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?
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."
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.
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.
It turns out that in countries where more scientists are men, more people associate men and scientists. Total shocker, I know.
A. The study hasn't been published yet. This is a preview only.
B. It's a psychological study and not sociological. That makes a significant difference as the question only relates to the generic meaning of science, the methodology - or some part of it, is trickery, swapping answer keys randomly, thus getting statistical data for keystrokes.
C. A sociological approach would be more considered and break science down to various disciplines where I feel that results would be different.
The study makes the assumption that science is hard coded physics (for example) and classifies female with liberal arts and so on.
So far I can see a few problems with this and seems to fail in the testing design with a lack of understanding by the study's authors.
The sort of thing I would like to see if there is a corollary between "Men hunt, women gather" and the disciplines of science.
In my expanded family, I have 2 female scientists (organic chemistry) and 1 male - (medicinal chemistry). The 2 females became scientists because they couldn't become engineers which had the stamp of a male profession because it was physical work as well as mental. Holding test tubes over a Bunsen burner doesn't take much physical strength. Hmmm.. Maybe THAT has got something to do with it?
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
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 ?
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."
>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.
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 a New York state law banning male daycare teachers from changing diapers.
There is a strong preference in custody cases that the child will end up with the mother, even if she isn't nearly as fit to parent.
There is actually more of a written inequality against men then woman.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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.