Gender Discrimination

[spectastic]

3 hours ago, TakeruK said:

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 agree with you. there's probably a lot of areas that can benefit from creating environments where everyone is comfortable sharing their thoughts. but honestly, that's an argument that extends beyond gender discrimination. we can talk about introverts in an extrovert world, where the people who think deeply in solitude may have valuable information that is often overlooked. there's a lot of overlap there. besides, we're getting there. the percentage of women engineers were in the single digits a few decades ago. it's still around 1/4-1/3 today, but it's on an upward trajectory. the point i was trying to make originally has nothing to do with this. I see no signs of active discrimination against women in STEM fields. the system isn't perfect, and has traditionally favored men. But if you're smart, you'd adapt to the system, and not complain about how it's not adapting to you.

 

correction. I have seen certain older professors make certain comments about how women don't really belong in STEM, or something to that effect. But these are really old guys with mentalities that they've carried over from the 80s (or some long ass time ago), and who are on their way out. we don't really need to worry about them

Edited April 15, 2018 by spectastic

[TakeruK]

6 hours ago, spectastic said:

i agree with you. there's probably a lot of areas that can benefit from creating environments where everyone is comfortable sharing their thoughts. but honestly, that's an argument that extends beyond gender discrimination. we can talk about introverts in an extrovert world, where the people who think deeply in solitude may have valuable information that is often overlooked. there's a lot of overlap there. besides, we're getting there. the percentage of women engineers were in the single digits a few decades ago. it's still around 1/4-1/3 today, but it's on an upward trajectory.

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.

6 hours ago, spectastic said:

I see no signs of active discrimination against women in STEM fields. the system isn't perfect, and has traditionally favored men. But if you're smart, you'd adapt to the system, and not complain about how it's not adapting to you.

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.

6 hours ago, spectastic said:

correction. I have seen certain older professors make certain comments about how women don't really belong in STEM, or something to that effect. But these are really old guys with mentalities that they've carried over from the 80s (or some long ass time ago), and who are on their way out. we don't really need to worry about them

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).

[FishNerd]

7 hours ago, spectastic said:

 ...I see no signs of active discrimination against women in STEM fields...

correction. I have seen certain older professors make certain comments about how women don't really belong in STEM, or something to that effect. But these are really old guys with mentalities that they've carried over from the 80s (or some long ass time ago), and who are on their way out. we don't really need to worry about them

So I think @TakeruK covered a lot of what I was going to contribute (their point about microaggressions really hit home for me as a woman in STEM) but I also wanted to say that these statements above don't really match up with what I and other women in STEM have experienced, especially the latter statement about sexist behavior being constrained to the older generations. I actually experienced behavior by male graduate students that are approximately my age (mid 20s-ish) during one of my prospective school visits that frankly can be considered sexual harassment, and unfortunately this experience made my school choice for me. If I experienced the type of behavior I did during a short visit, that made me highly concerned on the type of environment I would be in for my time as a doctoral student. I was so surprised and disappointed by this because luckily in biology I don't experience a ton of sexism and never before from peers my own age. The experience left me drained and feeling like I was treated as so much less than a colleague. It was unprofessional and extremely insulting to me as a highly qualified prospective student.

Before this experience I was always aware of possible sexism from the older men in my field, but now I realize that it unfortunately is still found in younger men. And I also realize how being treated as less than a colleague can make you feel worthless and can make you feel like the science that you do doesn't matter one bit.

Also I would like to add that even if there isn't "active discrimination" occurring, the passive and unconscious discrimination that women often experience can itself make you question whether or not you belong in the field or make you feel very frustrated that others still see you and your work differently because you are a woman. One example I heard from a colleague was that after her presentation a male professor came up to her and complimented her on the fact that she didn't do several things he was on the lookout for (such as not using the word "like" too much). While she wasn't completely sure that this was said because she was a woman, it did make her feel that the only reason he felt he had a right to say this was because she was a woman and the presentation behaviors he was on the lookout for were generally associated with feminine mannerisms. This, I think, relates back to the statement you previously made that "masculine qualities" are preferred in STEM. So just because a woman presents in a fashion that may have some uniquely feminine mannerisms/speech patterns, that makes her presentation less than (at least in this example)? That is sexist - even if it isn't "active discrimination."

