Slashdot Mirror
Research Reveals Low Exposure of Excellent Work By Female Scientists
An anonymous reader writes "Scientists at the University of Sheffield have found that high quality science by female academics is underrepresented in comparison to that of their male counterparts. The researchers analyzed the genders of invited speakers at the most prestigious gatherings of evolutionary biologists in Europe — six biannual congresses of the European Society for Evolutionary Biology (ESEB) and found that male speakers outnumbered women. Even in comparison to the numbers of women and men among world class scientists – from the world top ranked institutions for life sciences, and authors in the top-tier journals Nature and Science - women were still underrepresented among invited speakers."
The researchers also found that women were underrepresented at the 2011 congress because men accepted invitations more often than women.
So it's not an ingrained sexism on the behalf of the congress, but according to the next quote based on biological differences:
The most demanding phase of a career in Biology, when it is important to communicate one’s findings, and to build networks with other scientists, coincides with the age at which women's fertility starts to decline, meaning it is their last chance to have a family - unlike men.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The title makes it sound like they took excellent papers authored by men, and excellent papers of equivalent quality authored by women, and found that those papers authored by women, though they were of the same quality, did not have as much exposure. This would indeed be an interesting finding and would point to sexism in the sciences, as it would show that the same product (paper of a certain quality) was being treated differently solely because of the sex of the author. This of course assuming the measure of equivalent quality was a good one.
However it seems like all they did is "analyze" (read: count) the number of male and female speakers and found that there were less female speakers. From this they say women are "underrepresented". Hardly a sound conclusion. What if 20% of all scientists are women, and 80% are men? Then a fair (neither over- nor under-) representation would be 20% female speakers and 80% male speakers. Then you'd have to go see the reasons why there are less women scientists than male scientists, which can be many. The pregnancy thing mentioned in the article is likely a big one, at least.
If only female scientists would tell us their findings instead of expecting us to read their minds.
[Rent This Space]
the smart women who aren't getting the credit they deserve!
What? You thought this was an overlord joke?
Be seeing you...
This is probably one of the few places where the correlation is not causation meme isn't total moonbat idiocy.
Why is everyone and everything focusing on GENDER?! Gender makes NO DIFFERENCE!!! Even color or race make no difference!! STUPIDITY comes in all colors and genders!!!
I have a dream, that one day, scientists will be judged on the content of their science rather than by the gametes they possess.
Almost nothing in this comment makes any sense. What is a 'wider distribution'? You mean men are more versatile than women, more random, more prone to doing things, what?
Anytime I hear the phrase 'men are' or 'women are' I know the stupid isn't far behind, because making generalisations about the personalities and proclivities of three and a half billion people from an enormous variety of different backgrounds, cultures, and educational levels is not possible.
I conjecture and wallow...I call BS on the whole article.
Its gotten to the point whenever someone cries discrimination my mind goes numb and I think to myself, I just want to be left alone to do my research and just keep it to myself since me being an evil male I should not even bother anymore, let the whiners and complainers have society.
Look. As long as there is nothing in a person's way (and this is already the case by law) these kinds of studies need to be abandoned. The fact is, there are FAR fewer female garbage truck drivers than male. Also, far fewer female auto mechanics. Are they being disciminated against there too? Or is it more likely they don't have an interest. And if it is lack of interest, look to that research. The more we understand our differences, the better off we will be.
has to say about this.
If I understood GP properly, he was saying that for a given skill, while the mean level of ability may be the same between genders, the variance among men will generally be higher. There will be both more genius-level men and more retarded-level men, while women will generally be more concentrated around the mean. It's a point I've heard a couple times before, never with a cited source.
Everything is better with chainsaws.
That is, my point is that men, in general, tend to have a larger diversity - a wider distribution - than women do, in almost any area of skill.
This is impossible to parse. I am guessing you mean a wider distribution of skill level in any area of skill? As in women are more clustered around certain norms of achievement and men tend to be more divergent in both good and bad ways?
I feel like I've heard that's true for some areas (e.g. math), but I'd be very hesitant to draw that kind of across-the-board statement without massive amounts of data. Are you sure men aren't just more bombastic, both when idiots and when geniuses, so it's more obvious that they have divergent skill levels?
Well, getting a free OB/GYN or urological/andrological exam can never hurt.
Ezekiel 23:20
This is his third one this week. Is he trying to impress someone?
Whoever it is, maybe she'll hook up with her Womens' Studies professor, and Soulskill can get on with his life.
Dark Reflection
Men are specialized women. Instead of the standard XX chromosome possessed by the standard reproducing (i.e.: species continuing) members of the species, men carry an XY. The XY configuration rewires the brain so that it can enjoy simple focused goal seeking as its own purpose. Thus men are useful for working boring jobs, fighting wars, and other dangerous/unpleasant tasks that the species needs a disposable member to do.
