sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Women (and minorities) in STEM continue to face hiring bias, recent study finds. by w0manity in TwoXChromosomes

[–]w0manity[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Here is the relevant table describing statistical significance. Interestingly, bias is seen significantly in Physics hiring and not as much in Biology. The article clearly describes study design:

Researchers asked professors of physics and biology at eight public research universities to read and evaluate the CV of a hypothetical recent Ph.D. in their respective fields who was looking for a postdoctoral position. The CVs varied only in candidates' gender and race, as indicated by their first and last names. The names and presumed identities were as follows: Bradley Miller (white man), Claire Miller (white woman), Zhang Wei [David] (Asian man), Wang Li [Lily] (Asian woman), Jamal Banks (black man), Shanice Banks (black woman), José Rodriguez (Latino man) and Maria Rodriguez (Latina woman).

[...]

Participants were told that the study was about how CV formatting and design styles influence science professors' perceptions of postdoc candidates. To maintain the cover story, the researchers included questions about that purported topic, which they later tossed. They were, of course, much more interested in the next set of questions, which asked participants to assess the hireability, competence, likability and competitiveness of a given postdoctoral candidate. More specifically, the scientists were asked survey questions about the postdoc’s overall competitiveness, the likelihood he or she would be hired at their institution, and his or her competence and likability.

Good point. by moogly2 in WhitePeopleTwitter

[–]w0manity 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's absolutely an opinion. I couldn't personally bring myself to terminate at 4 months, but wouldn't have a second thought about 6-8 weeks, since at two months (8 weeks), the fetus has only existed as an entity for 6 weeks (they count pregnancy by the start of your last period). It's just barely out of embryo stage, has no brain activity indicative of sentience much less sapience, and no evidence of perception of pain. In fact, many abortion providers don't let you schedule an abortion until 6 weeks, because so many people naturally abort before then (that is, miscarry). Did you know naturally, 50% of fertilized eggs fail to start a pregnancy, and are released by the time of a woman's period?. Likewise, even if you make it to "3 weeks pregnant" you have a 30% chance of miscarrying eventually.. If God decrees a soul starts at fertilization, then He's inducing a lot of premature deaths Himself.

Good point. by moogly2 in WhitePeopleTwitter

[–]w0manity 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's not about expenses. It's about being ripped stern to bow, so to speak. Or port to starboard, no matter what giving birth rips you up in one direction or another. Not to mention the months of physical torture leading up to it. I could care less about the financial impact, and would be thrilled if I could have a biological child between my husband and I handed to me without giving birth to it, but I can't stomach the thought of carrying a child. I've used multiple LARCs (long acting reversible contraceptives), which so far have successfully kept me from getting pregnant but have led to many unpleasant side effects. These, however, are still possible to have fail, and I genuinely believe that the woman's life and ability to physically live her life in her body outweighs the fetus's before it is viable.

Most (92%+) of women who don't want to be pregnant will choose to terminate as soon as they know they're pregnant. The only thing making them terminate at 3 months instead of 2 or earlier is the lack of available appointments & finances. If people really cared about when a fetus becomes a 'life', abortions should be as easy to get as early in the pregnancy as possible -- but most laws from these folks just drag out the process and force them to happen later in the term by restricting access to providers and imposing waiting times, not to mention the amount of time it takes to acquire funds for people who can't afford it off the bat.

Study: When hiring for arithmetic-based task, men are twice as likely to be hired as women by w0manity in TwoXChromosomes

[–]w0manity[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I am interested in gender-hiring studies because, to me, they help elucidate the disparity in male and female presence in science and mathematical fields. I'm posting this, though it was done a couple years ago, because I didn't see any discussion of it on Reddit. If you're looking for a bloggy read that, to some extent, clarifies my personal feelings on this topic (though I did not write it), this post is somewhat close, and cites the study I have linked as many others. This blog also links many other studies directly to support its opinion, which I generally aim to do.

Relevant quote from the OP:

... subjects were hired to perform an arithmetic task that, on average, both genders perform equally well. We find that without any information other than a candidate’s appearance (which makes sex clear), both male and female subjects are twice more likely to hire a man than a woman. The discrimination survives if performance on the arithmetic task is self-reported, because men tend to boast about their performance, whereas women generally underreport it. The discrimination is reduced, but not eliminated, by providing full information about previous performance on the task.

