10 ms·

Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

72 points by tchalla 4y ago

kilgnad 4y ago
How is this an "accomplishment for gender equity." Isn't this still inequity? I think the fact that the writer couldn't perceive how this is still, logically speaking, "inequity" speaks to the bias at play in this area. But then again is true equity even possible? Is it a logical possibility given the biological differences between men and women? Perhaps it's a scientific fact that women are superior to men in science that's why we see this difference. There is also more women attending universities then men. This also speaks to the possibility of greater intellectual superiority in women than in men. What about the fact that virtually all of science, technology and modern infrastructure was created by men? It is clear from any layman that the frameworks and foundation of advanced civilization were built (with some exceptions) exclusively by men. This of course does not obviously speak to any intellectual differences between men or women but speaks more to oppression. Before modern movements toward gender equality, men regularly oppressed women making it impossible for women to display their superior intellect. But is this the real narrative? Or is equality actually real? This is a controversial opinion but I think men are in fact much stupider then women and equality is a made up fantasy. This is the real question everyone is tip-toeing around. At the end of the day how are men and women different in raw terms of absolute performance and intelligence? And are the elections a reflection of raw performance OR not?
- area51org 4y ago
  > Perhaps it's a scientific fact that women are superior to men in science The only valid broad generalization is that there are no valid broad generalizations. My take? I think we men are used to having things handed to us, and women in our society are used to having to try hard, and with more or less equal opportunity, they're kicking ass.
  - DangitBobby 4y ago
    When women are behind, it's because systematic inequality holds them back. When men are behind, it's because women actually kick ass and are better than men at whatever it is they're behind in.
  - Calavar 4y ago
    > Female researchers in mathematics, psychology and economics are 3–15 times more likely to be elected as members of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) or the American Academy of Arts and Sciences than are male counterparts who have similar publication and citation records That line doesn't really match with men being asked to try equally hard. It seems to me that academic and professional societies are desparate to hit a 50/50 balance in new inductees, but they are finding that there is a paucity of qualified candidates due to upstream issues. (Remember that the current crop of peak career researchers started their training in the 80s and 90s, when the gender split among new trainees in the sciences skewed heavily male and when DEI programs for early career researchers did not exist nearly to the extent that they do now.) But if you admit a class of inductees that's 80% men and 20% women in this day and age, it's very difficult to explain in a way that doesn't put you in a hot seat. It's much easier to apply asymmetric standards until you get a neat 50/50 split (or at least something close) because this is less likely to raise questions. So that's what the societies do.
    - Godel_unicode 4y ago
      That’s not what’s happening though. It’s a highly imbalanced class, just “the right way”. You’re also quite incorrect about when DEI programs started, they’re just actually called that now. Women have outnumbered men in universities since around 1980 because of attempts to get more women into college. Edit: hard to keep up with the ninja edits, the point in the last paragraph is significantly changed.
      - Calavar 4y ago
        Sorry, I have a habit of refining my thinking a bit and editing my posts to match. I didn't realize that there was already a reply. I didn't really change much of substance though - mainly just added the point about historical gender disparity in PhDs and added the last paragraph. > Women have outnumbered men in universities since around 1980 because of attempts to get more women into college. Outnumbered in undergrad, when you account for all fields. But that’s not what's relevant here. What's relevant is PhDs, specifically in the sciences, because that's the pool from which scientific researchers are drawn. And the gender ratios there have changed dramatically since the 80s [1]. > You’re also quite incorrect about when DEI programs started I never said that these programs hadn't yet started. I said that they didn't exist to the same extent that they do now. There is plenty of data showing a uptrend in the number of university positions dedicated to DEI over the past few decades. And it's not just an issue of naming. [1] https://www.aip.org/statistics/data-graphics/percent-phds-earned-women-selected-fields-classes-1981-through-2016 https://www.aip.org/statistics/data-graphics/percent-phds-ea...
  - kilgnad 4y ago
    So women are superior to men because of hardship. But that would imply anyone who goes through hardship becomes superior. So for example war. Men historically have been exclusively sent to war and suffer through hardships unimaginable to most people who aren't sent to war. Women are generally not sent to war so it's arguable in terms of raw stress and pressure they have suffered less than men. Yet one still cannot say in this day an age just because men experience raw violence and combat in the arena of war that men are smarter. No in fact women are still better than men in every possible way even though they don't go to war. So hardship isn't part of the equation. The only thing left is biological. Sexual morphology gives women biological advantages in terms of intellectual capacity and performance. This is utterly clear. That is why these women are getting elected far more than men. It is the only logical explanation.
- trident5000 4y ago
  "This also speaks to the possibility of greater intellectual superiority in women than in men" Or the ability to do diligent repeating work and sit in a chair.
  - Mountain_Skies 4y ago
