Another article about sex and choice in STEM.
http://quillette.com/2018/02/15/sex-stem-stubborn-facts-stubborn-ideologies/
Another article about sex and choice in STEM.
http://quillette.com/2018/02/15/sex-stem-stubborn-facts-stubborn-ideologies/
OK, I just skimmed. But this stuck out:
Speaking of stubborn facts, this is factually incorrect in a number of ways.
First, proponents believe that pervasive negative stereotypes do more than undermine women’s performance; they undermine evaluation of women’s performance. What’s the difference? It’s the difference between my coming up with bad ideas in meetings because I know my peers think women produce worse ideas, and my coming up with great ideas in meetings which are ignored because I’m a woman. Both of these will impede women.
Secondly, it’s not true that activists think only STEM fields where men outnumber women are affected by pervasive negative stereotypes. Any activist would say that pervasive negative stereotypes about sex differences are everywhere. Pervasive stereotypes can impede women in female-dominated fields too-- maybe in management in nursing for example. And pervasive stereotypes can impede men in female-dominated fields.
https://newrepublic.com/article/119239/transgender-people-can-explain-why-women-dont-advance-work describes how transgender people observe differences in evaluation and treatment based on having experienced the effects of being both genders.
Here is an example from the article:
However, being male is not always an advantage in how one is evaluated or treated by others:
I’ve read this before and it still shocks me.
I’ve never noticed being treated differently as a woman in architecture than a man, but I have gravitated to a business model that worked for me when my kids were little. Solo-practitioner. Mostly small projects. A lot of kitchens and bathrooms where the main point person is another woman.
I remember reading several years ago, about how orchestras started hiring more women when try outs were behind curtains – so there was some (perhaps unconscious) bias against women that led the conductors – or whoever hires the instrumentalists – to judge the men as better musicians than the women. There is gender bias everywhere.
Regarding the blind auditions to hire musicians, they also had the musicians remove their shoes before entering the curtained area, so that the different sounds made by gender-associated shoes walking on a hard floor would not influence the judges.
The blind auditions for orchestras made an immediate and dramatic change in gender composition of new instrumentalists. Moreover, since orchestras adopted the blind auditions at different times, a natural experiment, we can easily see that the blind audition, and not some general change in how women were trained or how they were regarded, was the cause of the change.
Undoubtedly, the evaluators would have said that they were making decisions gender-blind before the screens were introduced. But they weren’t. They had unconscious biases that made them genuinely believe that the women who auditioned were worse musicians.
so interesting. and i read somewhere that everyone was surprised that a young woman won the vietnam memorial design competition-- but that she probably only had a chance because it was a blind competition…
I didn’t realize working to address historical disparities and clear implicit (and explicit) bias is considered “obsession.”
Also- how many plumbers in general do you know with a platform to even advocate for change? Scholars and the rich have that platform. My plumber dad encouraged women to get involved in the trades, including his own daughters.
I encourage people to read this profiling one of the authors of this piece: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10961555/Give-up-on-gender-equality-in-the-sciences-at-school.html
Some gems include
The first computers WERE female. It wasn’t until software design rose in prestige that it became a more male-dominated field.
There are so many assumptions in that, I don’t even know where to begin.