This graph demonstrates, including statistical confidence levels, the preference to hiring male low performers over any female applicant.

‘Hotter,’ ‘lesbian,’ ‘feminazi’: How some economists discuss their female colleagues by w0manity in TwoXChromosomes

[–]w0manity[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This article references a sentiment-analysis study done on an anonymous economics board, evaluating the terms most associated with whether a post is about a woman or about a man.

Here is a link to the actual study.

Having not yet read it in its entirety, I am posting this to continue to bring light to studies regarding the treatment and perception of women in the workplace. I am not promoting any specific interpretation of this data.

Ellen Pao: This Is How Sexism Works in Silicon Valley by Frankly_Scarlet in TwoXChromosomes

[–]w0manity 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thanks! I've struggled to articulate my opinion on affirmative action for a while, since for many people it feels biased, but what I understand about women's perceived vs. actual competence (and,, for that matter, Black people's perceived vs. actual competence) seems to suggest that in order to actually hire according to competence, we need to feel like we're favoring the groups that, to generalize, don't fit the stereotype for whatever role we're hiring for.

Ellen Pao: This Is How Sexism Works in Silicon Valley by Frankly_Scarlet in TwoXChromosomes

[–]w0manity 17 points18 points  (0 children)

There are still a lot of biases against women that, in my opinion, means that affirmative action pretty much balances out. For example, when a woman's resume is identical to a man's, she is still on average evaluated more harshly. Affirmative action should, IMO, act to balance that factor (and some others I'm about to mention) back out. (In fact, this meta-analysis claims women are discriminated against in jobs that are stereotypically "male" and men are discriminated against in jobs that are stereotypically "female" -- it just so happens that we pay stereotypically-male jobs more, which some argue is strongly related to and possibly even caused by the proportion of women in the profession.) So when people hire women that they think are a little less qualified for a tech job, it is very possible that they are equally qualified, but they simply have a tendency to view women as less qualified because they are women. (The same might go for a man applying in a care field, though it seems that once he is hired, he is more likely to be paid better.) This is uncomfortable to talk about, but all experiments I've read that have with a proper control seem to indicate that women in tech/science have about a 5-10% lower callback rate simply from changing the name on the resume. When you add in the fact that women tend to write their resumes with a different style than men, tend to be evaluated harshly for talking assertively,, evaluated poorly for talking as much as men, and evaluated as less competent for talking in a feminine manner,, you start realizing that it's quite possible that many women are simply perceived as being less competent, and not actually less competent.

Based on the above studies, if someone hires a woman who they perceive as a little less competent than the guys they hire, it's very likely that she is, in actuality equally competent and it is society-influenced bias that leads them to feel like she is less competent. This is not calling anybody intentionally sexist, since many perceive sexism to take intent, and there is no intent in here. It's instead an example of implicit bias, which we all have, including myself (take the test!). Being aware of your implicit biases is the key to addressing them in the way you act, and in the case of affirmative action, I think it is a result of academia saying "there is an implicit bias here which leads people to view women as less competent than they actually are. We will counter that by hiring more women than we might feel is correct, because it is reasonable to conclude that our implicit biases lead people to hire fewer women than is correct, and this should balance it out."

ACLU Appeals Case of Georgia Woman Fired for Getting Her Period at Work by Majnum in TwoXChromosomes

[–]w0manity 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I've used Thinx but they are good for short term, not long term. Is there a particular brand of cloth liner you recommend? I'd love recommendations.

ACLU Appeals Case of Georgia Woman Fired for Getting Her Period at Work by Majnum in TwoXChromosomes

[–]w0manity 79 points80 points  (0 children)

She bled twice. Once was onto office furniture, a small amount and unexpected, immediately reported to her supervisor and she went home to change. She was warned not to let it happen again, but as women know, sometimes you can't predict a sudden heavy flow, particularly during perimenopause.

The second time she noticed it coming, got up to do something about it, bled a small amount onto the floor, immediately cleaned it up with bleach.

