the hard sciences are soooo sexist!

they are!! they MUST be! i mean, look right here! here’s the PROOF:

too few women physicists. it MUST be SEXISM!! DISCRIMINATION!! d*mn them!

oh, if only we all lived in a perfect society. you know, like they have in scandinavia:

“And there was some discussion why the most egalitarian country in the world had bigger differences in choice of education and careers between the sexes, than any other developed country.

“This has been called the ‘gender equality paradox’, and nobody could explain it. The common reaction was that we just had to work harder to reach our egalitarian goals. But of course, this ‘paradox’ is easily explained if one takes evolutionary psychology into consideration: Because Norway has such a high living standard that you can live a decent life also with ‘female’ jobs such as nursing, the women now choose careers that suit their psychological needs. [source, via steve sailer.]

oh. oops.

hmmmmm. so maaaaaybe there are more female psychologists and biologists than coders and physicists ’cause (apart from the iq thing) a large proportion of women prefer working with people and|or cute, fuzzy little animals rather than with sql databases and large hadron colliders.

and what the h*ck is wrong with that??

previously: science bloggers are so mean! and oh noes! and they’re at it again

(note: comments do not require an email.)

Advertisements

social scientists develop self-awareness

some social scientists (and i use that term loosely) seem to have developed some self-awareness. maybe. kinda|sorta. this nyt article is currently the #1 emailed article:

Social Scientist Sees Bias Within

“SAN ANTONIO — Some of the world’s pre-eminent experts on bias discovered an unexpected form of it at their annual meeting.

“Discrimination is always high on the agenda at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30, involved a new ‘outgroup.’

“It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

“‘This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,’ Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a ‘tribal-moral community’ united by ‘sacred values’ that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.

well, some of us have known that for yeeeeeeears. amiright?!

oh, the delicious irony of hearing that at one of their ritual gatherings conferences. (~_^)

and another thing…

“[U]niversities and the National Science Foundation went on spending tens of millions of dollars on research and programs based on the assumption that female scientists faced discrimination and various forms of unconscious bias. But that assumption has been repeatedly contradicted, most recently in a study published Monday in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by two Cornell psychologists, Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams. After reviewing two decades of research, they report that a woman in academic science typically fares as well as, if not better than, a comparable man when it comes to being interviewed, hired, promoted, financed and published.

“‘Thus,’ they conclude, ‘the ongoing focus on sex discrimination in reviewing, interviewing and hiring represents costly, misplaced effort. Society is engaged in the present in solving problems of the past.'”

heh.

previously: they’re at it again, oh noes! and science bloggers are so mean!

update: see also inductivist w/Bias among psychologists

(note: comments do not require an email.)

they’re at it again

whine, whine, b*tch, moan: “there’s not enough female science bloggers!” -or- “female science bloggers aren’t treated fairly!” [see here.]

gimme a break already!!!!!

like i said before, there’s nothing — NOTHING — stopping women from blogging about science (or contributing to wikipedia). nothing. nada. zilch. zippo.

here’s some of the more specific comments|complaints out there this time (and they’re all over the board). from thus spake zuska:

“At SciO11, Sheril Kirshenbaum, Anne Jefferson, Joanne Manaster, and Kathryn Clancy did a great session titled ‘Perils of blogging as a woman under a real name’. (See summary here.) The discussion ranged over a lot of topics, and near the end, someone in the audience said ‘I don’t want to get a [job/fellowship/grant/whatever] because of affirmative action, I want to get it on my own merits.’ I said, why do you imagine that the dudes getting those jobs now all got them all on their own merits?

“Not that they aren’t qualified, but do you imagine they had no help along the way, that there was no one pulling levers for them, no one setting them up, no one greasing the wheels for them, no one opening doors and helping them glide along? Why do we imagine everyone else who gets stuff got there all by their lonesome with no assistance from anyone else? I don’t even know what the fuck it means to get somewhere all on your own merits. You can’t even learn to wipe your own ass all on your own merits.”

well, no sh*t, sherlock! so, start networking already! obviously the merit has gotta be there in the first place. someone’s gotta be at least a halfway-decent scientist|science blogger before they’re gonna get “help along the way.” so, the talent’s gotta be there first. but then you gotta WORK THE CROWD! MAKE CONNECTIONS! SHUCK AND JIVE! do what ya gotta do to promote yourself. success is not just gonna drop in your lap!

for example:

“There’s been some buzz around the blogosphere lately about the Science Online ’11 panel on ‘Perils of blogging as a woman under a real name.’ Especially interesting to me (and a lot of other people!) was Ed Yong’s comment that while he receives lots of inquiries from male bloggers asking him to promote their work, he has never received a single message of the sort from a woman.