What is a 'wider distribution'? You mean men are more versatile than women, more random, more prone to doing things, what?
I've heard this theory elaborated before (by a female physicist btw). Supposedly, if you look at physical things like height or weight distributions, you'll find much more variance amongst male human beings than you will with females. In other words, if you found the 100 people in the world with the highest BMI and the lowest BMI, a preponderance of both groups will be men.
The theory is, if you could apply the same measurements to more subjective things like "intelligence", you would find the same things: both the 100 (or 1000 or whatever) dumbest and the 100 smartest people in the world will be mostly men.
I'll go on record as saying I'm not sure I buy this logic at all, but perhaps that's just because I'm male and I heard it from a female first. ;-)
Only kinda. When you make the choice to live in, that is- to partake of, part of a society it is your civic and moral duty to contribute to it.
Thus, society "expects" you to do your damn job and earn your keep. To do as such you're just going to have to deal with the idea that you'll have to sacrifice some things in your life.
Free time, personal gain, material possessions, physical pleasure... whatever. You're going to have to give up something at some point in time, repeatedly, in order to continue to live where you want to.
Women on the other hand, are getting pregnant no matter what, unless they very ugly or genetically unable.
Tell that to any number of childless couples, I'm sure the'll love hearing your philosophy (end sarcasm). Not to mention that the problem may lay on the male side, women without children aren't necessarily childless because of something wrong with *them*.
With a high-stakes career in academics, where one accusation could cause years of grief, the rule is that you never do anything with any university-connected female that could ever be misinterpreted as sexual.
You do not ask females to go out to dinner to discuss their research. You do not invite (pester) females to visit your university, repeatedly. You do not discuss an abstruse academic point in a bar until late. You do not go to the golf course with a female co-worker (married or unmarried). You do nothing that could ever be misinterpreted, which often means you do nothing at all. This applies even if you are at a conference where the only opportunity to discuss things is late at night, or over dinner, or in a hotel room, or in a bar.
On the other hand, with a male colleague, you find a common social activity and bond.
Over the course of 15 years, subtle effects like this make a huge difference in the quality of social relationships formed between researchers in a field. Good social relationships open the doors that make good professor's famous.
I think men are raised to take more risks, so this leads to a lot more wild successes as well as wild failures.
Not nearly as many women use the phrase: "Hold my beer and watch this."
Do you know why our dicks have a mushroom head? That shape works to pump out competing sperm.
Yes, and a cat's penis is hook shaped in case any fish swam up the female cat's vagina.
This research was done by a man otherwise we would not be hearing about it.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
I saw Jennifer at the mall and she was not with a dentist.
Did look like a little drilling had been going on though.
No brain, no pain.
When you make the choice to live in, that is- to partake of
As the AC said, no one really chooses that.
it is your civic and moral duty to contribute to it.
Unless you believe in mystical beings who can decide what is and is not objectively wrong, you have no "moral duty" to do anything.
Men may, in general, *express* a larger diversity. The question of whether this is because of grater actually diversity in men, greater suppression of non-conforming behavior in women, or something else is the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT.
Unfortunately, the effort to equally represent women in science usually ends up devaluing the other, more important work that they do... raising a good family. Society has a greater need for mothers than scientists.
Insofar as your meaning is that "society has a greater need for mothers [and fathers] than scientists", I agree. A single income, two parent home is a better ideal than the whole dual income, farm-the-kid-out-to-daycare situation. I personally don't care if it's a housewife or house husband -- nobody cares about your own kids as much as you do -- or as much as you can if you try.
I wonder if part of the anger that your post seems to have triggered among mods is that you specifically said that children need mothers. It seems to be a point of strictly enforced dogma in politically correct discourse these days to say that children doesn't really need women in their lives (see the debate surrounding gay marriage). If you say that it's best for a child to have female mother, then you are generally considered a terrible person. At least that's what I've seen. (I'm a terrible person, by the way.)
I saw Jennifer at the mall and she was not with a dentist. Did look like a little drilling had been going on though.
"Drilling" is fun for the first few times, but at the end of the day, it's just boring.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
That is why most criminals are men, for example.
maybe women are just congenitally sneakier
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
I don't think that's quite it. The original quote sounds very conservative (as in "women should be at home raising the kids, not doing science [with the justification that 'raising kids is important']"). I think the downvoting was caused by more liberal people who don't want to limit women's role to "raising kids". There might be some people who want to minimize women's importance in raising kids because they feel it would benefit adoptive gay (male) parents, but that seems like a minority position.
