5 ms·

I think a perception problem occurs if less-qualified women get more funding than men. That means that the male scientists who get funded will actually just be

I think a perception problem occurs if less-qualified women get more funding than men. That means that the male scientists who get funded will actually just be better at their jobs, which is going to have the effect of perpetuating the perception that men make better scientists (which I think is obviously untrue, but this has always been a problem with affirmative action policies). I don't really see a way to solve this at the grant funding level.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
This perception problem is in fact a problem, but this also ignores another explaination (speculatively) that less-qualified men are getting more funding over more-qualified women due to unconscious biases of the reviewers. Which at least has studies that say this might be the case. I don't know if we have studies that indicate evidence that less-qualified women are getting more funding than more-qualified men. For example this comment chain is mostly anecdata, which makes it difficult, as it relies on how good-faith we wish to take the anecdote and how that anecdote either enforces one's existing biases or can just be dismissed as anecdotal and not genuine studies. But even the "genuine" studies are in a field where we have a replication crisis. So, what I'm saying is: I don't know, and I don't think anyone else knows, the whole truth and breakdown of the matter. And I'd be suspicious of anyone claiming they are under a broadsale impression of anything regarding the quality of women in STEM.
- mafribe 7y ago
  unconscious biases of the reviewers This can of course also be turned the other way around: "less-qualified women are getting more funding over more qualified men due to unconscious biases of the reviewers" studies that say this might be the case. Those 'studies' generally suffer from various forms of bias, in particular social desirability bias [1], and never reflect upon their social desirability bias. Often the authors of such studies also have a direct financial in the claimed outcome of the 'studies': To paraphase Upton Sinclair "It is difficult to get a woman to understand something, when her salary depends upon his not understanding it!". I challenge you to show me studie along the lines of what you suggest that even mention social desirability bias and financial interest as threats to validity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_desirability_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_desirability_bias
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    I feel you are making rebuttals to portions of my comment without actually reading the full comment to realize that everything you're rebutting is actually in agreement with your rebuttal. This behavior is confusing. Could you explain yourself? EDIT: In clarification, I'm essentially saying 'Well, X, but Y. On the other hand, P, but Q.' and you're demanding I prove X to arbirary metric M, even though Y evidences that I'm not in the interest of proving X at all.
    - mafribe 7y ago
      I apologise if I was unclear. What I tried to do was subtly to entice my readers to reflect on the validity of the ruling beliefs about women in STEM -- knowing full well that I'm flying outside the tech crowd's Overton window. Let me try to express my belief in a different way, using four bullet points. I hope it's more clear this way. (α) All the studies that claim show that the reason we have more men than women is due to malice (eg. misogyny, unconscious bias) are not standing up to scrutiny. They have no scientific validity. (β) The reason that there are so many 'studies' of the kind I criticise as scientifically baseless is political. There is a political will to have more women in STEM positions. (γ) The overt explanation for this political will is structurally rather similar to the explanation given by the early Soviet Union for the promotion of non-Russian ethnicities over Russians in the policy of constructing the New Soviet man (новый советский человек). This reason is cogently described in Marxism and the National Question [1]. (δ) I'm generally worried about policies similar to those carried out by the author of [1]. [1] https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913...
      - mcv 7y ago
        I'd love to see what your basis for your first point is. Misogyny is hardly unproven, and unconscious bias has also been shown through various studies. Sexism is sadly still common in many areas. I think there's mostly an economic need for more people in STEM positions, and with women being underrepresented, that's an obvious place to look for more talent. And there are countries that do have more women in STEM or other scientific positions. So for countries that don't, figuring out what's stopping those women is a valid concern.
mcv 7y ago
It's an extreme situation. I'd assume that, given more hurdles for women than for men, the women who do make it are likely to be more qualified than men, not less. When the few women you can find are less qualified, you should ask yourself why. Why are the more qualified women avoiding you? If either your company or your industry had developed a reputation for being toxic and sexist, I can totally see why qualified women would avoid it. Giving more money to women is not going to solve the real problem here. It's also possible that your culture has somehow decided this is not a job for women. I work at a Dutch company that employs plenty of female developers, but all the female developers are from India. I don't think I know even a single female Dutch programmer here, which is weird. Why is this? Those are the real issues we need to figure out. Simply occasionally throwing money at people, even if it's a lot, is unlikely to fix the structural problems here.
- cnbar 7y ago
  It has been figured out: The more egalitarian a society is, the more women follow their actual interests. Programming is not one of these (in general, there are of course always exceptions).
- zeveb 7y ago
  > I'd assume that, given more hurdles for women than for men, the women who do make it are likely to be more qualified than men, not less. Sure — ashelmire's point was that right now there are more hurdles for men, which leads to men being more likely to be more qualified than women, which perpetuates and amplifies a stereotype.
  - mcv 7y ago
    Maybe in some very specific situations there are indeed more hurdles for men than for women, but in general, in STEM in particular, there are clearly more hurdles for women than for men, as evidenced by the fact that more men than women make it through. Though I don't think the solution is to compensate by creating more hurdles for men; we need to identify and remove the hurdles for women. And whatever hurdles remain for men.
specialist 7y ago
I'm struggling to imagine women (as a category) being any more incompetent or unqualified than the men (as a category) I've worked with. There's always a bell curve distribution of skill, talent, aptitude, whatever. When the work force population (mostly) reflects the general population (gender, ethnicity, age, whatever), we'll see that people are just people. Some good, most meh, and a few whoopers (who should be paid to stay home, for the benefit of the rest of us).