[rising_star]

17 hours ago, spectastic said:

you have a valid point, but I'd like to think that in today's society, that's a pretty outdated perspective. I think it's just the nature of the jobs. leaders and decision makers need masculine qualities to move things forward and see things get done. i've been in the engineering field, and there are important moments when shit hits the fan, and decisions need to be quickly. if you have an opinion, you better get it out, because we're not going to have a circle discussion where everyone gets to share what they're thinking. women are perfectly capable of having masculine qualities in the professional setting. at a risk of sounding a little crude, we're in a competitive world, and if you want to move up, better have some balls.

Are you seriously saying that women are incapable of making decisions quickly? Wow! You must know that such generalized beliefs are a clear example of the biases which you personally possess against women.

P.S. Your crude language? Precisely an example of the biases which keep women out of STEM and other male-dominated fields.

[guest56436]

8 hours ago, TakeruK said:

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.

Well, would you support making the nursing and teaching fields more competitive and less cooperative in order to entice more men to join these professions?

Work environments are not static entities. They adapt through time, largely through innovation. The current system may not be the best but it's certainly changed organically countless times based on what works and what doesn't. 

No one automatically gets more respect and recognition because they present as male or have a male name. That just simply does not, or very very rarely, exists. However, some environments or systems may favor personality traits - such as disagreeableness - that are more predominant in male populations, hence benefit them. However, that doesn't necessarily mean there is discrimination. In fact, it could just be a pareto-optimal situation that favors a certain kind of person which is causing a certain gender imbalance. There's a significant difference. 

Edited April 15, 2018 by Comparativist

[TheWalkingGrad]

1 hour ago, Comparativist said:

Well, would you support making the nursing and teaching fields more competitive and less cooperative in order to entice more men to join these professions?

Work environments are not static entities. They adapt through time, largely through innovation. The current system may not be the best but it's certainly changed organically countless times based on what works and what doesn't. 

No one automatically gets more respect and recognition because they present as male or have a male name. That just simply does not, or very very rarely, exists. However, some environments or systems may favor personality traits - such as disagreeableness - that are more predominant in male populations, hence benefit them. However, that doesn't necessarily mean there is discrimination. In fact, it could just be a pareto-optimal situation that favors a certain kind of person which is causing a certain gender imbalance. There's a significant difference. 

There's no such thing as "male" and "female" professions. Women are pushed to professions such as nursing and teaching because as infants we are conditioned to be "motherly and caring", while men are conditioned to be aggressive and build stuff. Men are not gifted with special math brains, they just grow up being more exposed to logic-based games and such. Also, competition over cooperation in science (and in most places) is bad for everyone.

Work environments are dynamic, but they change according to the views of whomever is in charge. The system has evolved organically to favor men because men have always been in charge of these fields.

Regarding your comment about men not being regarded with more respect, it is not true. Various studies have shown (some were posted here if I'm not mistaken) that men get more credibility than equally qualified women. You may not notice because you are a man and are blind to the microaggressions women in academia suffer in their everyday lives, but please stop denying our experiences, you're part of the problem.

[guest56436]

15 minutes ago, TheWalkingGrad said:

There's no such thing as "male" and "female" professions.

I never said there was such. There are male dominated professions and woman dominated professions however.

16 minutes ago, TheWalkingGrad said:

Women are pushed to professions such as nursing and teaching because as infants we are conditioned to be "motherly and caring", while men are conditioned to be aggressive and build stuff. Men are not gifted with special math brains, they just grow up being more exposed to logic-based games and such. Also, competition over cooperation in science (and in most places) is bad for everyone.

