Gender Bias 101 For Mathematicians
ilaba.wordpress.com
ilaba.wordpress.com
From a link in the article:
Renowned conductors have asserted that female musicians have "smaller techniques," are more temperamental and are simply unsuitable for orchestras
I think that "simply unsuitable for orchestras" is vague and unquantifiable, but "smaller techniques" and "more temperamental" seem like assertions that could be challenged.
I have a general concept of what "smaller technique" means, is this something that is difficult to measure in a standard audition? Do female musicians in fact have "smaller technique" in general?
Are female musicians "more temperamental" than male musicians in general? Is there a male equivalent of a "diva", if not does that support the assertion that female musicians are more temperamental? Can you determine how temperamental someone is from a blind audition? Is temperament a valid reason to not hire someone?
To me, these senior conductors, scientists, etc. are asserting that, in general, women differ from men in certain dimensions that factor into hiring decisions but are not detectable in initial screening process.
If you really want to end sexism, I feel like these sorts of questions need to be asked and answered. My observation of the subject is that many people have an intuition, gut feeling, opinion formed from personal experience, etc. that men and women in general have innate differences that make men (or women) more suitable for certain functions.
The ONLY way that gender bias will ever end is to challenge these ideas and in fact show that these innate differences do not exist.
On the other hand, if gender differences do exist, then fighting gender bias is an eternal struggle that will never end. It is human nature to min / max and game the system.
Sounds like you'd like to ignore the science to the contrary and just rely on your gut.
You're entitled to that, but I've found science to have a lot of usefulness.
For what it's worth, I think one of the points of the blog post is that this bias is more difficult to spot than Claudus's statement would imply, and I tend to agree with that.
The problem is that if you really do proper scientific examination of mental capabilities between genders and races you might not like the results. Results might turn out to be ugly and incompatible with the modern democracy. What will we do then?
We think people should be treated equally not because they are the same, but because they deserve equal consideration. Women are people and they deserve to be treated as such. Frankly the way I see it the cost of dehumanising half the population is far higher than potentially employing people who belong to a group that has on average less 'mental capabilities' than another.
Further unless your study shows that all men have stronger 'mental capabilities' than all women* it still makes sense to evaluate on a case by case bases and not generalisations, even if we only think about hiring the 'best' person for the job. To pass over someone who is talented because they happen to be the same gender as people who had a lower average score in some intelligence test doesn't make sense even thinking only about getting the best person for the job.
There are many studies about significant differences between twins caused by a single gene expression. There are studies about differences in physical properties, mental abilities and inherited diseases linked to genes of ethnic/racial groups - I believe the Ashkenazi case is the most popular, but there are others. And there are numerous studies about male/female differences - for example, in expressiveness of agression, average temperament and different cooperate/defect-style decisions in game theory and econometrics experiments.
But it all is irrelevant - the whole concept of gender/race/etc equality is that it is grossly unfair to use group-membership to judge individuals, and we should evaluate each person on her/his own merits.
The problem is generally that the people who do so ask and answer them on an individual level, using an unhealthy amount of selection bias.
By the time we get to "fact 3" the author isn't even pretending any more and the "fact" is just a bizarre "you're a mathematician, you can solve this!!1!" point...
I'm happy to have a discussion about gender politics/equality, this article is just a very poor starting point for such a discussion.
This is nothing more than a rant, pretending to be something more.
So yes, when a particular use of a word is common, it's very hard to argue it's not right, because there are no facts to point at, only an idea in someone's head (but who's to say who is right?), or some historical data (but languages change, and prima facie that's neither good nor bad).
The author just stop justifying their points after the first couple. It is like they starting writing a really good piece, then got two "myths" in and then switched to random opinion mode.
However I've been to this rodeo before many times, and unfortunately if you get drawn into a discussion that is, at the foundation, based on personal opinion/perspective then you never get anywhere.
You need to try and stick to the science. When the study that the author used as their first point was published there was some great discussion that focused around the science of sexism.
Which is to say, you can't have much of a discussion if you only allow a recital of facts.
http://birdofparadox.wordpress.com/derailing-for-dummies-goo...
However, I think that the use of 'Fact' as a section heading was more a rhetorical device than anything else/
When you observe actual practice (with official and unofficial AA, hiring committees, and of course various statistical problems), you tend to observe bias in favor of women.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12062&page=R1
The picture of what real life looks like is far from clear.
Maybe one could do an experiment in online job marketplaces: change the gender of a large number of work providers and observe how payouts change.
In any case this was a shallow and one-sided article. [But suitable for Sunday morning heated arguments over coffee and cookies]
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.174-1617.2000.t...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230359240457736...
It's not that those issues are unimportant, but does it not strike you as strange that the very first comment doesn't discuss the content of the article directly, but does make sure to bring up sexism against men? It's not the first time this has happened, either, on HN or elsewhere.