    Or have committees and institutions that openly discriminate on their behalf to the cheers of the political establishment.
  - kilgnad 4y ago
    You can't post this here it's sexist and against the rules. It is, however, not sexist at all to say women are intellectually superior to men. But both sentences have the same underlying meaning, just one conveys the meaning through subtle absurdity.
- carlob 4y ago
  >How is this an "accomplishment for gender equity". Isn't this still inequity? I think the fact that the writer couldn't perceive how this is still, logically speaking, "inequity" speaks to the bias at play in this area. There are various definition of equity and equality: equality of outcomes, of opportunities etc... If you have a person who has been in chains for ten years and one who has been training daily compete in a race is it really surprising that they won't perform equally?
- 8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago
  I wonder if for many righting a historic wrong ends up spilling into retribution territory, where it feels justified to inflict vengeance upon one demographic group for a past injustice.
  - boc 4y ago
    We’re all human. People who are in charge today aren’t biologically better/worse people than the people they oppress. Change the social norms and the oppressed group will adapt. Some of the oppressed will seek reconciliation. Others will seek retribution and they might succeed. To pretend that marginalized groups DON’T work this way is (imo) soft racism/sexism/classism. We’re all the same human species.
    - kilgnad 4y ago
      That doesn't mean there aren't morphological differences between sex. Men in general have bigger muscles and penises, while women have breasts. There is nothing logical or scientific that precludes differences in intelligence either. Clearly women are significantly smarter then men in practically every area.
  - norwalkbear 4y ago
    Look at wpietri in this thread, old man got his stuff, and is now fine with enacting retribution on all young men. He calls it "asymmetrical behavior" to whitewash the concept.
- jbirer 4y ago
  People are OK with injustice unless it affects them personally.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  Greater intellectual superiority because of the % entering college? College is a status symbol and women are buying into it more than males. It shows men are more independent thinkers and feel confident they can get along without a degree. It also because entry level jobs in fields women are interested in require college where men have more options in the trades. As women are dominating college entry over men a college degrees is less a proxy for intelligence and more for a middle class status symbol. As companies fight over the pools of women grads the smart companies are picking up the males who are being excluded and reaping the rewards
  - jakeinspace 4y ago
    Do you have anything at all to back that up? It makes some sense as a story I suppose.
  - kilgnad 4y ago
    >College is a status symbol and women are buying into it more than males. Isn't this a sexist statement? You're saying that women are more into superficial status symbols than males. This clearly isn't true and is sexist. What isn't sexist at all is to say women are, from a biological perspective, intellectually superior to men. This is the only logical and scientific conclusion when you look at everything from an analytical perspective. Think about it. Any other formulation of what's going on inevitably leads to a sexist conclusion which automatically, by fundamental logic, precludes it from consideration.
    - mpweiher 4y ago
      > What isn't sexist at all is to say women are, from a biological perspective, intellectually superior to men It's both sexist and wrong.
    - ipaddr 4y ago
      Recently laid off from misinformation team at twitter?
      - 4y ago
stuckinhell 4y ago
National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track - https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1418878112 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1418878112 Even where I work, I'm under a lot of pressure to hire more women engineers to the point we bend rules and relax standards. There is a ton of societal and economic pressure with slogans like "the future is female". I'm a mother and I do not think this is a good thing. I have a son and I caught him and friends gravitating to Andrew Tate like content. He's so young, and he already feels that society is hostile against him.
- lgleason 4y ago
  This ^^^
- sfgoodforonce 4y ago
  >I have a son and I caught him and friends gravitating to Andrew Tate like content. He's so young, and he already feels that society is hostile against him. Society is hostile against him. Anti-male prejudice is absolutely everywhere. Andrew Tate is a get-rich-quick grifter and possibly a criminal, but he’s right about some things.
  - stuckinhell 4y ago
    Maybe but his family isn't. I'm trying my best to protect him, which is why it was so shocking when I checked his internet usage.
    - sfgoodforonce 4y ago
      The most you can do to protect him is the same that people do in hostile regimes throughout the ages: make sure that by a certain age he understands that there’s a difference between what’s actually right and wrong and what the powers that be expect him to adhere to. It’s okay to make a stand but only if you’re very sure that the upside is worth the costs. The people blasting anti-feminist content under their real identity, to no personal or societal gain, are idiots.
ed25519FUUU 4y ago
I’m just very grateful I was hired at my current position back in the early 2010s. Before things became… different. Let’s just say I don’t see many white men in the interview loop these days.
drno123 4y ago
As a male engineer, whose grandmother got PhD in Physics around 1960 when overall PhDs were more strict than today, and especially for women, I think it is both bad when women are being held back “because they should stay at home and raise a family”, and when we want to right a historic wrong by having double standards so we could hire more women in STEM roles. We need meritocracy.
- wpietri 4y ago
  I get that, and I have been there before. But how do you fairly judge true merit in an oppressive world? A lot of the typical ways just support or amplify existing biases. That's not to say it's impossible, but an awful lot of people crying "meritocracy" do so in defense of conspicuously unexamined hiring practices.
