Slashdot Mirror
Study: Science Still Seen As a Male Profession
sciencehabit sends news of a study published in the Journal of Educational Psychology which found that science is still perceived as a predominantly male profession across the world. The results were broken out by country, and while the overall trend stayed consistent throughout (PDF), there were variations in perception. For explicit bias: "Countries where this association was strongest included South Africa and Japan. The United States ranked in the middle, with a score similar to Austria, Mexico, and Brazil. Portugal, Spain, and Canada were among the countries where the explicit bias was weakest." For implicit bias: "Denmark, Switzerland, Belgium, and Sweden were among the countries with the highest implicit bias scores. The United States again came in at the middle of the pack, scoring similarly to Singapore. Portugal, Spain, and Mexico had among the lowest implicit bias scores, though the respondents still associated science more with men than with women."
Nursing and Childcare are *still* seen as female professions. Who gives a fuck?
As long as female culture remains the culture of fear (anti-nuclear, anti-GMO, anti-vax) it is women who will see STEM as being a man's world.
Came a day late this week?
Everybody was asked to draw a scientist. As I recall, most people ended up drawing men in lab coats. One person drew a woman that I recall, maybe two. Another person drew a sailor looking guy.
I drew an alien. Whose gender was not something I thought about since it was a non-Mammalian life-form.
Teaching is still seen as a woman's profession. Your point?
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
Science belongs to everybody - young; old; female; male; Americans; Koreans; Europeans; Africans ...
What really irks me is that the political correctness movement likes to split up the human beings into categories and then fanning the fires accusing one group of doing such or such, when the truth is that things like Science belongs to EVERYONE
What is political correctness trying to do?
Is it trying to sabotage Science?
What does it get by sabotaging Science??
I dunno man. I just can not understand those who insist that such and such must include this or that group of human beings just so that it can be 'complete'
C'mon, man!
Science benefits EVERYBODY --- it doesn't only benefit the men, or only the Americans
There are solutions, but it is very hard to convince Americans to accept the hiring of the third-best job candidate in order to get more women into a field. They start going ape and pretending that hiring should be a meritocracy, conveniently ignoring the fact that the playing field for opportunities is skewed male.
Source: I am a woman who plays with particle accelerators for a living. I fix them. I write control software for them. I smash atoms together with them. The women I work with, though woefully few, are harder working and smarter than most of the men. Their resumes are less impressive because they had to fight the system every step of the way to get where they are, while the men stepped onto a well worn path and got groomed every step of the way.
If your reaction to this is to disbelieve my credentials, then you are part of the problem.
Power to the blamers! There is far too much power to be garnered from inflaming (occasionally real, but often wholly manufactured) biases.
But things like the Rolling Stone UVA rape hoax, global warming, GamerGate, &c have blown the lid off what a bunch of cheap hucksters the Grievance Industrial Complex are.
Go back to hell and stay there, creeps.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Handhold women? Who demands that? Women are strong and independent... they don't need to be coddled... The only thing they need is men to be hobbled.
I just got back from a scientific conference with thousands of attendees from around the world. There were plenty of women around (still less than half, of course), but virtually no black people, and not too many Hispanics either. Lots of white people and Europeans and Asians. Just an observation - I'm not trying to emphasize any particular issue or value anything over anything else.
I know. So what? They want hatred. They get hatred. For serious discussions I go elsewhere. I would never write anything constructive on /. anymore.
The greatest unsolved mystery to Man is Woman. Men who don't score try to understand why that is. Men denied a solution are programmed to decompose problems. Less complex than Woman is Science. One cannot hope to comprehend the one prior to the other.
The greatest unsolved to Woman is why Man doesn't get it. Women are programmed to multitask. From birth, they apply a duality of logic: How to serve Tribe and Family equally. To that end, they give hope to the scientists who by extension serve Tribe, and they give body to real men who by application serve Family.
Far more men than women are interested in joining the sciences as a career.