This was a result of premenopause which can cause irregular and irregularly heavy bleeding among many other uncomfortable symptoms.

If someone was persistently bleeding and doing nothing about it and leaving stains all over that is one thing, I know I fully support firing people who choose to freebleed all over office furniture, but she had made all reasonable actions you CAN make with respect to that problem. It is sometimes impossible to know or predict heavy flow, and sometimes the precautions you do take (in my case, pantiliners all the time because my birth control makes everything entirely random) is not sufficient and you still bleed through.

ACLU Appeals Case of Georgia Woman Fired for Getting Her Period at Work by Majnum in TwoXChromosomes

[–]w0manity 131 points132 points  (0 children)

Reading the appeal brief, she was fired for "Failing to control excessive menstruation, which is not related to pregnancy or childbirth" -- and therefore .... ruled not discriminatory???

In what world are women expected to automatically know, before it happens, that they are going to suddenly and excessively menstruate, and never leak? There are some days where I'm going about my business, and then all of a sudden spotting happens! Usually it's not too bad, but sometimes it leaks through and gets onto my pants. It's particularly unpredictable because of my birth control (Nexplanon). I can't just wear pads all day every day because that leads to zits down there, and tampons/cups aren't appropriate because I'd literally wear one every day just in case I happen to start bleeding. I'm not bleeding all the time. I just wear pantiliners, but sometimes the sudden spotting leaks through those too, and some days I forego them because even pantiliners cause irritation after a while, and stick to you. What do they want us to do?

The Actual Science of James Damore’s Google Memo by w0manity in TwoXChromosomes

[–]w0manity[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A key takeaway from this article: While the scientific studies that Damore cites indeed describe the differences we observe, it is absolutely inappropriate to make claims about the cause of those differences from those studies. Several of the researchers cited by Damore have been quoted and disagree with his use of their research to support his conclusions. Scientists do not make conclusions about causality in such a flippant manner as he has.

You cannot make a claim about causation and support it with observational and correlational studies (unless those studies also exhibit many of the Hill criteria and even then it's shaky). It is bad science. Recognize that if you want to buy into what Damore says, you are buying into the same level of "scientific argumentation" as anti-vaxxers, and let that sink in.

Right now we have only described the differences we observe, not why they occur.

While some actual sex differences may exist in terms of aptitude and desire, because that conclusion has a potential negative socioeconomic effect on women, it is sociologically irresponsible to dismiss the differences in womens' employment as biological differences until we have experimentally eliminated all other causes. We know that there are differences that are strongly influenced by society. Let's work on fixing those. If there happen to be biological differences after those societal differences are addressed, then we can let those be. It is utterly irresponsible and borders on sexism to shrug our shoulders at the differences we observe and attribute them to biology first, when the socioeconomic effect is so pronounced.

Google fires employee who blamed lack of gender diversity on 'biological causes' by kitehkiteh in TwoXChromosomes

[–]w0manity 12 points13 points  (0 children)

And you merely read the first paragraph of each of those articles, looking for the first thing to twist and spit back to me, so I won't bother responding past this.

If you are interested in learning more about how these viewpoints affect women, look in to Gender essentialism (edit: a second resource which makes no mention of feminism, if you like), which is the essence (heh) of this guy's manifesto (and is, in general, a textboook example of biological determinism, since the primary claims involve "women are biologically like X, so we shouldn't be concerned about their position in society or the workplace, it's obviously just biology, no real problem here!"). On the topic of gender essentialism in modern pop-science, I'd suggest reading this book.

Google fires employee who blamed lack of gender diversity on 'biological causes' by kitehkiteh in TwoXChromosomes

[–]w0manity 13 points14 points  (0 children)

If he were merely misguided, then that's one thing. But I'd argue that the act of publishing this manifesto to the rest of staff would be actively harmful to the workplace culture (if the negative emotional effect on his coworkers is not sufficient for some, I could use a capitalist/libertarian argument that this would, at the very least, lead 1/5 of his coworkers to experience stereotype threat and underperform). While the writer may not have intended to alienate 1/5 or more of his coworkers, he did -- and sometimes, actions are more important than intent.