*facepalm* *double-facepalm*

for chrissakes! are ya’ll that retarded?!?! ya whine and b*tch and moan that no one recognises you and then you don’t even drop other bloggers a line asking for a leg-up?! this really takes the cake!! and makes ya’ll sound like a bunch of passive-aggressive girlie-girls. and i thought women were supposed to be the masters at social games!

like i said before, if you’re gonna enter the world o’ guys (and you’ve got to admit, science and science-blogging were established by guys), you’re gonna have to start acting a bit like guys if you wanna be successful. when in rome, and all that.

from the hermitage:

“There will always be people who are higher on the totem pole, who might even be kind of brilliant (or might be less brilliant than you), but will deny the parental, socio-economic, and network factors that got them there. They will insist the universe is a meritocracy and that if you can’t keep up it’s your own fault.

“I work in a field where most people had their on PC and were writing in C when me and my parents were living out of a van counting nickels to see if we could afford water or not. My list of achievements will never be long enough, my life experiences will always be too foreign, for me to be really one of them. That doesn’t mean they don’t respect me, and it doesn’t make my science any less awesome. But when I’m never put up for any award other than ones for minorities, if I’m never invited to give anything other than a diversity lecture, if I flame out and leave because I never get the same amount of recognition they do, they will rarely, if ever acknowledge, that it is anything other than my fault.”

well, welcome to reality, baby. yup. life is unfair and the “haves” don’t wanna give anything up to the “have nots.” who woulda guessed?! *facepalm* at the same time, tho, my guess is that you haven’t discovered a cure for cancer or a way for us to get to mars in a week, ’cause if you had, then you’d be gettin’ a sh*t load of recognition. if you’re really smart and talented and work hard and get lucky, you’ll become famous. otherwise, fuggedaboutit. it ain’t gonna happen for you. make your peace with it.

also, vivienne @outdoor science writes:

“First, the time issue. I think guys are better at marketing themselves because they’ve got more time. I can’t remember where (can someone find a link?), but someone argued Ed Yong spends lots of time on Twitter – this raises his profile among people who write lists of great science writers. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but Rebecca doesn’t spend that amount of time online.

“I can’t spend that amount of time tweeting either. One reason is I’m a part-time housewife trying to do a full-time job. I’m not the only woman in this position. Women do more housework than men. We do the bulk of childcare….”

all that is a matter of prioritization, obviously. you might not be able to be the #1 science blogger AND be a mom at the same time. women might have to start realizing that they can’t have it all. you just might have to make some choices in life.

finally:

“A few years ago, I was standing outside the building where I taught, unlocking my bike. It was one of the first days of the semester, and I had just finished teaching. I was wearing one of my teaching uniforms: wideleg trouser jeans, a black boatneck sweater, and beautiful forest green heels. Except in really bad weather, I wear heels when I teach because it helps me feel older, like I have some authority. Being sometimes several decades younger than my colleagues, but usually less than a decade older than my students, meant my gender and age made me a sort of sexualized second class citizen.

“An older faculty member approached me to unlock his own bike. He complained about where some students had locked their bikes because they obstructed the bike lane. He mentioned that he had told the police but that they never did anything about it. I nodded sympathetically.

“‘Of course,’ he then said, ‘if I had been dressed like you, maybe they would have listened!’

“And just like that, I was no longer a colleague. I was a woman.”

oh, pu-leeeeease! quit being a prude — use it (but don’t abuse it) to your advantage, baby! if you’re attractive (or witty or tough-as-nails or whatever), make that work for you! fortune 500 ceo’s are, on average, 3 inches taller than the average american dude. you don’t think these taller guys aren’t, at least subconsciously, using their height to their advantage?! intimidating the competition by literally towering over them?

to sum up: if you wanna be a science blogger, just do it already. if you wanna be one of the best science bloggers, start emulating the behaviors of the best science bloggers. remember, it’s gonna take a lot of work. a LOT. and let’s all start acknowleding that humans are animals, too — social animals, in fact! — and we’ll exhibit all sorts of animal behaviors in all of our walks of life — and they’ll be impossible to reign in.

previously: science bloggers are so mean!