So really, Science is predominantly male and that is by choice of the women. The good thing is that any woman that wants to be a scientist and has the talents and skills can be one in the western world. The reality is that most do not want to. Deal with it.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Oh, yes. Just replace Patriarchy with Matriarchy. That will solve all problems. Not. It will be a bit different, but it will be evil fuckery just the same.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Where? https://news.ycombinator.com/ has some interesting stuff, but it also gets quite political and divided sometimes.
Replace what?
I am very often here:
http://pipedot.org/
Sadly not too many articles, but we fought off several infiltration attempts from both 'gender sides'. Though the proposed anti-woman articles were that primitive that I suspect SJW sockpuppets.
I was playing guitar but stopped to check the various feeds before shutting down and heading to bed. Snowshoeing early tomorrow.
[John]
Shit better not happen!
Right on, brother. Tomorrow morning I'll be busting some broncos and then base-jumping off the Sears Tower with a parachute of my own design. After that, I'll be having sex with the entire wait staff of Hooters, one of whom is my wife, Morgan Fairchild.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It turns out that in countries where more scientists are men, more people associate men and scientists. Total shocker, I know.
Indeed.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I think you'll find that these stories are most likely to appear on Slashdot Friday and Saturday nights.
You are welcome on my lawn.
translation: he doesn't like your views so he'll suggest you can't get laid in an attempt to shame you. yawn.
Not sure why the response. Playing Rage Against The Machine and some Biffy Clyro about 20 minutes ago and will head up into Rocky Mountain National Park around 7am tomorrow to hike around bear lake with my girlfriend.
But hey, hope your parachute works and good luck with the Hooters girls. :)
[John]
Shit better not happen!
feminism expands the pool of labor.... growing the supply of labor faster than the demand for labor suppresses wage growth, which increases profit growth. That means more money for corporate shareholders and more money spent on advertising in the corporate media. Won't someone PLEASE think of the corporations, the plutocrats that own them, and the media that is supported by them???!!
posting at http://leftistconservative.blogspot.com
Dorothy Latimer - the coelacanth, Evelyn Trewavas - Rift cichlids, Lynne Parenti - Killifish and presently curator of fishes at the Smithsonian.
It was a woman who identified the DNA molecule as Pauling's alpha Helix, Crick and Watson literally stole her notes form her desk. Madam Curie was the first person to win a double Nobel. This Is off the top of my head. If the report is true it's changed, while the first two women mentioned did have to fight a bit I don't believe Parenti did, by the 80s things had changed I could ask her I guess, maybe I will soon.
Te genus and family of the Coelacanth is named after Dot, Trewavas has fish named after her, Parenti will in time be recognized with honorific scientific name of some Cyprinodont I'm sure.
I don't think it's as bad as the report make sit sound in Ichthyology.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Sorry, man, I was just messing. That sounds like a beautiful way to spend a Sunday morning. One of my life goals is to live on the edge of a National Park.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It started that way FFS. Seriously guys, how many PHP cut and paste dudes know assembly for a CPU, any CPU? Programming has got a lot LESS complicated and scientific over time, far less than when Grace Hopper was at the keyboard.
You mean the courts who follow a policy almost wholly dictated by the National Organization for Women, a massive nationwide lobbying organization which has virtually singlehandedly stonewalled any attempt at custody or alimony reform?
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
How about if we believe your conclusions but do not think your data supports your claim, ie you are viewing what you wish due to your observations which are obviously (and not a fault) biased?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I don't believe you!
>If your reaction to this is to disbelieve my credentials, then you are part of the problem.
>Post made as AC
Welp, I'll gladly be part of the problem not believing something posted on the internet anonymously.
IMO science is a scientist's profession and gender is irrelevant. Silence however is definately mostly in the realm of male.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
The implicit bias test used is controversial, to say the least. According to mainstream cognitive psychology, it measures temporary perceptual associations via priming. These do not have a causal relation with higher level opinions. The effect can be caused by something as uninteresting as the local way of referring to science and scientists.
