Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Antioch]

https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/newsroom/newsn/2700/new-research-proves-gender-bias-extraordinarily-prevalent-in-stem-careers

The experiment, done on both female and male hiring managers showed that when the hiring manager had no other information other than a candidate’s gender, they were twice as likely to hire a man than a woman, because they incorrectly believed that men are more talented in science and math, the researchers found. This bias often led to hiring the less–capable job seeker.

when the candidates were allowed to tell the managers how well they will perform; women were still only half as likely to be hired as men, the study showed. Unlike men, women who indicated that they will score higher that their competitors were overlooked.

When hiring managers were given information about the candidates’ actual performance, the bias against women was reduced, but not eliminated

Or in short: On first impression, men are twice as likely to be given a job when no information is available, twice as likely to be given a job when told about past experience (aka, the entire point of a resume) with those women who claimed to do well passed over, and even with hard stats available, men were more likely to be hired.


And not only are there studies well-documenting sexism in STEM fields; there are even studies about how men ignore studies like the above: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/43/13201.full.pdf

Actually the results seem to vary widely.

The results suggest challenges in fairly evaluating gender bias research. People may unintentionally ignore evidence if it conflicts with their social identities or prior beliefs. Special care should be taken to seek disconfirming evidence. For instance, the new paper made claims about “robust gender biases documented repeatedly,” but could have also noted the vigorous scholarly debate about such claims.

The paper argues that “numerous experimental findings” provide “copious evidence” of gender bias. But studies have found mixed evidence. For instance, the paper notes an experiment showing bias against female psychology tenure-track applicants. But experiments conducted 15+ years later show opposite results. In fact, several studies show a preference for female applicants in real-world faculty searches, not just hypothetical ones.

Article has links.

http://theconversation.com/men-and-women-biased-about-studies-of-stem-gender-bias-in-opposite-directions-48924

I think recent cultural changes might very well have had a profound impact that might make older research obsolete. Businesses and universities have recently been extremely pressed to hire more women.

edit: like this article also covers: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/8/3157

[Bohandas]

original sin male privilege

LOL! That's perfect!

[RedKing]

I'm starting to pick up a distinct whiff of MRA in this thread. Let's not go there.

That really isn't an argument.

I didn't realize every statement had to be an argument. It was just a cautionary statement.


It's one thing to argue that the problem isn't as bad as people think, and/or that quotas are not the proper response. It's another to start wailing about how poor, oppressed men lose jobs to unqualified, lazy women. Which is where it felt like certain posters were headed.

[Antioch]

I'm starting to pick up a distinct whiff of MRA in this thread. Let's not go there.

That really isn't an argument.

I didn't realize every statement had to be an argument. It was just a cautionary statement.


It's one thing to argue that the problem isn't as bad as people think, and/or that quotas are not the proper response. It's another to start wailing about how poor, oppressed men lose jobs to unqualified, lazy women. Which is where it felt like certain posters were headed.

I have not called men poor nor opressed and neither are women. But yes I do state that qualified people (who cares if they are men or woman) are going to unfairly be denied jobs to less qualified people when it becomes mandatory to select appointees based on gender instead of merit.

I fail to see how stating an inevitable result of a policy is "something else" compared to the rest of the issue.

[RedKing]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIyewCdXMzk

[Antioch]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIyewCdXMzk

well DO you think it is fair to reject someone based on their ethnic group?

In my book that is called racism.

In fact I think measures like the one in that video only act to strengthen the idea that people are "different" because they belong to a different minority. People are not fucking special because they "are" black, neither are they fucking special because they "are" white.

why do people even say it like that, "I am" black or "I am" white. I HAVE white skin and I HAVE dark blond hair, I am not defined by it.

[RedKing]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIyewCdXMzk

well DO you think it is fair to reject someone based on their ethnic group?

In my book that is called racism.