This is simply not true. Please link to the scientific evidence behind this.

Environmental factors may account for a portion of the variance in profession choice, but not even close to all. We know that baby infant males and females have demonstrably different preferences and behavior traits prior to environmental factors, so your theory is false. 

Science also shows us that male and female brains are quite different from each other. Differing levels of testosterone in the womb leads to divergent brain chemistry and development in males and females before birth. 

Lastly, competition and cooperation are not zero-sum. Environments need to have both - and the levels of each is debatable - to achieve optimal outcomes. More cooperation does not necessarily mean more success.

16 minutes ago, TheWalkingGrad said:

Work environments are dynamic, but they change according to the views of whomever is in charge. The system has evolved organically to favor men because men have always been in charge of these fields.

They do not necessarily change to whomever is in charge, where's the evidence for that? Institutional behavior can persist long after the removal or turnover of leaders or members. 

16 minutes ago, TheWalkingGrad said:

Regarding your comment about men not being regarded with more respect, it is not true. Various studies have shown (some were posted here if I'm not mistaken) that men get more credibility than equally qualified women. You may not notice because you are a man and are blind to the microaggressions women in academia suffer in their everyday lives, but please stop denying our experiences, you're part of the problem.

I also linked a study that was done where it showed that woman were given preference in job applications based on their name being on the CV. When names were removed entirely form the CVs, men were favored. I also linked to a comprehensive and methodologically deep study that showed that women were favored in STEM job hiring by approximately 33%. That was completely ignored of course, but whatever.

I am not part of the problem for 'denying your experiences' whatever that means. You are part of the problem for spreading false, and in many cases completely ideological (not factual), information. 

[TheWalkingGrad]

On 05/04/2018 at 4:46 PM, fuzzylogician said:

Two minutes on google, and this is all I'm going to contribute to this debate at this point. I've been active for about four years now in a study that has collected actual measures from my field, and I can talk about actual real trends and numbers. Everyone else here seems to be talking about their own personal experience and little else, and having done this for several years now, I've learned that engaging in that debate is a waste of time. Find a female colleague near you and have a one-on-one conversation -- meaning as her about her experiences and really listen to the answer. You might learn something. 

http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer

https://www.nysscpa.org/news/publications/the-trusted-professional/article/woman-who-switched-to-man's-name-on-resume-goes-from-0-to-70-percent-response-rate-060816

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/

https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/01/25/463846130/why-women-professors-get-lower-ratings

@Comparativist

Start with these.

You're clearly refusing to listen to what most women in academia (your field included) are saying. You are being part of the problem by denying the problem exists. I'm sorry you can't muster enough empathy to put yourself in other people's shoes, but you're just contributing to a hostile environment for your female colleagues.

[spectastic]

5 hours ago, rising_star said:

Are you seriously saying that women are incapable of making decisions quickly? Wow! You must know that such generalized beliefs are a clear example of the biases which you personally possess against women.

P.S. Your crude language? Precisely an example of the biases which keep women out of STEM and other male-dominated fields.

that's not what i said at all.

[guest56436]

48 minutes ago, TheWalkingGrad said:

@Comparativist

Start with these.

You're clearly refusing to listen to what most women in academia (your field included) are saying. You are being part of the problem by denying the problem exists. I'm sorry you can't muster enough empathy to put yourself in other people's shoes, but you're just contributing to a hostile environment for your female colleagues.

I have already read those. If you notice, I replied to that very post in the thread.

I'm so confused, denying what problem exists? What have I denied exactly?

And it's convenient that you have now just ignored everything that I wrote and started with appeals to emotion arguments. 

[TheWalkingGrad]

10 minutes ago, Comparativist said:

I have already read those. If you notice, I replied to that very post in the thread.

I'm so confused, denying what problem exists? What have I denied exactly?

And it's convenient that you have now just ignored everything that I wrote and started with appeals to emotion arguments. 

You're denying that there is gender discrimination that favors men in academia. Aren't you?

