Comments on: Deeply Disturbing Study Shows Bias Against Women in Science Runs Deep http://blog.nationalpartnership.org/index.php/2012/09/deeply-disturbing-study-women-in-science/ Just another WordPress weblog Wed, 24 Apr 2013 02:54:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Another Tough Week « Politics Power Sex http://blog.nationalpartnership.org/index.php/2012/09/deeply-disturbing-study-women-in-science/comment-page-1/#comment-32643 Another Tough Week « Politics Power Sex Fri, 26 Oct 2012 17:58:46 +0000 http://blog.nationalpartnership.org/?p=1884#comment-32643 [...] Deeply Disturbing Study Shows Bias Against Women in Science Runs Deep [...] [...] Deeply Disturbing Study Shows Bias Against Women in Science Runs Deep [...]

]]> By: Lauren http://blog.nationalpartnership.org/index.php/2012/09/deeply-disturbing-study-women-in-science/comment-page-1/#comment-32630 Lauren Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:20:45 +0000 http://blog.nationalpartnership.org/?p=1884#comment-32630 I'm sure a great deal of thought went into the name selection during the study, and if you'd like a full report on the study design, you could request one. At the end of the day, while no one claims that there are evil (in this case scientists) who are vying to keep women out of the field of science, there is obviously something going on that keeps women (who earn more college degrees then men and more at a higher level, with higher grades) earning less than men. Even when taking into account those who opt for more flex schedules and taking out typical "Mom" jobs that allow women more flexibility. Check it out: http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/ExecSummary_PayGap.pdf. So, instead of defending every last reason why this must not be the truth and denying that sexism exists, it would be a breath of fresh air instead of becoming defensive (the natural reaction to accusations of sexism, though many would say it's not defensiveness it's simply suspicion of the research methods, etc.) it would be more helpful to try to understand if this happens, how it happens and why it happens. Because, whether you believe this study or not, the TRUTH is there are less women scientists at high levels than men. Is that because they are just not as good as male scientists? Or is something else, more subtle, going on? The bottom line is sexism exists. Just as name discrimination exits as you pointed out. And both these practices are unfair for those who are of that gender or hold that name. So, we can attribute it to this or that, but it's happening. This study is simply trying to open the eyes of those who may believe that we live in a fair and just world. One that is an equal playing field for all (because many, sadly do feel that way. And many men I know feel that they have reached their positions of power through hard work. Which they did! But they don't notice all the hard working women, who have worked just as hard, who do not enter their inner circle of upper management at nearly the same rate. WE ALL WORK HARD! So, why are there less women?) When individuals attack studies like this, instead of helping people wake up to the reality of sexism, that it exists and allowing for the next natural step, "Now what do we do about to?" to take place, you are simply allowing people to think that this study is not accurate based on X, Y and Z threats to internal/external validity. Therefore, they can dismiss this study and go back to thinking that the world is in order and that sexism is simply a myth invented by "crazy" feminists. That's a very dangerous attitude to have, and one that influences others reading this page now, to question whether sexism exists. And, honestly this type of message is the opposite of good science as that attitude is in direct contrast to progress. I’m sure a great deal of thought went into the name selection during the study, and if you’d like a full report on the study design, you could request one. At the end of the day, while no one claims that there are evil (in this case scientists) who are vying to keep women out of the field of science, there is obviously something going on that keeps women (who earn more college degrees then men and more at a higher level, with higher grades) earning less than men. Even when taking into account those who opt for more flex schedules and taking out typical “Mom” jobs that allow women more flexibility. Check it out: http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/ExecSummary_PayGap.pdf. So, instead of defending every last reason why this must not be the truth and denying that sexism exists, it would be a breath of fresh air instead of becoming defensive (the natural reaction to accusations of sexism, though many would say it’s not defensiveness it’s simply suspicion of the research methods, etc.) it would be more helpful to try to understand if this happens, how it happens and why it happens. Because, whether you believe this study or not, the TRUTH is there are less women scientists at high levels than men. Is that because they are just not as good as male scientists? Or is something else, more subtle, going on? The bottom line is sexism exists. Just as name discrimination exits as you pointed out. And both these practices are unfair for those who are of that gender or hold that name. So, we can attribute it to this or that, but it’s happening. This study is simply trying to open the eyes of those who may believe that we live in a fair and just world. One that is an equal playing field for all (because many, sadly do feel that way. And many men I know feel that they have reached their positions of power through hard work. Which they did! But they don’t notice all the hard working women, who have worked just as hard, who do not enter their inner circle of upper management at nearly the same rate. WE ALL WORK HARD! So, why are there less women?) When individuals attack studies like this, instead of helping people wake up to the reality of sexism, that it exists and allowing for the next natural step, “Now what do we do about to?” to take place, you are simply allowing people to think that this study is not accurate based on X, Y and Z threats to internal/external validity. Therefore, they can dismiss this study and go back to thinking that the world is in order and that sexism is simply a myth invented by “crazy” feminists. That’s a very dangerous attitude to have, and one that influences others reading this page now, to question whether sexism exists. And, honestly this type of message is the opposite of good science as that attitude is in direct contrast to progress.