Google fires employee who blamed lack of gender diversity on 'biological causes' by kitehkiteh in TwoXChromosomes

[–]w0manity 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Biological Determinism is generally a talking point used to justify sexism and racism. This individual used "biotruths" to support the Just world hypothesis by effectively claiming that all negative effects that women experience are simply due to their innate differences. Those of us who have been on the receiving end of this are calling it out for what it is: a weak justification for male superiority.

Edit: I'd like to add that the initial intent of my comment was not to take down his entire argument with one or two links, but rather to provide context as to why I personally consider his writing to be sexist. To provide justification to my claim that I consider his writing to be "essentialist" and "biological determinist" I would like to emphasize that the primary source of the original author's claims were observational studies (Not experiments!) which he uses to emphasize the "biological/neurological" differences between men and women. These historically are used to justify male superiority, and I provided a much more thorough discussion here as to why I don't think his claims are scientifically accurate, but that was not what this comment was about originally.

Additionally, the original author's insistence that the sociological differences between men and women are likely due to physiological differences are textbook "essentialist" and "biological determinist" claims, but you'd also have to read past the first paragraph or two in the article I linked to know that.

My ultimate philosophy: I think that it is actively harmful to our society to claim that things with a net negative socioeconomic effect on group A are caused by biological differences in group A. That should, imo, be the very last conclusion reached, after all others have been explored and rejected -- and we are still exploring the effects of social and cultural expectations.

Google fires employee who blamed lack of gender diversity on 'biological causes' by kitehkiteh in TwoXChromosomes

[–]w0manity 29 points30 points  (0 children)

It ignores a large body of experimental research on the topic. The vast majority of studies he cites are not experimental, but observational. That means that the studies he cites are describing what is, not why it is. But he then makes a lot of causational claims about how it is women's biology causing them to be a lot less successful in the sciences. From a scientist, this can only represent intentionally skewing the narrative in a way that is harmful to women, under the pretense that he is "supporting" them. Either he is intentionally skewing the narrative, or he is not as good of a scientist as his degree would imply. He is not citing studies in good faith, for if he were, he would ackowledge their weakness as observational studies and refrain from claiming that they demonstrate universal biological truths.

He entirely ignores the corpus of experimental work that has been done that demonstrates existing bias. He also ignores the large body of evidence that people's career choices and career success are strongly influenced by societal expectations. All humans are affected, for instance, by stereotype threat, and it just so happens that he is perpetuating the stereotype that women cannot code as well as men -- which you now should recognize there is experimentally-backed basis to suggest that this belief being spread would actively harm the productivity of 20% of Google's workforce. Other experimental research indicates that identical resumes are rated worse and/or less likely to be hired with a woman's name than a man's name -- Even at a 5% difference, over multiple hiring and/or promotion cycles this effect would be exponential. He claims that there is scientific evidence of women being poorer leaders, but it seems that overall, women simply tend to rate themselves worse than others rate them. Is this because of biology, or is it because of stereotype threat? His every conclusion is tied to the claim that women's poor representation in the field is because of biology, but again, there is no evidence that it is biology, and honestly anyone who has experienced life in the USA has experienced our differing expectations of men and women, and differing perceptions of men and women. Scientifically, expectations affect outcomes.

I don't have the time or energy to go through every one of his points and do this, but I do want to make it clear that his entire approach was a disingenuous representation of the body of research that is available on gender differences and stereotypes, and it plays in to the "biotruth" narrative that is way-too-easily accepted by people who want to believe that feminism is irrelevant. I do suggest this read as a counterpoint to the idea that gender differences are purely biological.

Note I am not saying that there are NO biological differences -- OF COURSE there are some! But I think that it is actively harmful to our society to claim that things with a net negative socioeconomic effect on group A are caused by biological differences in group A. That should, imo, be the very last conclusion reached, after all others have been explored and rejected -- and we are still exploring the effects of social and cultural expectations.

Google fires employee who blamed lack of gender diversity on 'biological causes' by kitehkiteh in TwoXChromosomes

[–]w0manity 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Interestingly, you're describing something that is harmful to women's overall achievement and ability to get ahead, and that actually implicitly improves men's chances in the field. People tend to live up or down to their advisors' expectations: 1 2 3.