I'm not ignoring what you said, but other people have already responded to that when you first raised those arguments, so I figured if you didn't get it the first time, there would be no point in repeating it.

I'm not making an emotional argument, I'm pointing out that you don't have emotional intelligence to understand an issue that does not affect you.

[guest56436]

54 minutes ago, TheWalkingGrad said:

You're denying that there is gender discrimination that favors men in academia. Aren't you?

Please point to where I said anything of the sort?

I mean, for christ sakes, I even said this on the first page of the thread:

On 4/5/2018 at 5:38 PM, Comparativist said:

I'm not interested in denying the presence of discrimination --- and by the way, discrimination cuts both ways.

 

 

57 minutes ago, TheWalkingGrad said:

I'm not ignoring what you said, but other people have already responded to that when you first raised those arguments, so I figured if you didn't get it the first time, there would be no point in repeating it.

No one has responded to any of my arguments in a substantive way in this entire thread. 

58 minutes ago, TheWalkingGrad said:

I'm not making an emotional argument, I'm pointing out that you don't have emotional intelligence to understand an issue that does not affect you.

You are appealing to emotion. It's a fallacious argument that people resort to when they don't have any factual arguments to bring to the table. 

[rheya19]

11 minutes ago, Comparativist said:

 

You are appealing to emotion. It's a fallacious argument that people resort to when they don't have any factual arguments to bring to the table. 

Emotional appeal is not fallacious. It's human. I could appeal to someone to not yell at someone else because they're hurting that person's feelings, or to support war refugees on the basis of empathy for the refugees' emotional trauma, and those would not be fallacious arguments. Emotion is not necessarily false. It is simply another way of interpreting the world and other people. And the inability to accept others' emotions as reason to treat them with dignity (ie believing they are being discriminated against and are unhappy about it despite not providing you a data set and chart) is neither mature nor healthy.

[spectastic]

i sense the feminists have been triggered! RUN

[TheWalkingGrad]

7 minutes ago, Comparativist said:

Please point to where I said anything of the sort?

I mean, for christ sakes, I even said this on the first page of the thread:

 

 

No one has responded to any of my arguments in a substantive way in this entire thread. 

You are appealing to emotion. It's a fallacious argument that people resort to when they don't have any factual arguments to bring to the table. 

 

3 hours ago, Comparativist said:

However, that doesn't necessarily mean there is discrimination.

Didn't you just say this a couple of hours ago?

You chose to ignore the arguments people used to rebut your claims, as you're choosing to ignore my point, which I made very clear. If you need further proof that there is a gender bias agains women in academia, you can just google "gender bias in academia". One of the first results is this article that lists a bunch of academic papers throughout. The information is there, just as listed here.

And the way you keep saying I'm making an emotional claim just furthers my point that you can't comprehend a plight that goes beyond your direct line of view. I'm making a inference from the comments you made that I've read on this thread and elsewhere that you're not emotionally intelligent. 

[rheya19]

6 minutes ago, spectastic said:

i sense the feminists have been triggered! RUN

Fear us. 

[guest56436]

45 minutes ago, TheWalkingGrad said:

Didn't you just say this a couple of hours ago?

This is exactly what I said:

4 hours ago, Comparativist said:

However, some environments or systems may favor personality traits - such as disagreeableness - that are more predominant in male populations, hence benefit them. However, that doesn't necessarily mean there is discrimination. In fact, it could just be a pareto-optimal situation that favors a certain kind of person which is causing a certain gender imbalance. There's a significant difference. 

Please explain to me how that is, in any way, 'denying that there is gender discrimination' or 'denying our experiences?' At the very least try to be a little intellectually honest here.

48 minutes ago, TheWalkingGrad said:

You chose to ignore the arguments people used to rebut your claims, as you're choosing to ignore my point, which I made very clear.

No one has rebut any of my claims directly. I don't know why you keep saying this. It's pretty clear that you continue to actively skirt around my arguments. 

