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.)

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