I'd also say that it's far more common to devalue fathers roles in children's lives than mother's roles. This is the major reason so many divorce courts favor the mother as the primary caretaker. Among people I know personally, the only cases where the father has custody of the children is when the mother is really messed up (e.g. an alcoholic).
I feel like I've heard that's true for some areas (e.g. math), but I'd be very hesitant to draw that kind of across-the-board statement without massive amounts of data.
Well, most of this theory comes out of psychological research, particularly IQ tests and other general intelligence tests.
It isn't so much that we have across-the-board data for lots of fields/skills/areas, as much as we have a number of studies on supposed tests of "general intelligence," which show a wider variance for men compared to women.
If you believe in the assumption that IQ tests are actually relevant to performance in a wider variety of areas, then it would seem reasonable to conclude that such variance in IQ scores probably has an effect. If you're skeptical of the value of IQ as a general measurement tool, you should be skeptical of these claims as well.
It's nonsense, like the claim that there is more variance among Caucasians than black Africans or Orientals, explaining why most modern geniuses are white. It's all down to circumstance, not genetics or gender.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Unfortunately, the effort to equally represent women in science usually ends up devaluing the other, more important work that they do... raising a good family. Society has a greater need for mothers than scientists.
I wonder if part of the anger that your post seems to have triggered among mods is that you specifically said that children need mothers. It seems to be a point of strictly enforced dogma in politically correct discourse these days to say that children doesn't really need women in their lives (see the debate surrounding gay marriage). If you say that it's best for a child to have female mother, then you are generally considered a terrible person. At least that's what I've seen.
I don't think that's quite it. The original quote sounds very conservative (as in "women should be at home raising the kids, not doing science [with the justification that 'raising kids is important']").
I think a reader can choose to read that message into the original quote. I personally don't read it that way.
I'll risk losing a little karma by entering this debate, but what I see is mostly a statement of fact: as a society, we do actually need parents to raise children even more than we need research scientists. If we do not raise more children, society will cease to exist. That's a basic statement of fact.
The difficulty is in the assertion that we might actually need women more than men in the parental role, which is not a politically correct thing to say these days. I'm perfectly fine with a father staying home to be a primary caregiver, and I've actually done it myself for a time with small children.
The issue, however, is that there are things that only women can do, and again this is a biological fact. Only women can bear children -- that's an investment of a huge amount of time and energy during pregnancy. And only women can breastfeed, another huge commitment whose benefits have been shown by numerous studies.
(I would also note that some people tend to focus too much of breast milk, rather than the feeding itself -- the few studies that have actually bothered to try to look at the difference have shown that it's often the act of breastfeeding itself, along with closeness between infant and mother, etc., that triggers many benefits aside from the minor immunological ones very early on. I do wonder if many studies don't try to differentiate feeding behavior from the milk itself because they're afraid of disturbing this whole industry of breast pumping and breast milk craziness that has arisen... not to mention the problems it causes for feminist interpretations. If breast milk is the elixir of life, it's still possible, though incredibly inconvenient, for a working mother to provide that. If it's the actual feeding, suddenly we have to do deal with the fact that most women only get short maternity leaves and we're not giving them enough support to stay home for longer and... oh my... we don't want to be seen forcing or encouraging women to stay out of the workforce to raise children. And this doesn't even get into the hormonal aspects that actually are biologically designed to get women to spend more time with their infants, something women who keep breastfeeding often need to actively subvert to jump back into their jobs immediately.)
I've spent a lot of time with small children and being the primary caregiver as a father. I wouldn't give up any of that time, and I'd make the same choice again even if it wasn't the easiest thing.
But from my experience, I'd say once you get past the first couple years, Dad is just as good as Mom. But for infants and even small toddlers, there are biological advantages for women in child rearing that simply cannot be dismissed just in the name of political correctness.
That's a problem for our current feminist mythology, which says you can work almost all the way through pregnancy and should be
Insofar as your meaning is that "society has a greater need for mothers [and fathers] than scientists", I agree. A single income, two parent home is a better ideal than the whole dual income, farm-the-kid-out-to-daycare situation. I personally don't care if it's a housewife or house husband -- nobody cares about your own kids as much as you do -- or as much as you can if you try.
I've become convinced that the ideal solution is the single-income, two parent home where both parents work part time. Sadly, there's simply no acceptance of that in professional work at all.
I think working full time for the first 10 years or so of your career (to master your trade) and then part time thereafter would be a much better model for society (and for business - two professionals who work 25 hours a week are usually far more productive than one working 50).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
This has been studied with IQ as well - the centers of the curves are the same for men and women (same average IQ) but the peak is higher for women, and the tail is longer for men. And yes, everyone has already made that joke - and that one too.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I run an international conference in a relatively small field, that is, one with only a few thousand researchers all told. We do pretty well at gender balance in our invited speakers, but it is MUCH HARDER to invite qualified female speakers than male ones.