49 minutes ago, TheWalkingGrad said:

If you need further proof that there is a gender bias agains women in academia, you can just google "gender bias in academia". One of the first results is this article that lists a bunch of academic papers throughout. The information is there, just as listed here.

I've read these already. Yes, there are studies that have findings that suggest there may be discrimination. But there are also studies that show that there isn't (I've provided one such study, in this very thread). Furthermore, we also have no idea why these findings are actually occurring besides very vague claims of 'gender bias.' We also have no idea how prevalent it is. 

Of course there exists discrimination in academia. There is discrimination present in a number of facets of society, both for and against women/men/race/ect. I never said otherwise, and to claim that I did is at best a strawman, at worst, a complete lie. 

56 minutes ago, rheya19 said:

Emotional appeal is not fallacious. It's human. I could appeal to someone to not yell at someone else because they're hurting that person's feelings, or to support war refugees on the basis of empathy for the refugees' emotional trauma, and those would not be fallacious arguments. Emotion is not necessarily false. It is simply another way of interpreting the world and other people. And the inability to accept others' emotions as reason to treat them with dignity (ie believing they are being discriminated against and are unhappy about it despite not providing you a data set and chart) is neither mature nor healthy.

No, it's a fallacy. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

Of course it's human. Does not mean it is logical and has any merit in an intellectual discussion. 

54 minutes ago, TheWalkingGrad said:

And the way you keep saying I'm making an emotional claim just furthers my point that you can't comprehend a plight that goes beyond your direct line of view. I'm making a inference from the comments you made that I've read on this thread and elsewhere that you're not emotionally intelligent. 

Great. I don't care. 

[TheWalkingGrad]

18 minutes ago, Comparativist said:

Of course there exists discrimination in academia. There is discrimination present in a number of facets of society, both for and against women/men/race/ect. I never said otherwise, and to claim that I did is at best a strawman, at worst, a complete lie. 

Oh sorry, I didn't realize I was talking to a specialist in gender discrimination, which now I'm assuming you are since you've apparently read everything there is to read on the subject.

20 minutes ago, Comparativist said:

Please explain to me how that is, in any way, 'denying that there is gender discrimination' or 'denying our experiences?' At the very least try to be a little intellectually honest here

When you question if this is discrimination or not, you're invalidating the experiences of the majority of women in academia who have in fact suffered some sort of discrimination based on gender. This "pareto-optimal" situation you mention didn't materialize out of thin air, and it is not an accident that it benefits a "certain kind of person" that usually happens to be male.

19 minutes ago, Comparativist said:

Great. I don't care. 

Great, then don't get pissy when people point it out.

Honestly, at this point it looks like you're just arguing to be a troll. If you can't understand a major issue in your very profession it's not some random person on the internet that'll open your eyes. Good luck in life.

 

 

[guest56436]

Feminist logic:

X is claimed to be discrimination. When someone questions whether that may be the case (not matter how logical or fact driven their evidence is), that person is invalidating individuals' experiences and is therefore wrong.

Wow, that's some sound logic you've got there. Seems a little ideological no? I'm done here.

Edited April 16, 2018 by Comparativist

[rheya19]

11 hours ago, TheWalkingGrad said:

Honestly, at this point it looks like you're just arguing to be a troll. If you can't understand a major issue in your very profession it's not some random person on the internet that'll open your eyes. Good luck in life.

 

 

When encountering trolls, I try to remind myself that making up fake online identities in order to derail conversations with strangers is likely their only sense of importance or happiness in their lives, at which point I could be the bigger person and feel bad for them, but instead I take a page out of their red-pill books and just don't care.

[fuzzylogician]

4 hours ago, guest56436 said:

Feminist logic:

X is claimed to be discrimination. When someone questions whether that may be the case (not matter how logical or fact driven their evidence is), that person is invalidating individuals' experiences and is therefore wrong.