(note: comments do not require an email.)

linkfest – 01/23/11

Mammoth ‘could be reborn in four years’

Average IQ by occupation (estimated from median income) – by mr. audacious

Roman rise and fall ‘recorded in trees’“An extensive study of tree growth rings says there could be a link between the rise and fall of past civilisations and sudden shifts in Europe’s climate.”

Dieting while pregnant can lower your baby’s IQ – (duh)

Religiosity and the origins of civilization – @evo and proud – “The causes of civilization are not to be found in early art, writing, or architecture. These are merely the consequences of a preceding mental revolution.”

Best friends forever: It’s all in our genes, say scientists – genetic similarity theory. see also Brain Genes Influence Friend Choices @futurepundit.

Blood group O ‘protects against heart attacks’

Watch out feminists: Why acting like a man at work won’t get you promoted at work

White ethnic groups more likely to vote Republican than whites in general and More on ethnicity and voting among whites from inductivist. “Americans of English/Welsh, Dutch, and German descent are significantly more likely to vote Republican, compared to other whites.”

Dumb Farmers @overcoming bias. see also If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking?

Miscellaneous musings on the Ainu, I @ahnenkult. via race|hist|evo notes.

Worm Sperm“Sperm built to resist being sucked out after copulation.” see also The sexual battles of flatworms: barbed sperm, mating rings, traumatic insemination, and going down on yourself

9,000 Years Ago, North Americans Tamed–and Ate–Dogs

repeal the 19th amendment!

at least for these chicks:

Perfect storm for GOP: Obama base stays home, white voters defect

“… Following patterns evident in Obama’s approval rating, the only segment of the white electorate that didn’t collapse for Democrats were college-educated white women. But even they tilted slightly toward the GOP….”

*facepalm*

guess they’re still having those wet dreams.

(note: comments do not require an email.)

science bloggers are so mean!

science bloggers|blogging networks are waaaaycist sexist! (god-d*mm*t, is there nowhere safe from nasty, baddy-baddy people?!?!)

it’s true! there’s PROOF!

you see, some geek compiled a list and he (oh, the irony) found (on researchblogging.org):

– 505 boy science bloggers
– 160 grrl science bloggers
– 50 grrl+boy science blogs (nudge, nudge, wink, wink!)
– 43 sex unknowns (huh? wha?)

so, yeah, that’s like … what? … for every one grrl science blogger there’s something like three boy science bloggers. (the horror! the horror!)

from seed:

“In the aggregate, it seems clear that women are—whether actively or tacitly—discouraged from blogging about science.”

yeah. right. the explanation for the fewer numbers of grrl science bloggers MUST that someone ELSE is discouraging them. it’s probably (*gasp*) SEXISM! it HAS to be!! what ELSE could it be?!

oh – and all those boy science bloggers|boy-dominated science blogging networks|boy scientists are just such meanies (“mooooommmm! timmy’s not playing nice!”):

“Kathryn Clancy, an anthropologist at the University of Illinois, recalls her transition from staying out of the limelight, reading academic blogs, to reading blogs focusing solely on science—and writing her own blog. The academic blogs she had been reading were written primarily by women, and discussed career and personal issues along with science. The science-blogging world, by contrast, was dominated by male voices. She thinks this may lead to a hostile environment for women bloggers. Women worry a lot about being attacked and threatened online: ‘It’s not just a fear of these things, it’s that these things actually happen,’ Clancy says. ‘Women are attacked for taking a stand.‘”

*facepalm*

kathryn has obviously not spent a lot of time online. women are not attacked for taking a stand online — EVERYONE is attacked for taking a stand online! that is the nature of the internet. people say things pretty freely – things they wouldn’t necessarily say to someone’s face – ’cause (for the most part) they don’t have to worry about getting punched in the nose for their comments.*

kathryn oughta spend some time on some political blogs – even “mainstream” sites like the huffington post or breitbart’s big sites. take a look at some of the comments on those sites and see who gets “attacked for taking a stand.” or maybe she should try somewhere like (heh) 4chan or (snicker) gfy.com. or how about over @ roissy’s?! i mean, just LOOK at what the mostly GUY commenters say to OTHER GUY commenters over there!

THIS is the internet, like it or not. this is also the “world o’ guys.” most guys – especially most young guys – play rough. that’s what they do. (they’re vying for position in the hierachy, dontchaknow. it’s one big, ongoing game of “king of the hill” just without an actual hill.) so, if you set yourself up in competition with guys, don’t be surprised if they don’t play nice – unless they’re trying to get into your panties (god love ’em!). if you wanna burn your bras and leave the kids at home with the guatemalan nanny so you can go out and play with the boys, then you’re gonna have to learn to play rough (if you can).

the reality is: NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU FROM HAVING A BLOG!

let me repeat that in case you missed it.

NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU FROM HAVING A BLOG!

it takes a total of, oh, five minutes max to sign up with blogger or wordpress or some other blogging platform and voila! you are a blogger. any idiot can do it! (just look at me for a shining example!)**

granted you’re probably not going to become a wired science or discover magazine blogger overnight. but that’s not how it works. most of those bloggers had been blogging INDEPENDENTLY for absolutely ages before hitting the big time.

(btw. i loved the response of both wired and discover when they were asked why they don’t have more grrl science bloggers: “Discover Magazine and Wired said they simply chose the best available bloggers, without regard to gender or other factors.” good for them! i hope they stick to those policies. then i’ll know where to go to read the best available science bloggers!)

if you’re worried about being “attacked” online and would rather blog in a safe environment where you’ve got some moral support and backup, THEN BUILD YOUR OWN NETWORK. get a bunch of grrl scientists together and JUST DO IT! (note to self: seek trademark on catchy motivational phrase i just came up with.) no one is stopping you. really.

quit whining already. you sound like a bunch of girls. (oh, wait….)

update 09/28: dave munger (the guy who compiled the data re. the grrl vs. boy science bloggers and who wrote the article @ seed) tweets, “Yes. Apparently the Web is a war zone and anyone not prepared to engage should just stay away.”

well, that’s not what i said, and certainly not what i meant, although perhaps he misunderstood me when i said anyone who feels concerned about being attacked online ought to “BUILD YOUR OWN NETWORK.” i didn’t mean such people should build their own internet – i just meant that they might consider developing their own blogging network – you know, like how seed magazine has a science blogging network or discover magazine has a science blogging network. i thought a bunch o’ gals concerned about being attacked online but interested in science blogging could, you know, get together in a group so they could support each other. “safety in numbers.”

/clarification

*update 10/05: i said, “people say things pretty freely – things they wouldn’t necessarily say to someone’s face – ’cause (for the most part) they don’t have to worry about getting punched in the nose for their comments.”

sometimes, though, you do have to worry about someone taking a shot at you – and i don’t mean with a paintball gun (note that in this case it was a man being attacked by a woman):

“Woman Travels 200+ Miles to Kill Internet Commenter”

**update 10/26: @the nyt“‘My friends keep talking to me about how they want to start a Web site, but they need to get some backing, and I look at them and ask them what they are waiting for,’ Mr. Sicha said. ‘All it takes is some WordPress and a lot of typing. Sure, I went broke trying to start it, it trashed my life and I work all the time, but other than that, it wasn’t that hard to figure out.'”

update 01/05/11: see also they’re at it again and oh noes!

update 03/10/11: see also the hard sciences are soooo sexist!

(note: comments do not require an email)

snicker, snicker, chortle, lol

US women more likely to accept climate science than men, study finds

“Aaron M McCright, an associate professor at Michigan State University’s Department of Sociology whose paper is published in the September issue of the journal Population and Environment, examined eight years of data from Gallup’s annual environment poll and found that ‘women tend to believe the scientific consensus on global warming more than men’. However, he also discovered that his findings reinforced past research which suggests women lack confidence in their science comprehension.”

sooooo, a majority of women apparently admit that their understanding of science is shaky … and yet they go ahead and believe in global warming climate change all that b*llsh*t anyways?!

*facepalm*

“‘Men still claim they have a better understanding of global warming than women, even though women’s beliefs align much more closely with the scientific consensus,’ he said. McCright added that the gender divide is likely to be explained by ‘gender socialisation’: boys learn that masculinity emphasises detachment, control and mastery, whereas girls develop traits of attachment, empathy and care.”

most women are more social than men … in other words, they’re more likely to be sheeple. (amiright?!) not a big surprise then that, on the whole, they back the latest, trendy meme whatever it happens to be (global warming, obama, yoga – although not necessarily in that order).

the article continues with a quote from the original research paper:

“Perhaps, as some suggest (e.g., Smith 2001), gender is not as important for explaining environmental concern as is a feminist orientation. Somma and Tolleson-Rinehart (1997) find that individuals – both women and men – who support feminist goals express greater environmental concern.

do i look surprised?

(note: comments do not require an email)