Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Monday April 20 2015, @11:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the gender-equality dept.

A Chemistry World article summarizes a study by Cornell University psychologists Wendy Williams and Stephen Ceci finding that faculty members asked to evaluate hypothetical male and female applicants for assistant professorships in biology, engineering, economics, and psychology gave preference to female applicants. Quoting the study:

The underrepresentation of women in academic science is typically attributed, both in scientific literature and in the media, to sexist hiring. Here we report five hiring experiments in which faculty evaluated hypothetical female and male applicants, using systematically varied profiles disguising identical scholarship, for assistant professorships in biology, engineering, economics, and psychology. Contrary to prevailing assumptions, men and women faculty members from all four fields preferred female applicants 2:1 over identically qualified males with matching lifestyles (single, married, divorced), with the exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference. Comparing different lifestyles revealed that women preferred divorced mothers to married fathers and that men preferred mothers who took parental leaves to mothers who did not. Our findings, supported by real-world academic hiring data, suggest advantages for women launching academic science careers.

The article concludes:

To be hired, women must first apply and the authors question whether ‘omniprescent and discouraging’ messages about sexism in academic appointments makes them reluctant to do so.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @03:45AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @03:45AM (#173383)

    Don't worry too much. Immature is one of those words that is used right now to specifically label and shame anyone that does not conform with a certain worldview.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +5  
       Insightful=4, Informative=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Marand on Tuesday April 21 2015, @04:58AM

    by Marand (1081) on Tuesday April 21 2015, @04:58AM (#173393) Journal

    Don't worry too much. Immature is one of those words that is used right now to specifically label and shame anyone that does not conform with a certain worldview.

    "Toxic" and "problematic" are popular ones, too. Plus the old favourites like shouting "racism!" to shut down discussions regardless of relevance. You could probably make a Bullshit Bingo card out of this stuff. Example:

    "CoolHand's problematic editing is toxic to SN; I feel his lack of maturity and subtle racism is very oppressive."
    "BINGO!"

    Instead of getting bothered by it and trying to defend yourself, just see how many you can collect. :)

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @11:38AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @11:38AM (#173481)

      Ohh and my favorite: Micro-Aggressions

      There is also the twin headed SJW and MRA mocking, misogyny of course, something something privilege, blaming the patriarchy, and the now classic fox news technique of phrasing in the form of a question.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @02:19PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 21 2015, @02:19PM (#173531)
        And in the end, it always devolves into accusations of fedoras and neckbeards.