(And, sure, this may be the first time you've brought it up. But just like the other issues she's bringing up, the "what about the men who are discriminated against?" response is a durable and ubiquitous trend. Check any other HN thread that mentions sexism if you don't believe me. It therefore becomes very annoying to people trying to have a conversation about the persistent sexism against women in technology/maths/science spaces.)
When we talk about real-life statistical evidence, that’s
not conclusive, either, because all differences are
explained by women having babies, other priorities, etc
(Except they’re not, as the linked document explains very clearly.)
Btw, can someone explain the usage of the word "trope" here?
I don't think the post was super well written, but I also don't see how the cited study was irrelevant -- it shows the existence of a gender bias that operates completely independently of the choices of any individual woman:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/09/19/...
Data about gender/discipline compositions in academic disciplines: http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/01/college-class-of-2011-by-ac...
I remember hearing a lot about sexism in disciplines which are 80+% male in this list. But I pretty much never hear about sexism in disciplines that are 80+% female.
Now, I don't make any claims here about existence or non-existence of sexism one way or another just basing on the percentage data. Maybe there is sexism in one place, maybe there is not in another, even though percentages looks the same. That's not my point here. What I am questioning is that seeing 80% on one side is universally taken alone as supporting the claim of sexism, if not proving it completely, but the same study showing the same bias to the other side is not considered the base to the same claim. I think this is related to the content of the article.
Do you really think that the problem is that enough studies haven't been done?
The linked article mentions a study on the gender pay gap in academia[0], the results section of which includes
"After
accounting
for [
underrepresentation of women at the full Professor level
allocation of faculty members across departmental units, and experience]
there
remains
an unexplained
female
pay
disadvantage
of
about
$3000.
This
finding
is
robust
to
alternative
specifications
of
the
gender
gap
decomposition."
"... the
female
salary
disadvantage
found
in
the
study
can be
interpreted
as
a
lower
bound."
"The gender pay gap for annual gross earnings in the sector is 60 per cent."
"There is a gender gap of 80 per cent for performance-related pay"
"The gender pay gap in finance sector companies cannot be explained away as a
historical legacy. Analysis of salaries for new recruits shows that in 86 percent
of the cases reported to us, women have lower salaries than men."
"In 63 per cent of cases more than half of all job grades/categories exhibited a
significant gender pay gap."
[1] http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/financial_...
My conclusion is that we cannot with a straight face claim that we can justify such a pay gap in this case, so whether it is justified is the wrong question.
* The author is a professor of mathematics
* The thing about Math Overflow (which as a non-regular reader seemed to kinda come out of nowhere) is referencing another recent blog post: http://ilaba.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/still-not-on-mathoverf...
In a fast moving market with high competition you need these qualities hence it is no secret why in average males are more employable in tech than women. This is a healthy market response and has nothing to do with sexism.
Such a structure becomes "sex inclusive" (accepting biological men and women who act masculinely) and not "gender inclusive" (accepting biological men and women who act masculinely or femininely).
So if you are correct that increased testosterone leads to men being more driven to achieve that still leaves the fact that when a woman "overcomes" her lack of testosterone and achieves the same as a man sheis still judged as being less competent than a man.
This kind of thing is hard. I don't think there are easy solutions, but let's not pretend the problem doesn't exist.
*I guess this makes it sound more manly and heroic than it actually is.
Also I think you're right that it's a generally accepted fact that high levels of testosterone in animals is associated with more risky and aggressive behaviour.
But I'm very sceptical of the way you've linked levels of testosterone in average males to risky and aggressive behaviour, and additionally linked risky and aggressive behaviour to being more employable in tech.
However if you really believe this, I had a look on wikipedia and it links to a paper that says that men with high levels of testosterone are more likely to drink five or more alcoholic drinks a day, and to smoke. Also that men with low levels of testosterone are more likely to be obese.
Wikipedia also links to another study that says that mens' levels of testosterone generally lower when they fall in love, and recover about 1-3 years into their relationships.
Maybe you should consider this when you're next hiring, and go for a skinny, smoking, drinking male, who is not in the early stages of a relationship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone#cite_note-pmid1019... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone#cite_note-pmid1517...
- JFK "
So, you're going to start your blogpost on sexism with a quote from JFK... how does that work?
http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/timothy-noah/100566/jfk-mons...
I mean, I agree with the description of gender bias and the other stuff, I have seen events like this first hand, and I have reflectively noticed my own biases that were unfair, so I'd like to correct that.
But after the article, what would you like me (as a 'dude' in a science field) to do? Your own point #5 states that you do not want just to be 'heard and understood'; so what actions would you like to be the result of this?
Male and female are very dismorphic, we cannot change that easily, male and female have very specialized roles and purposes.
Yes, I am happy that people now in general have more equal opportunity than ever, and that we can have awesome workers on some areas from any background, but we should not push it too much now, society now is already very different, and failing in some aspects, more equality won't make things better, but can make things worse, much worse.