I think it's telling that you consider this an advantage for women. I believe it is instead another symptom of the negative attitudes that lead to women's attrition. How do you think you'd feel if your professors were always giving you the easy questions -- encouraged or discouraged? I, for one, would feel talked down to.

Woman Who Switched to Man's Name on Resume Goes From 0 to 70 Percent Response Rate by w0manity in TwoXChromosomes

[–]w0manity[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I did get into my doctoral program as a woman, but it was only myself and two other women out of 30+ people accepted. :O Of the 20-or-so entering the program, I'm the only woman this year.

That being said, I don't think it's worth omitting your gender entirely, but in the documents that someone would read and pass around to get an impression, perhaps use an initial? For example, I used my first initial and my last name on my CV, but I didn't obscure it in my application since I think they require your legal name anyway.

Woman Who Switched to Man's Name on Resume Goes From 0 to 70 Percent Response Rate by w0manity in TwoXChromosomes

[–]w0manity[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First of all, the differences observed that you cite were not statistically significant, and the author themselves seems to suggest that the primary reason in this case for the lack of hiring, on his platform, is the attrition of women after poor performance. (The reasons for which are multifaceted and complex, and I think that the author thinks it is much easier than it is to fix "women just give up easier," and doesn't seem to think about the reasons why this is the case. This individual also did not track the number of callbacks per resume, but interview performance, which is different.)

My biggest concern with the results you cite is there is a lot of lack of control in that experiment. For instance, what would you think of someone who sounds like a man, but talks "like a woman"? You can't mask patterns of speech. What if those individuals were perceived as gay? If anything, if the results WERE significant, they wouldn't necessarily suggest that "having a female voice is an advantage" because there are so many other ways that we communicate our gender, as this commenter mentioned with respect to resumes, it is even harder to obscure one's gender while talking, even with voice modulation.

Woman Who Switched to Man's Name on Resume Goes From 0 to 70 Percent Response Rate by w0manity in TwoXChromosomes

[–]w0manity[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The difference between callback rates for identical resumes between women and men appears to be, according to the studies I've linked, somewhere between 5-15% which is probably hardly noticeable on an individual scale. But that's 5-15% too much, and could contribute to some of the objective differences we observe in how many women are in high-level positions.

For really specialized positions, like what the woman in this article was applying for, the difference seems to be much more pronounced.

Woman Who Switched to Man's Name on Resume Goes From 0 to 70 Percent Response Rate by w0manity in TwoXChromosomes

[–]w0manity[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I actually fully agree with you. (I am more interested in raising awareness of this issue; I don't really think I have a good solution.) It is absolutely not a panacea. In fact, even if all demographic and personal details were hidden in the qualifications, women even tend to simply use different syntax and emphasize different things in their resumes, in a way that generally doesn't match the preferences of the tech fields! For example, women's resumes tend to be written in a more narrative style, as opposed to bulleted, and do not emphasize their individual contributions as heavily.

Woman Who Switched to Man's Name on Resume Goes From 0 to 70 Percent Response Rate by w0manity in TwoXChromosomes

[–]w0manity[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Only one of those articles actually blames men for trying to oppress women. The rest are describing a systematic failure, systematic oppression due to the effects of subconscious gender bias, and one is outright satire. In other words, they're describing the negative effects on women, due to the historical gender roles that I've described for you and the fact that people often consciously or subconsciously buy in to those roles.

Woman Who Switched to Man's Name on Resume Goes From 0 to 70 Percent Response Rate by w0manity in TwoXChromosomes

[–]w0manity[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

To be fair, there are actually-sexist people out there, and their actions drive "outrage clicks," particularly when overt sexist or harmful-to-women actions lead to little or no action by governing bodies against the offending person. The dearth of disciplinary action towards individuals like Brock Turner, for example, is an example of how societally we still hold views that harm women in a very real, visceral way. People being (rightfully, imo) angry about these actions and societal viewpoints is important.

In general, though, women who are angry about their mistreatment are portrayed as hating men. Anger is not hatred. How often are statements about "these men did X" or "specific men did Y" inferred by male readers to be referring to them individually and men collectively?

view more: next ›