  - mpweiher 4y ago
    Which hiring practices are those? The ones that favor women by 2:1? https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1418878112 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1418878112 Anecdotally, an executive recruiter friend I talked to recently here in Europe said that she now has to get approval from corporate headquarters in the US for a straight white male candidate.
    - DSMan195276 4y ago
      If you read that article they believe it is due to women self-selecting out of the field before ever applying for those positions. Or IE. the hiring standards for both groups are not necessarily different, but female candidates are less likely to apply and those that are willing to apply are better qualified: > Our research suggests that the mechanism resulting in women’s underrepresentation today may lie more on the supply side, in women’s decisions not to apply, than on the demand side, in antifemale bias in hiring. The perception that STEM fields continue to be inhospitable male bastions can become self-reinforcing by discouraging female applicants (26–29), thus contributing to continued underrepresentation, which in turn may obscure underlying attitudinal changes. > Thus, real-world hiring data showing a preference for women, inherently confounded and open to multiple interpretations because of lack of controls on applicant quality, experience, and lifestyle, are consistent with our experimental findings. > We hope the discovery of an overall 2:1 preference for hiring women over otherwise identical men will help counter self-handicapping and opting-out by talented women at the point of entry to the STEM professoriate, and suggest that female underrepresentation can be addressed in part by increasing the number of women applying for tenure-track positions. Edit: Hence why this is complicated. You're clearly suggesting the 2:1 ratio indicates it must be unfair in some way, but the article itself suggests it's not. Fundamentally, you cannot assume that merit-based hiring would result in a 1:1 ratio of male/female, at least not initially.
froeb 4y ago
In physics at least, it's been my experience that even though the percentage of women physics professors is low, almost every one is an above-average researcher. They are certainly harder working on average. Meanwhile, there will be several men in the department who have just coasted. This isn't among new profs, but among those who have been around long enough that they definitely experienced gender discrimination in hiring. I don't think this is a biological thing, just an interesting side effect of strong gender discrimination, where the women who make it in have to be exceptional to do so.
- Swenrekcah 4y ago
  This is undoubtedly true for almost all women who have advanced significantly in any field up until about a decade ago. Since then however, things have turned so sharply it’s almost the opposite now. Some people think it’s fine, they are so mad at the men of the 1950s that they’re perfectly willing to inflict their revenge on the young men of today. Then everyone is surprised when young men start listening to political operatives that don’t talk to them like they’re the scum of the universe.
  - dingusdew 4y ago
    [dead]
lgleason 4y ago
Unless the majority of academy is female, I would guess that you probably have a lower number of women running and a lot of pressure to get more women into these positions. This is what happens when you favor equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity.
gtmitchell 4y ago
This isn’t particularly surprising to me. I’m a scientist, and in my field, women have outnumbered men in my undergraduate and graduate programs, and also in every lab I’ve worked in as a professional. The hard sciences haven’t had the gender imbalance currently seen in engineering and tech jobs for decades now.
wonderwonder 4y ago
I dont understand, I am constantly told that Stem is patriarchal and full of white supremacist's. Its almost as if we have been lied to.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
The headline has lost some nuance: > The paper finds that since 2019, female researchers have comprised around 40% of new members in both prestigious academies1. Historically, across disciplines in each academy, there have been substantially fewer female researchers than male ones. Before the 1980s, female members comprised less than 10% of total academy membership across all scientific fields. So, if you choose a random person getting admitted, they'll probably be a man. They claim that if you equalise for "achievement" then woman are overrepresented. Which you can interpret as "woman are inferior, even if we give them an advantage they're still not good enough" or "woman are broadly equal to men, but are held back by the predominance of men in science (and society) and consequent sexism"
FrontierPsych 4y ago
We are living in the matriarchy now, and it will only increase in the future. Women now get 60% of all degrees, and I've read somewhere that projections are that they will get 70-75% in the next 10-15 years. The only reason men are still most of the Fortune 500 CEOs, president of the USA, and other positions of power is because of legacy reasons - men who graduated 30 or 40 years ago and were in the workforce for a long time. With fewer men graduating from university, now and even more in the future, it's logical that women will take over all forms of power in society in the medium-term future - starting now but snowballing faster and faster until in 25 years, it will be all females ruling most of society. Sure there still will be powerful men, but I'm talking about society as a whole. Title IX started in 1972 to make an equal academic playing field for women. At that time, in 1972, the diparity between men and women was men had 12% more of university graduates. Now women are 20% more and rising. We are living in the matriarchy but it's like that "he who must not be named" kind of thing. If you say that we live in a matriarchy, it is instant banishment from the kingdom in the form of instantly being labeled as a misogynist or incel, just for saying we live in the matriarchy.

