A Crash Course in Feminism Mk. II (or, why everyone should be a feminist)

[eldargal]

[URL="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/30/colleen-mcculloch-well-celebrate-a-woman-for-anything-as-long-as-its-not-her-talent"]Best-selling author Colleen McCollough remembered in an incredibly sexist obituary[/URL].

COLLEEN McCullough, Australia’s best-selling author, was a charmer. Plain of feature, and certainly overweight, she was, nevertheless, a woman of wit and warmth. In one interview, she said: “I’ve never been into clothes or figure and the interesting thing is I never had any trouble attracting men.”

Her Roman Republican series is excellent and she had one of the largest private collections of latin texts in the world from memory, a very impressive woman. So of course the obituary focuses mostly on her appearance. The same newspaper ran this over a much less prominent local male author and it is far more respectful, funny that:

BRYCE Courtenay was one of Australia’s greatest storytellers, touching the hearts of millions of people around the world with 21 bestselling books including The Power of One.

[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/women-in-science-disadvantage-prejudice_n_3117991.html"]How Woman in Science Are At a Disadvantage[/URL]

The research team of Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick, Carroll J. Glynn and Michael Huge asked 243 communication graduate students to complete a questionnaire on gender role attributes and to evaluate abstracts taken from a 2010 conference. These abstracts, were on gendered "feminine" topics like body image, "male" topics like political journalism, or "neutral" topics like health communication, were presented as being written by either female or male authors. Participants rated each abstract on a 10-point scale for each of the following qualities: "rigorous," "by competent authors," "influential," "important," "innovative," "publishable in a prestigious journal," "high-quality contribution," and "reflective of expertise."

Results showed that participants of both sexes considered work by male authors of a higher quality and more publishable. Interestingly, an article by a male on a "feminine" topic was seen as less scientifically sound -- but people were still more interested in collaborating with men on such topics. However, participants were much more interested in collaborating with women than with men on "masculine" topics.

The findings seem to confirm the bias against women in STEM already seen in grant awards and hiring decisions. Female scientists win fewer research grants, and typically receive lower amounts than men when they do win. When it comes to hiring, both sexes are more likely to prefer a male candidate to a female one. And in a 2012 study, researchers found that people considered female applicants for science jobs less hireable and less competent. Female candidates were also given lower salaries and less mentoring than male candidates.

[Mud Duck]

Ok, I think that I'm lost. The first listed study (Ohio State) has to do more with the bias against women in STEM and has little or not thing to do with the listed research teams findings. The listed study, to my understanding, is drawing from a large pool, removing the questionable candidates, asking questions and then removing any remaining questionable responses. All this looking at the bias in STEM, and how men seem to be negative jerks.

The research team listed is questioning Communication students on abstracts (sorry, what is that?), defined at a 2010 conference (no listing or link), and as to rate it. This favored the men. So, what they're saying is that having a man's name at the top makes something more publishable, in the eyes of Communications peoples. It doesn't go on to address how the Scientific world rates the differences between the two sexs on how they write on scientific stuff.

The research teams findings don't seem to confirm a bias in STEM, but one in the field of communications! Now the first listed study shows the bias in hiring decisions, but I don't seem to see anything on grants. As to wining fewer grants, no listed evidence on numbers or area of study that the grants are for. On hiring, the first study shows this, but the second, huh? Then there is the last two sentences: What Study! You have a link to one in the first paragraph that has more to do with study you lay out in the following paragraphs, and the whole basis for the story is some unnamed 2012 study?

I just don't know what the writers of the obituaries where thinking?

I'm sorry, but this is journalism today. le-sigh.

[daboarder]

Confirmation bias, Nuff said!

edit: the study itself is fairly, well....lets just say the News article has twisted the conclusions and wrapped them in fairly sensationalised language.

For starters, while the paper does attempt to ***** which comentors are themselves in an STEM field it makes no attempt to confirm this, or even look account for typical internet BS. Likely, looking at the comments on a community site that specifically caters to members of the STEM community would get a more accurate look at the opinions in the field.

[Psychosplodge]

The obituary writer needs a slap. It's a clear unacceptable double standard.

When it comes to STEM I'm still of the opinion that it's other women that keep females out, starting at secondary education.

[daboarder]

The obituary writer needs a slap. It's a clear unacceptable double standard.

When it comes to STEM I'm still of the opinion that it's other women that keep females out, starting at secondary education.

There are other factors. Biology means that in chemistry (and as far as I am aware, biology and certain physics labs), if a woman gets pregnant (or is trying too), she should be out of the lab for a year or two, that is a long time for an early career researcher.

[Psychosplodge]

That's true of any industry though isn't it dab?

[daboarder]

That's true of any industry though isn't it dab?

hardly to the same order of magnitude, a pregnant women can work a desk job quite late into their pregnancy and return quite eary too.

A chemist cannot do that because a lab is full of chemicals that do nasty things like act as teratogens.

You probably know thalidomide, well how healthy for a pregnant woman do you think it is to work in an environment basically permeated by similar chemicals?
furthermore, given the way biology works, such chemicals can be easily passed from the mother to the infant post birth as well.

[Psychosplodge]

Ah yeah there is that. But is that actually a common occurrence in many fields? or more specific to a few jobs?

[daboarder]

Ah yeah there is that. But is that actually a common occurrence in many fields? or more specific to a few jobs?

I cannot think of a single chemistry lab I have ever seen or been in which does not use vast amounts of solvents (because seriously, it wouldn't be a chemistry lab). So no, its basically inherent in the job.

the same would apply to biology (with ethanol being used for washing at minimum) and probably most physics fields as well.

[url]http://www.ilo.org/dyn/travail/docs/2053/pregnant%20and%20breastfeeding%20safety%20guidance .pdf[/url]

[eldargal]

Mad Duck, that's irrelevant, the issue is that men are perceived as being better at science and are granted greater privileges as a result. This is in addition to the well documented misogyny within the STEM fields themselves. So you have women in the STEM field being discriminated against in many ways and then you have people outside the industry perceiving them as inferior as well. The whole point is we have a culture that views men as superior to women. Whether or not it is communication students or science students doesn't matter at all, especially given how enmeshed science is with media, business and politics.