Why?
Because there are fewer of them, so they are in higher demand, since all of the conference organizers want them to speak. Our conference typically has about a 90% acceptance rate for our invitations, for male speakers. For female speakers, it's closer to 50%.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
You're seriously claiming that intelligence has nothing to do with genetics? I guess believing that you are retarded because your mom dropped you on your head as a baby is better than accepting that you are a retard from a long line of retards who was also dropped as a baby.
It's fairly obvious, actually. Most traits with a gender component show a wider variance in men than women because men have only one X chromosome, while women have 2, which end up 'averaging' (broadly). This is advantageous genetically as well - if all males were the same, there would be little to distinguish them for sexual competition reasons.
Oh, and since you asked and we're talking about intelligence, source:
(wiki with footnotes)
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Seriously guys there is so much Misandry its not funny. Have you guys seen statistics of males to females in post secondary education. All I read is a bunch of manginas and white knights defending women in all these posts, can't forget the poor victims that women are boo flipping hoo. 70% of all incarcerated men in Jails come from single parent families (Women are the parent) Boys are Dropping out and Failing at extraordinary high rates from schools. 57% of all enrollments in Colleges and Universities are women at the rate that men are falling behind by year 2048 will be the year the last men graduates. 60% of American women will cheat on their spouse. 93% of work related fatalities and injuries are suffered by men. Single Women (City) make more money then a single men does. Domestic Violence is gender symmetrical, most domestic violence is instigates BY women. Women can work, have kids, have pro choice, etc.. Men are forced to men up and get screwed by a unfair system. Continual vilification of men is turning men against the traditional values what's left of them, low marriage rates etc.. Women and feminism has turned society into a Marxist state. The BS of wage gap is bs as well(statistically). The argument of Glass ceiling is also giant amount of horse crap. What about the Glass floor, I don't see women rushing to take on jobs like Sanitation , oil field, welders, plumbers, electricians, lumberjacks etc.. All the statistics I have cited are from US Census Bureau. Before we start ragging one men being the big bad evil misogynists lets look at the raw statistics. I forgot to mention that the overall publications in scientific journals has decreased since the 1970's. Women wanted the privilege of Working in the 70's they thought the grass is greener on the other side.. They never considered working was never a privilege but an obligation. Thank god more men are turning their backs and adopting MGTOW philosophy. I can't wait for the day that men have the pill. That will be the beginning of the end of human civilization.
Genetics are not altered by being dropped. The offspring of two retarded people may not be retarded.
More over it is ridiculous to claim that 50% of the population is dumber than the other 50% because they are genetically female, or black or part of any other vast group. At an individual level it does make some difference, but not at the gender or race level.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Indeed.
I worked for several years in a field of science that is female dominated. (They do exist.) I can assure you that if I had presented demands to the organisers of the conferences I attended that they somehow do more to encourage male participation, that wouldnt have gone anywhere. Nor should it have. Women, and men, should be free to pursue whatever field they wish without such nannyism to help or hinder them.
Show me a real bias interfering with people's chosen careers and I will be concerned. Show me a statistical 'imbalance' easily explained by peoples choices freely made as if this is a problem, and I will tell you to get a job.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
"I think working full time for the first 10 years or so of your career (to master your trade) and then part time thereafter would be a much better model for society (and for business - two professionals who work 25 hours a week are usually far more productive than one working 50)."
I agree and would love to see this more accepted/accomodated.
To add a little, in accordance with our biology, it would probably work better for women to (usually) reproduce first, then get the careers going after the children need less care, while men continue to (usually) try to get a decent start in their career before reproducing.
It's not a perfect pattern, and like any pattern, it should be voluntarily followed by those that wish to follow it, not imposed from the top down.
But it would be nice if this pattern (essentially the same one that has been typical of our species for around a quarter of a million years) were not actively obstructed.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
i've heard the interpretation that from the survival of the species perspective females are precious. Evolution 'wants' them to have rock solid gene base, society wants them to be safe not to jeopardize their role, which means teaching them risk aversion. Men are the main source of genetic variance so it's a full blown RNG in their case. One or two badly constructed individuals is no tragedy, they won't pass their genes, no big deal. Genetic diseases mostly in males? No big deal, they are seen as disposable either way. And they have to compete for access to female parts and they are raised that way.
Is it bad? Maybe, but i think not. It's an evolutionary example of the economic concept of comparative advantage. 'Fixing' it in the name of political correctness might come with severe unintended consequences.