]]> By: Peter von Kleinsmid http://blog.nationalpartnership.org/index.php/2012/09/deeply-disturbing-study-women-in-science/comment-page-1/#comment-32620 Peter von Kleinsmid Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:37:02 +0000 http://blog.nationalpartnership.org/?p=1884#comment-32620 Did these fellows try studying any other names? Say, Cletus versus Elizabeth, or Elmer versus Victoria? Just curious... I could never stand sociology, because it always screamed, "leaping to conclusions" so loud that I couldn't take it, or anyone claiming authority about it, seriously. Which is not that I think the assumption and conclusion are incorrect in this case. I'm not surprised, though, and I am surprised that anyone thinks it to be a huge revelation. Name discrimination is also something that happens, as well - try studying Cletus and Elmer versus James and Bruce, or Elizabeth and Victoria versus Daisy and Lulu. The job role probably matters too whether a person would think them a job match. And of course, ethnic (Jesus?) and especially invented (Tyquarius? Moon Unit?) names will also have major effects, I expect because people also have strong significance attached to name types, and whether they obediently match the conventionality of corporate expectations - though there I go writing like a sociologist, again. But really, who is surprised by this, and how much did it really need a study to realize this was the case? And why did they think that they could get away with using only John and Jennifer? (I admit that John and Jennifer seem like reasonable choices for one study, but it's hardly a wide sample, and it is a slight leap to conclude it's all sexism - maybe the hiring mindset of Christians favors those with disciple names; or maybe the tabloid coverage of Jen Anniston has tainted our serious regard of Jennifers). The study reminds me of the earth-shattering German study that found that dogs will not eat food they've been told not to eat, as long as someone is watching, but will then eat it if the humans leave them alone with it. The reported shock of the researchers also reminds me of the silly claims that "no one could ever imagine terrorists could hijack planes and crash them into buildings" when of course people who thought about terror tactics had thought of that, our government had been studying such scenarios, and so on. Did these fellows try studying any other names? Say, Cletus versus Elizabeth, or Elmer versus Victoria? Just curious… I could never stand sociology, because it always screamed, “leaping to conclusions” so loud that I couldn’t take it, or anyone claiming authority about it, seriously. Which is not that I think the assumption and conclusion are incorrect in this case. I’m not surprised, though, and I am surprised that anyone thinks it to be a huge revelation. Name discrimination is also something that happens, as well – try studying Cletus and Elmer versus James and Bruce, or Elizabeth and Victoria versus Daisy and Lulu. The job role probably matters too whether a person would think them a job match. And of course, ethnic (Jesus?) and especially invented (Tyquarius? Moon Unit?) names will also have major effects, I expect because people also have strong significance attached to name types, and whether they obediently match the conventionality of corporate expectations – though there I go writing like a sociologist, again.

But really, who is surprised by this, and how much did it really need a study to realize this was the case? And why did they think that they could get away with using only John and Jennifer? (I admit that John and Jennifer seem like reasonable choices for one study, but it’s hardly a wide sample, and it is a slight leap to conclude it’s all sexism – maybe the hiring mindset of Christians favors those with disciple names; or maybe the tabloid coverage of Jen Anniston has tainted our serious regard of Jennifers). The study reminds me of the earth-shattering German study that found that dogs will not eat food they’ve been told not to eat, as long as someone is watching, but will then eat it if the humans leave them alone with it. The reported shock of the researchers also reminds me of the silly claims that “no one could ever imagine terrorists could hijack planes and crash them into buildings” when of course people who thought about terror tactics had thought of that, our government had been studying such scenarios, and so on.

]]>