in the field giving an overview of their main research topic(s); fewer women are invited speakers at conferences; fewer women get their work funded by government agencies. I could go on.
But this poster thinks that being a woman magically opens all doors for a candidate, from sample size N=1, and not even having a full picture of that particular one. To which all I can say is, Wow. 

Got an RA position in my absolute dream lab last fall, planned to apply to grad school this year with all the ~new insight and experience~ I'd supposedly have gained by this point... and right now I'm still struggling to get even the most basic introduction to the lab's research methods, like any training whatsoever, much less a project of my own to sink my teeth into. I was warned by multiple people that this lab's environment was crazy, so maybe I don't get to complain, but didn't think it would amount to having to beg and plead to be given the opportunity to do any research. For the first time in my life I'm underworked and somehow it's 100x worse than the alternative. Half-seriously wishing I could drop it all, become a park ranger, and go live in a shack in the woods (at least I'd have a pretty view while I wasted my time).

Just sent in my letter for Baylor's biochem and molecular biology program!! What a RELIEF that this is over.

Just sent in my letter for Baylor's biochem and molecular biology program!! What a RELIEF that this is over.

Just sent in my letter for Baylor's biochem and molecular biology program!! What a RELIEF that this is over.

When NY Cheesecake solves everything. 

I got my official university email address!!! It's getting real!

I've been accepted to one of my programs and they are considering me for funding! Oh, and my cat wants to snuggle. 

Being done with this cycle is so amazing. Deleting all of my application-related emails is honestly the most therapeutic thing I've done all year.

Just sent in my letter for Baylor's biochem and molecular biology program!! What a RELIEF that this is over.

I've officially committed to Cincinnati's MDB program! I feel like a huge burden has been lifted off my chest!
@BiomedicalPHD123 You have a very hard decision ahead of you! Make sure that you take into account your gut feeling about a place. If you're really interested and committed to cancer cell bio for your graduate training, then I'd go ahead with GSK. If you think that you may want to venture out into other fields, then I'd say go to Harvard because they are pretty good, if not excellent, at many things bio-related. I'm a little bit leery about the rotation/class thing at GSK personally, but if that works for you and seems to be well-liked by the current students, then go ahead and do it!

meet cute