72 points by tchalla 4y ago

How is this an "accomplishment for gender equity." Isn't this still inequity? I think the fact that the writer couldn't perceive how this is still, logically speaking, "inequity" speaks to the bias at play in this area. But then again is true equity even possible? Is it a logical possibility given the biological differences between men and women? Perhaps it's a scientific fact that women are superior to men in science that's why we see this difference. There is also more women attending universities then men. This also speaks to the possibility of greater intellectual superiority in women than in men. What about the fact that virtually all of science, technology and modern infrastructure was created by men? It is clear from any layman that the frameworks and foundation of advanced civilization were built (with some exceptions) exclusively by men. This of course does not obviously speak to any intellectual differences between men or women but speaks more to oppression. Before modern movements toward gender equality, men regularly oppressed women making it impossible for women to display their superior intellect. But is this the real narrative? Or is equality actually real? This is a controversial opinion but I think men are in fact much stupider then women and equality is a made up fantasy. This is the real question everyone is tip-toeing around. At the end of the day how are men and women different in raw terms of absolute performance and intelligence? And are the elections a reflection of raw performance OR not?

area51org 4y ago
> Perhaps it's a scientific fact that women are superior to men in science The only valid broad generalization is that there are no valid broad generalizations. My take? I think we men are used to having things handed to us, and women in our society are used to having to try hard, and with more or less equal opportunity, they're kicking ass.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  When women are behind, it's because systematic inequality holds them back. When men are behind, it's because women actually kick ass and are better than men at whatever it is they're behind in.
- Calavar 4y ago
  > Female researchers in mathematics, psychology and economics are 3–15 times more likely to be elected as members of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) or the American Academy of Arts and Sciences than are male counterparts who have similar publication and citation records That line doesn't really match with men being asked to try equally hard. It seems to me that academic and professional societies are desparate to hit a 50/50 balance in new inductees, but they are finding that there is a paucity of qualified candidates due to upstream issues. (Remember that the current crop of peak career researchers started their training in the 80s and 90s, when the gender split among new trainees in the sciences skewed heavily male and when DEI programs for early career researchers did not exist nearly to the extent that they do now.) But if you admit a class of inductees that's 80% men and 20% women in this day and age, it's very difficult to explain in a way that doesn't put you in a hot seat. It's much easier to apply asymmetric standards until you get a neat 50/50 split (or at least something close) because this is less likely to raise questions. So that's what the societies do.
  - Godel_unicode 4y ago
    That’s not what’s happening though. It’s a highly imbalanced class, just “the right way”. You’re also quite incorrect about when DEI programs started, they’re just actually called that now. Women have outnumbered men in universities since around 1980 because of attempts to get more women into college. Edit: hard to keep up with the ninja edits, the point in the last paragraph is significantly changed.
    - Calavar 4y ago
      Sorry, I have a habit of refining my thinking a bit and editing my posts to match. I didn't realize that there was already a reply. I didn't really change much of substance though - mainly just added the point about historical gender disparity in PhDs and added the last paragraph. > Women have outnumbered men in universities since around 1980 because of attempts to get more women into college. Outnumbered in undergrad, when you account for all fields. But that’s not what's relevant here. What's relevant is PhDs, specifically in the sciences, because that's the pool from which scientific researchers are drawn. And the gender ratios there have changed dramatically since the 80s [1]. > You’re also quite incorrect about when DEI programs started I never said that these programs hadn't yet started. I said that they didn't exist to the same extent that they do now. There is plenty of data showing a uptrend in the number of university positions dedicated to DEI over the past few decades. And it's not just an issue of naming. [1] https://www.aip.org/statistics/data-graphics/percent-phds-earned-women-selected-fields-classes-1981-through-2016 https://www.aip.org/statistics/data-graphics/percent-phds-ea...
