SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Invited speakers at neuroimmunology conferences in 2016 were disproportionately male, and not because male scientists were producing higher quality work, according to a new study. Instead, qualified female scientists were overlooked by organizing committees. Robyn Klein, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine, of neuroscience, and of pathology and immunology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, discussed the findings, published online April 18 in Nature Immunology.
[...] There's a growing body of research showing that female scientists' contributions to their fields are often not reflected in the number of speaker invitations they receive, and that this under-recognition hurts their careers and slows the pace of scientific progress. While this bias may be unconscious, data from sources such as BiasWatchNeuro -- founded in 2015 to track the proportion of female conference speakers relative to the proportion of female faculty in the relevant field -- show that it is widespread. Encouragingly, the data also show that bringing such biases to light helps to reduce their impact.
Robyn S Klein, et al. Speaking out about gender imbalance in invited speakers improves diversity. Nature Immunology, 2017; 18 (5): 475 DOI: 10.1038/ni.3707
(Score: 1, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Sunday April 23 2017, @04:51PM (6 children)
I don't think it's clear at all (and yes, I did RTFA.)
You suggest an interesting idea, and it may be accurate, but it's a long way from observing the possibility to asserting clarity of fact.
There are multiple other problems underlying all this, starting with flaws in the general idea of "female equality" for which some of the responsibility can be laid at some of the more radical movement's feet.
For instance, it strikes me strongly that "female equality" as a worthy thing should focus on equal pay for equal work; equal opportunity within bounds of actual capability (no, you probably don't particularly want females as workers where physical strength is key... nor light-framed and/or weak males for that matter); equal opportunity to speak, vote, make choices about their own bodies and participation in whatever.
IMHO, what has most eroded the potential value of "female equality" is rejection of the male-female sexual dynamic, which has been accelerated by the strong-arm attempts to eliminate sexuality from the workplace. I'm not saying making work and sexuality mesh smoothly together is easy, but I am saying that erecting a wall between work and the sexual dynamic has turned out to be a very bad idea and that seeing the smoothest possible mesh is a far better idea than all the finger-pointing and "I am offended" nonsense that is driving workplace operations today.
The pendulum does swing, however, and I am fairly certain that as with most really bad ideas that gain temporary social footholds, these will eventually fall to proactive rejection by the disadvantaged. It's just too bad that it will harm so many more before it goes away.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 23 2017, @09:32PM (3 children)
> IMHO, what has most eroded the potential value of "female equality" is rejection of the male-female sexual dynamic,
Lolwut? You are butthurt you can't harass women at work and somehow that devalues of the concept of equality?
You literally didn't even try to make a connection between your belief and any actual results, just whined about how its self-evidently wrong.
(Score: 1) by fyngyrz on Sunday April 23 2017, @11:09PM (2 children)
I am comfortably retired, and so can have no possible present stake in harassing anyone at work, as "work" for me is right here at home. For that matter, I said nothing about harassing anyone. That was all you. I can say, however, that I've been with the same partner since I met her at work some 20 years ago. She, in turn, is the daughter of a lawyer and his secretary, whom he married.
There's a considerable difference between coercive, threatening, and oppressive behavior and normal, friendly human interaction. There's also a significant qualitative difference between people who think that interest from the opposite (or same, for that matter) sex in their person is a threat and those who learn to not be threatened, intimidated, or that oh-so-favorite word of the times, "offended."
If you can't conceive of such a difference, then you may not be able to accept what I'm telling you. However I assure you the world is replete with people who can.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24 2017, @12:13AM (1 child)
I am comfortably retired, and so can have no possible present stake in harassing anyone at work,
Yes, since you can no longer personally benefit from a return to the good old days you can't possibly be emotionally invested in a return to the old ways.
Even more revealing is that you still have yet to make a single argument as to why your interpretation of the current standards of behavior is in anyway a drag on equality.
(Score: 1) by fyngyrz on Monday April 24 2017, @12:27PM
Emotionally invested, eh? Hardly. I'm simply observing that as you people work so hard to cut yourselves off from the sexual aspects of your humanity, you're doing yourself out of a lot. I think that's sad for you and those similarly bewildered as you, but it's not sad for me in any way. You're confusing my position as an informed observer with some imaginary wish to participate – I have no wish to participate whatsoever, I am wholly content to observe. Even train wrecks are interesting.
Sorry, I thought it was blindingly obvious. But certainly I can explain.
An office environment where you can ask someone out to dinner – and they can comfortably say yes or no – is more pleasant than one where you can't. An office environment where someone doesn't come apart at the seams, possibly followed by repercussions from HR and/or management if you do ask them out to dinner is less risky for everyone. An office environment where people aren't suppressing their natural sexuality is more human. An office environment where people are confident in their self-images is healthier than one where people are frightened of their own attractiveness, and that of others.
Anything that goes against normal, non-harmful human urges in order to achieve otherwise laudable goals is a drag on actually reaching that achievement. You're in the position here of trying to accomplish laudable goal X, while requiring uncomfortable and abnormal goal Y be carried along with it. That's your drag, right there.
If equality as a movement can be mapped away from the uncomfortable and abnormal - to the needed, such as equal pay for equal work, equal opportunity for equally capable candidates, elimination of coercive behavior (which, by the way, includes telling people what they may and may not say to each other on a friendly social level), equivalent access to government, medical care, business, service... then you will be in pursuit of something uniformly valuable, laudable, worthy.
If, however, you continue to tether that to trying to make people forget that they are sexual beings during their working hours, there's your drag.
I think the fact that you need this explained to you illuminates the fundamental problem. You possess no deep understanding that healthy humanity encompasses healthy sexuality. Without that, you can't conceive of a generally human-friendly working environment, and instead wish to operate in one sterilized of personal social risk and reward, as if you were an automaton. My observation is that this is definitely not a healthy path.
The last word is yours, if you like. I've made my points.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24 2017, @03:48PM (1 child)
The pendulum does swing
rather a male-centric expression, that
(Score: 2, Funny) by fyngyrz on Tuesday April 25 2017, @12:21AM
You know when someone uses "pendulum", they're just some kind of clocksucker trying to escapement from reality. They just want to get their hands all over our numbers without ringing anyone's chimes. As that would raise an alarm.
Sorry, you got me wound up. Weighty subject.