SolaceQuantum 7y ago

This perception problem is in fact a problem, but this also ignores another explaination (speculatively) that less-qualified men are getting more funding over more-qualified women due to unconscious biases of the reviewers. Which at least has studies that say this might be the case. I don't know if we have studies that indicate evidence that less-qualified women are getting more funding than more-qualified men. For example this comment chain is mostly anecdata, which makes it difficult, as it relies on how good-faith we wish to take the anecdote and how that anecdote either enforces one's existing biases or can just be dismissed as anecdotal and not genuine studies. But even the "genuine" studies are in a field where we have a replication crisis. So, what I'm saying is: I don't know, and I don't think anyone else knows, the whole truth and breakdown of the matter. And I'd be suspicious of anyone claiming they are under a broadsale impression of anything regarding the quality of women in STEM.

mafribe 7y ago
unconscious biases of the reviewers This can of course also be turned the other way around: "less-qualified women are getting more funding over more qualified men due to unconscious biases of the reviewers" studies that say this might be the case. Those 'studies' generally suffer from various forms of bias, in particular social desirability bias [1], and never reflect upon their social desirability bias. Often the authors of such studies also have a direct financial in the claimed outcome of the 'studies': To paraphase Upton Sinclair "It is difficult to get a woman to understand something, when her salary depends upon his not understanding it!". I challenge you to show me studie along the lines of what you suggest that even mention social desirability bias and financial interest as threats to validity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_desirability_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_desirability_bias
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  I feel you are making rebuttals to portions of my comment without actually reading the full comment to realize that everything you're rebutting is actually in agreement with your rebuttal. This behavior is confusing. Could you explain yourself? EDIT: In clarification, I'm essentially saying 'Well, X, but Y. On the other hand, P, but Q.' and you're demanding I prove X to arbirary metric M, even though Y evidences that I'm not in the interest of proving X at all.
  - mafribe 7y ago
    I apologise if I was unclear. What I tried to do was subtly to entice my readers to reflect on the validity of the ruling beliefs about women in STEM -- knowing full well that I'm flying outside the tech crowd's Overton window. Let me try to express my belief in a different way, using four bullet points. I hope it's more clear this way. (α) All the studies that claim show that the reason we have more men than women is due to malice (eg. misogyny, unconscious bias) are not standing up to scrutiny. They have no scientific validity. (β) The reason that there are so many 'studies' of the kind I criticise as scientifically baseless is political. There is a political will to have more women in STEM positions. (γ) The overt explanation for this political will is structurally rather similar to the explanation given by the early Soviet Union for the promotion of non-Russian ethnicities over Russians in the policy of constructing the New Soviet man (новый советский человек). This reason is cogently described in Marxism and the National Question [1]. (δ) I'm generally worried about policies similar to those carried out by the author of [1]. [1] https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913...
    - mcv 7y ago
      I'd love to see what your basis for your first point is. Misogyny is hardly unproven, and unconscious bias has also been shown through various studies. Sexism is sadly still common in many areas. I think there's mostly an economic need for more people in STEM positions, and with women being underrepresented, that's an obvious place to look for more talent. And there are countries that do have more women in STEM or other scientific positions. So for countries that don't, figuring out what's stopping those women is a valid concern.

mcv 7y ago

It's an extreme situation. I'd assume that, given more hurdles for women than for men, the women who do make it are likely to be more qualified than men, not less. When the few women you can find are less qualified, you should ask yourself why. Why are the more qualified women avoiding you? If either your company or your industry had developed a reputation for being toxic and sexist, I can totally see why qualified women would avoid it. Giving more money to women is not going to solve the real problem here. It's also possible that your culture has somehow decided this is not a job for women. I work at a Dutch company that employs plenty of female developers, but all the female developers are from India. I don't think I know even a single female Dutch programmer here, which is weird. Why is this? Those are the real issues we need to figure out. Simply occasionally throwing money at people, even if it's a lot, is unlikely to fix the structural problems here.

cnbar 7y ago
It has been figured out: The more egalitarian a society is, the more women follow their actual interests. Programming is not one of these (in general, there are of course always exceptions).
zeveb 7y ago
> I'd assume that, given more hurdles for women than for men, the women who do make it are likely to be more qualified than men, not less. Sure — ashelmire's point was that right now there are more hurdles for men, which leads to men being more likely to be more qualified than women, which perpetuates and amplifies a stereotype.
- mcv 7y ago
  Maybe in some very specific situations there are indeed more hurdles for men than for women, but in general, in STEM in particular, there are clearly more hurdles for women than for men, as evidenced by the fact that more men than women make it through. Though I don't think the solution is to compensate by creating more hurdles for men; we need to identify and remove the hurdles for women. And whatever hurdles remain for men.

specialist 7y ago

I'm struggling to imagine women (as a category) being any more incompetent or unqualified than the men (as a category) I've worked with. There's always a bell curve distribution of skill, talent, aptitude, whatever. When the work force population (mostly) reflects the general population (gender, ethnicity, age, whatever), we'll see that people are just people. Some good, most meh, and a few whoopers (who should be paid to stay home, for the benefit of the rest of us).