- kilgnad 4y ago
  So women are superior to men because of hardship. But that would imply anyone who goes through hardship becomes superior. So for example war. Men historically have been exclusively sent to war and suffer through hardships unimaginable to most people who aren't sent to war. Women are generally not sent to war so it's arguable in terms of raw stress and pressure they have suffered less than men. Yet one still cannot say in this day an age just because men experience raw violence and combat in the arena of war that men are smarter. No in fact women are still better than men in every possible way even though they don't go to war. So hardship isn't part of the equation. The only thing left is biological. Sexual morphology gives women biological advantages in terms of intellectual capacity and performance. This is utterly clear. That is why these women are getting elected far more than men. It is the only logical explanation.
trident5000 4y ago
"This also speaks to the possibility of greater intellectual superiority in women than in men" Or the ability to do diligent repeating work and sit in a chair.
- Mountain_Skies 4y ago
  Or have committees and institutions that openly discriminate on their behalf to the cheers of the political establishment.
- kilgnad 4y ago
  You can't post this here it's sexist and against the rules. It is, however, not sexist at all to say women are intellectually superior to men. But both sentences have the same underlying meaning, just one conveys the meaning through subtle absurdity.
carlob 4y ago
>How is this an "accomplishment for gender equity". Isn't this still inequity? I think the fact that the writer couldn't perceive how this is still, logically speaking, "inequity" speaks to the bias at play in this area. There are various definition of equity and equality: equality of outcomes, of opportunities etc... If you have a person who has been in chains for ten years and one who has been training daily compete in a race is it really surprising that they won't perform equally?
8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago
I wonder if for many righting a historic wrong ends up spilling into retribution territory, where it feels justified to inflict vengeance upon one demographic group for a past injustice.
- boc 4y ago
  We’re all human. People who are in charge today aren’t biologically better/worse people than the people they oppress. Change the social norms and the oppressed group will adapt. Some of the oppressed will seek reconciliation. Others will seek retribution and they might succeed. To pretend that marginalized groups DON’T work this way is (imo) soft racism/sexism/classism. We’re all the same human species.
  - kilgnad 4y ago
    That doesn't mean there aren't morphological differences between sex. Men in general have bigger muscles and penises, while women have breasts. There is nothing logical or scientific that precludes differences in intelligence either. Clearly women are significantly smarter then men in practically every area.
- norwalkbear 4y ago
  Look at wpietri in this thread, old man got his stuff, and is now fine with enacting retribution on all young men. He calls it "asymmetrical behavior" to whitewash the concept.
jbirer 4y ago
People are OK with injustice unless it affects them personally.
ipaddr 4y ago
Greater intellectual superiority because of the % entering college? College is a status symbol and women are buying into it more than males. It shows men are more independent thinkers and feel confident they can get along without a degree. It also because entry level jobs in fields women are interested in require college where men have more options in the trades. As women are dominating college entry over men a college degrees is less a proxy for intelligence and more for a middle class status symbol. As companies fight over the pools of women grads the smart companies are picking up the males who are being excluded and reaping the rewards
- jakeinspace 4y ago
  Do you have anything at all to back that up? It makes some sense as a story I suppose.
- kilgnad 4y ago
  >College is a status symbol and women are buying into it more than males. Isn't this a sexist statement? You're saying that women are more into superficial status symbols than males. This clearly isn't true and is sexist. What isn't sexist at all is to say women are, from a biological perspective, intellectually superior to men. This is the only logical and scientific conclusion when you look at everything from an analytical perspective. Think about it. Any other formulation of what's going on inevitably leads to a sexist conclusion which automatically, by fundamental logic, precludes it from consideration.
  - mpweiher 4y ago
    > What isn't sexist at all is to say women are, from a biological perspective, intellectually superior to men It's both sexist and wrong.
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    Recently laid off from misinformation team at twitter?
    - 4y ago