In fact I think measures like the one in that video only act to strengthen the idea that people are "different" because they belong to a different minority. People are not fucking special because they "are" black, neither are they fucking special because they "are" white.

why do people even say it like that, "I am" black or "I am" white. I HAVE white skin and I HAVE dark blond hair, I am not defined by it.

Because other people *do* define you by it. And in the South, being defined as black meant being defined as "undesirable" to a large number of people.

Likewise, there's a historical resistance to hiring women in a number of careers as well. Just look at the pushback on women in combat roles in the US military. I think they're pushing back harder on women than they did on gays.

[Reelya]

Interesting article about how affirmative action policies in education can backfire in a big way.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/

[Willfor]

Reelya, I am really, really trying not to think of you as someone who is obsessed with telling people to stop talking about any issues they might face in regards to discrimination whatsoever, and would just like some confirmation that this is not what you are, in fact, trying to say.

[nullBolt]

This video is very interesting.

It's from a Norwegian television studio and they try to investigate the gender bias concept. As men and women get more equal and as economic freedom opens up, men gravitate to male careers and women gravitate towards female careers. India is pretty much 50/50 in any career that pays well (and if you try to claim there's no gender discrimination in India, you're pulling my leg) whilst the West tends to have massive 90:10 gender balances in favour of men or women.

[Reelya]

Reelya, I am really, really trying not to think of you as someone who is obsessed with telling people to stop talking about any issues they might face in regards to discrimination whatsoever, and would just like some confirmation that this is not what you are, in fact, trying to say.

What? How any I stopping people talk about anything? By presenting research articles that don't confirm with your beliefs?

[Willfor]

Reelya, I am really, really trying not to think of you as someone who is obsessed with telling people to stop talking about any issues they might face in regards to discrimination whatsoever, and would just like some confirmation that this is not what you are, in fact, trying to say.

What? How any I stopping people talk about anything? By presenting research articles that doesn't confirm with your beliefs?

What?

I am asking you because you keep bringing stuff up like "Saying there are problems is creating confirmation biases that create further problems." Unless I am misreading you. That's why I asked for clarification. Please give clarification because I do not understand the logic of what you are bringing all of these links up for and I would like to. This is non-hostile, serious-post-mode Willfor. I am trying to understand you.

[Reelya]

For the current page, I'm assuming you're talking about the research that people were previously discussing which shows men have confirmation bias. But to make that argument, you need to basically ignore identical research which shows that women also suffer from confirmation bias in a similar amount. Sure, you could say that you think the women are more right than the men, but that's no longer an objective statement based on the evidence of the research - your injecting an opinion analysis into it and outright rejecting half the data because it doesn't fit what you believe.

So we have articles pointing out that men are more critical of research articles they don't agree with, but those same articles omit to mention equivalent research showing women aren't any different. In fact, the article-writers are themselves taking sides and ignoring research which they're not happy with.

It doesn't even matter which side I agree with, but using confirmation bias itself (ignoring research you don't agree with) to make an argument about other people having confirmation bias is pretty silly. I never said anyone here did that, but the people who wrote those articles definitely did that.

[Willfor]

Ahh, I was misreading your tone, that's what was happening. You've been seeming very hostile in this thread, and I was curious why.

I kind of thing you're overreading into a bunch of things, but that's fine. I accept that women have confirmation biases. I am not sure which studies this actually effects though as it's a problem that's only coming up recently because it's only starting to make an impact, and requires more research as to whether it is a cultural artifact of the fact that women are so often pitted against each other in society.

[Reelya]

Huh? Other people in this thread have been name-calling and throwing out what look like personal accusations, I never did anything like that.

I even told someone to stop harassing someone I disagreed with back on page 3 btw. Maybe you can let me know which posts you thought were hostile?

EDIT: I just read over all my posts to be sure. Looking over them, pretty much everything is in the third person and citing articles/research from elsewhere. I try and be careful to always keep the content of my posts about the research and not about other posters in the thread. So I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I'm a source of hostility. About the most hostile action I've taken is to say "ok, but this research paints a different picture".