Methods? They had a large number of factors to correlate with their data: 25 (possibly a few more, depending on what you read), and ran a multiple regression over it, and are reporting an effect for every p .05. That's bad science at multiple levels.
It's just another fishing expedition.
Amen! Science is a difficult profession with a long and winding road until you get a stable career, and no guarantees even after boatloads of education. You often have to be willing to sacrifice a family and personal life early on to make coin in the profession.
Women tend to value family life and family issues more than men. I won't put a value judgement on that preference here, but the practical side is that science is NOT a family-oriented line of work.
Table-ized A.I.
Should women be given free choice or not? One wonders exactly what the social-justice crowd had in mind.
The vast majority of women choose to study social sciences. Men don't.
Should their freedom of choice be curtailed? Should we 'force' women to study something they're not interested in? Because if such inhibition of personal freedoms is not acceptable then perhaps we should stop treating these obvious gender-aligned differences in preference as "flaws", and start treating them as "features" of our species.
The social justice crowd would of course insist that it's all "nurture" and not "nature". But how many times must this absurd belief system be obliterated with logic for it to finally disappear? ---> https://vimeo.com/19707588
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Is slashdot trying to drive away the male audience?
There is no "correct" gender. There are different genders, each with their own privileges.
That was the case before feminism turned women into cherry picking parasites.
I know, hence the scare quotes. My intent was to highlight that the person to which I replied believes one gender to be inherently superior to another.
Required reading for internet skeptics
/. taught me this is true. Is reinforced almost every Friday/Saturday.
Not superior overall, but some of the differences lead to superiority in certain fields.
For clarity: You actually believe one gender to be inherently superior to another?
How did you come to hold such a belief?
Required reading for internet skeptics
You did not read my previous post? /. articles are a perfectly good explanation. If one follows enough feminist crap an intelligent person can come only to one conclusion: Women are generally inferior or have an extremely inferior and parasitic character. Though don't worry, they are still one notch above the manginas... really nothing below them.
Yes comrade, we should send them to political reeducation so they learn to think right!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You make it sound your are joking.
There is no "correct" gender. There are different genders, each with their own privileges.
The feminists would have you believe that men keep women down because they dominate politics/etc: The Patriarchy.
This is however quite a bit backward. Men do not dominate politics because they keep women down. Men dominate these things because men have always been the primary protectors and women the primary caregivers. Men build the defenses. Men go to war. The feminists institution present the cause and effect backwards, and they know it but would rather be dishonest. Greed.
1918 - Arver v. United States - The Supreme Court upheld that conscription did not violate the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude, or the First Amendment's protection of freedom of conscience. Their reasoning was that men are given the right to vote so therefore they have a responsibility to defend society, and thus the draft in the united states was held as constitutional.
One year later, in 1919, women were given the right to vote but were not told that they too had such a responsibility as men had for their right to vote.
This has stood not because its right or fair, but because men and women really are different, that men are still primary protectors and women are still primary caregivers.
Fast forward to today, and Hillary Clinton gets away with claiming that the primary victims of war are women. That when a man dies on the battlefield it is his wife that is the primary victim. She gets away with this because the fact remains that men and women are different, so the two levels of victim-hood (death vs widow) are not directly comparable.
We need to cut federal funding for all feminist issues. Their bullshit has gone way past rationality.
"His name was James Damore."
Yes comrade, we must. For the people and the people's party.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Just acknowledge that a post made by a female scientist who does something pretty cool for a living is anonymous by necessity. Having been the victim of random Internet people trying to find out my name and address, I act to protect myself. Sorry that I can't introduce myself properly and have a real conversation in this forum. Goodness knows I would love to.
I don't mind if people disagree with me. I am wrong all the time. That is the nature of physics and mathematics. I am just here to say my bit.
Say five resumes cross your desk. They are all excellent, having gone through many rounds of interviews. One is female, the rest male. They differ by fractions of a percent in terms of smarts and ability.