Wow, that's some sound logic you've got there. Seems a little ideological no? I'm done here.

The person is not invalidating anyone's experiences by asking more questions, but by not listening to the answers.

I'm glad I stayed out of the debate since it went precisely as I had predicted. But a short version of my reply to some of the more outrageous posts above would be as follows: I don't have a penis, and don't expect to grow one any time soon (nor would I want to). Any system that inherently advantages men simply by virtue of them being men is one that I would fight against, because it inhibits my own growth and development, as well as that of my students and friends. The idea that I should "adjust" to a system that disfavors me by its very nature could only be uttered by someone blinded by their own privilege. The (wrongheaded!) belief that e.g. women aren't good decision makers or whatever other bullshit was written above is a symptom of this ailing system. Recasting the debate in terms of "evidence" (male) vs "emotion" (female) is likewise misguided. But in my experience having this kind of discussion is simply useless: it's too abstract. Young men, find a young female scholar (poc scholar, disabled scholar, etc) near you -- a fellow student, a postdoc in your lab, an assistant professor, etc -- buy her a coffee and *ask her* about her experiences. *Listen* to the experiences of women in your field. Do some reading. Develop an awareness. It's totally fine to be skeptical and ask questions, but you have to be willing to listen to the answers. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening. 

[ExponentialDecay]

On 4/15/2018 at 3:28 AM, spectastic said:

But these are really old guys with mentalities that they've carried over from the 80s (or some long ass time ago), and who are on their way out. we don't really need to worry about them

You mean, like the mentality that there are "male qualities" and "female qualities"? ???????

@telkanuru OP was a troll but he made the real MRAs show up

[Bayesian1701]

I don't normally like to feed trolls, but I felt that this thread needed a woman statistician/mathematician.

I am a little late here but I felt like I needed to say something about my sample size of one.

I am a female math major.  No one has ever told me explicitly that women can't do math.   At my undergraduate institution, our department chair is a woman,  and we have a large percentage (for math anyway) of female faculty.  This does not mean that my experience was easy.  

It started in middle school,  where on more than one occasion I got some weird looks when they announced I won competitions.  The disproportionally small number of smart women in STEM in the media didn't help either.  In college,  when the professor announced what the high score was and it was mine some guys would always ask the other "smart guys" if they got the high score but no one ever thought to ask me.   I have gone to office hours and felt like I wasn't viewed by the professor as smart as the guys who would go in before and after me and that I had to prove myself.   I felt like I was fighting a constant uphill battle.  I didn't consider applying for external PhD programs until I was pushed by some great mentors who saw me not as a woman, but as a great statistician.  And in this December I read reports of sexual assaults among female graduate students and young faculty at conferences for my subfield.   Yes, I did well in my cycle but I doubt it was *just* because I don't have a Y chromosome.   I had to fight to get here,  and I am sure your female undergraduate friend had to as well.  I have had to endure people like you my entire life,  and I probably will for the rest of my life.   I would trade any advantage I got because of my gender (which probably wasn't much) in a heartbeat to not have to deal with the disadvantages.  You are trivializing the success of others because they did better than you.  Like everyone said you don't know that gender was the only reason you didn't do as well as a female applicant.  You didn't see the rec letters for the both of you and you didn't apply to the same schools.  

 

[spectastic]

2 hours ago, ExponentialDecay said:

You mean, like the mentality that there are "male qualities" and "female qualities"? ???????

@telkanuru OP was a troll but he made the real MRAs show up

yea, and some of those female qualities consist of having smaller brains or being less capable of abstract thinking. what you never met a baby boomer before?

[dr. t]

19 hours ago, spectastic said:

i sense the feminists have been triggered! RUN

If this was a joke, it fell very flat. Go sit in the corner and think about what you've done.

 

5 hours ago, ExponentialDecay said:

You mean, like the mentality that there are "male qualities" and "female qualities"? ???????

@telkanuru OP was a troll but he made the real MRAs show up

Like kicking a rotten log.