Understand that past societies were not forced to be the way they were, they just changed until they settled on something that works, and it worked for good reasons.
Why several societies in the world are severely against gays, especially male ones? It is because it was very important on these societies to have children, not having children was unacceptable. Today having children became too expensive, so the focus of relationships changed, and now several countries even allow gay marriage or civil union, but the need to maintain your population don't changed.
Some people will argue about over population, yes, I agree that it is a danger, but we must remember that we are not even replacing our populations, we are outright declining, and the result will be some cultures disappearing, and others with higher birth rates taking their place.
The funny thing about equality seeking cultures, is that they tend to erase themselves and give way to totally non equal cultures to take their place.
People forget that we still live in a world, where in many contexts, might make right.
Posts aren't judged based on size, but content. And anonymous voting is often completely unfair -- just like life.
I suggest that you take this as useful feedback to improve how you express yourself. Your post has word usage issues (as other have commented), a problem with length versus content, things like that. At risk of quoting a cliche, make lemonade.
1. Certainly. There are lots of speed-readers out there.
2. Why do you assume the downvoter was a guy? That's an everyday example of sexism.
- Gender equality wasn't imposed in society by an external entity, it was brought about because it was essential (not only on moral grounds but economic as well)
- Most societies for most of history were less hostile to homo/bi-sexuality than the modern (pre-1970s) West (Even in today's islamic countries there's a dont-ask-dont-tell attitude)
You also seem to forget that the Western culture was not invented or developed by the same ethnic groups who maintain it nowadays.
[edited for corrections]
Also gender equality was not needed in the current society, it is that the current society made it possible, quite different.
No, this is false. All that differed in historical accounts of gender struggles were the methods and the scale, not the goals. Do the names Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony ring any bells (19th century)? Or Margaret Cavendish from the 17th century?
Suggested reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism
> Most societies for most of history were less hostile to homosexuality than the modern West
Also false -- very, very false. Even the Bible contains accounts of homophobia.
WRT homosexuality - you are confusing cause and effect. The Bible was what brought homosexuality to such a negative light in the christian/western world.
Please read the post to which I replied -- no mention of "movement". The post said "The fight for gender equality is exclusively 20th century thing; never happened before." That's false -- this is not a new fight. All that has changed is the scale, a factor I addressed by using that word.
> WRT homosexuality - you are confusing cause and effect. The Bible was what brought homosexuality to such a negative light in the christian/western world.
The Bible is a historical record of old values and practices, and homophobia is included in that record for a reason. The Bible's influence on modern history is an effect, but its contents allude to causes that were present in ancient times.
I doubt that people are taught by the Bible to be homophobes, or to be intolerant in any other way -- that comes naturally to people with poor educations. All the Bible does is encourage the natural intolerance of the illiterate.
And we have evidence of exact contrary opinions at the same time on the other side of Mediterranean - so this attitude clearly was not something forced by the objective reality of that time, but simply a cultural/traditional choice.
As another poster already commented, and you already acknowledged, the fight for gender equality has been continuing for at least three centuries. It certainly isn't exclusively a 20th century thing.
- Gender equality wasn't imposed in society by an external entity, it was brought about because it was essential
It's certainly not yet proven to be "essential" in any sense of the word that I recognise. Positive, perhaps, but the survival of the species doesn't rest on gender equality. For long periods of history the human race has not had gender equality, and we've survived it. No-one has ever proven that our continued existence (or even prosperity) rests on recognising the rights of others.
- Most societies for most of history were less hostile to homosexuality than the modern West
I'm fairly certain that this is simply wrong too. While there have been some societies in history that have been ambivalent or positive towards homosexuality, the vast majority of societies through history have treated homosexuality as deviant behaviour that should be shunned - most societies that are dominated by Christianity or Islam (which, for obvious reasons, tend to be the societies with the best and most available records) have treated homosexuality as a terrible sin. Even if you look at modern societies, the west is amongst the most inclusive - compare attitudes in Germany, Canada, the US and the UK with attitudes in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc.
This isn't to say that the west's attitudes to gender equality and homosexuality couldn't be improved! However, when you massively overstate the scale of the problem, people will generally find it difficult to take seriously whatever else you have to say. We have ways in which we can improve, but things are getting better.
You mean sexually dimorphic. This is actually the subject of significant controversy (esp. with regards to intelligence), so you cannot state this so carelessly. An uncontroversial case of sexual dimorphism is a male spider which is three times smaller than its female counterpart.
Granted.
> Of course humans are indisputably sexually dimorphic
Only in a trivial/technical sense, i.e., there have to be differences for there to be distinguishable sexes. But for a biologist, humans as a species are not known for and do not stand out for their sexual dimorphism, compared to other species. Which leads me to conjecture that the differences and problems with sexism are more related to the social construct of gender.