The system of meritocracy demands that the person who is 95.5% desirable is hired over the person that is 95.3% desirable. I say that, if we truly want a future in which women are part of physics, we hire the woman. We say, well, any difference between her and the top candidate is statistical noise and maybe a little implicit bias. She is just as capable. It is just that when she was in grad school, her advisor never got very close to her as a person because he feared seeming improper. When internships came up, and other opportunities, people in her department didn't think of her. She never got promoted as high as her male peers over concerns that she might want to start a family. When she was a child, her parents didn't send her to science camp like they did for her brother, so she started her journey in high school instead of elementary school.
It is well documented that once a field approaches gender parity, discriminatory behavior tends to wane.
Of course women want to be in science. I knew a lot of little girls when I was growing up and many of them wanted to be scientists. I don't know what it is that happens between childhood and adulthood that changes those dreams.
Has anyone checked to see if there's a gender gap in this field? I suspect there is, since it combines three fields that are traditionally dominated by women: Journalism, Education, and Psychology.
If most scientists are, in fact, male, then a perception of science as a predominantly male profession is not a bias -- it is simply an accurate perception. A bias would be a perception that was consistently misaligned with the reality.
Wow! What a deal. American men will be catching on also.
They are observing that people more quickly associate "science" and "male" in countries where the population of scientists is predominantly male. The simplest explanation is not that gender bias causes women to stay out of science, the simplest explanation is that human associations reflect what people actually experience in the real world.
And that point is encapsulated in a single adverb: still. "Still" is what makes this news; it wouldn't have been news twenty or thirty years ago.
I am old enough to remember when genital equipment was considered employment destiny. When my wife went to oceanography graduate school the sysadmins of the school minicomputers were all female. The all-male faculty called them -- I kid you not -- "Data Dollies". Data dolly was considered a good job for a technically inclined woman because it paid well for an entry level job, involved computers, and was an easy job to hand off when you quit to marry the professor you'd snagged. Plus they'd have a hard time getting work in industry. Clearly that was a transitional moment because there were a substantial minority of women graduate students in the program, but *no* female professors, much less senior administrators.
But given the strong cohort of women in that class, it is surprising the thirty years later there is still a lingering perception in this country that science isn't for women. But maybe it shouldn't be surprising. Change doesn't happen instantaneously, nor does it necessarily ever become complete. When I was in college the notion that women had to become full time homemakers was still predominant -- not among students, but of people over thirty or so, practically everyone in positions of hiring and authority. That attitude seems weird and foreign to a young person today; I expect it's hard for a young person to grasp how pervasive and indeed how genuinely oppressive that belief was. It's a bit like the difference between the way I experience watching Mad Men and the way my kids do. I actually *recognize* that world where smoking was everywhere, big shots drank during office hours, and "womanizing" was a word people actually used without irony. It was fading fast, but still there. To my kids it's like an alien civilization in Doctor Who. So yes, the news that many Americans see science as a profession that somehow belongs to men is a bit like discovering a Silurian in the closet.
The women of my generation fought hard to establish a beachhead in male dominated professions, and if they're sometimes a bit snippy about it, well they earned the right. It wasn't easy to be an oddball among your peers and freak to your parents, teachers and and people in authority generally. And this was at a time when there was no such thing as geek chic to offset the disadvantages being an oddball. Being a geek was bad, period.
Now that cadre of pioneering women is at or approaching the apex of their careers. They're still a minority in their age cohort, but they left a wide open hole in their wake for the next generation. It's taken awhile for that hole to fill up because when opportunities open for a group they go for more high-profile professions (47% of medical students are women, as are 48% of law students). But in another generation I am sure the view that science belongs to one sex or another will be a truly fringe belief.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Men and Women are biologically different and in many cases want different things in life. The popular radical homosexual justice warriors and their blind followers need to stop trying to change that fact due to their own insecurities about being different.
What is your profession? I am a welding.