4 ms·
Presumably the article's author is so used to "sexism" meaning "women are under-represented" that they don't realize "men are under-represented" is equally sexi
by Rangi42 11y ago
Presumably the article's author is so used to "sexism" meaning "women are under-represented" that they don't realize "men are under-represented" is equally sexist.
Not that under-representation is necessarily evidence of bias, which is what the word "sexism" implies. The study's authors, Ceci and Williams, are aware of this:
> This led to their conclusion that gender bias did not cause the small number of women in STEM fields. They said the small representation of women in the sector was caused by their own reluctance to enter these fields.
- tomp 11y agoI don't think under/over-representation is necessarily sexism; typical "correlation does not imply correlation". My point was that the first statement ("no sexism") was in direct contradiction to "Women Twice as Likely to be Hired Over Equally-Qualified Men". Of course, even that is not necessarily sexism; it could simply be that women are/expect to be paid less than equally-qualified/capable men, so it's a no-brainer to hire only women.