stuckinhell 4y ago

National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track - https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1418878112 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1418878112 Even where I work, I'm under a lot of pressure to hire more women engineers to the point we bend rules and relax standards. There is a ton of societal and economic pressure with slogans like "the future is female". I'm a mother and I do not think this is a good thing. I have a son and I caught him and friends gravitating to Andrew Tate like content. He's so young, and he already feels that society is hostile against him.

lgleason 4y ago
This ^^^
sfgoodforonce 4y ago
>I have a son and I caught him and friends gravitating to Andrew Tate like content. He's so young, and he already feels that society is hostile against him. Society is hostile against him. Anti-male prejudice is absolutely everywhere. Andrew Tate is a get-rich-quick grifter and possibly a criminal, but he’s right about some things.
- stuckinhell 4y ago
  Maybe but his family isn't. I'm trying my best to protect him, which is why it was so shocking when I checked his internet usage.
  - sfgoodforonce 4y ago
    The most you can do to protect him is the same that people do in hostile regimes throughout the ages: make sure that by a certain age he understands that there’s a difference between what’s actually right and wrong and what the powers that be expect him to adhere to. It’s okay to make a stand but only if you’re very sure that the upside is worth the costs. The people blasting anti-feminist content under their real identity, to no personal or societal gain, are idiots.

ed25519FUUU 4y ago

I’m just very grateful I was hired at my current position back in the early 2010s. Before things became… different. Let’s just say I don’t see many white men in the interview loop these days.

drno123 4y ago

As a male engineer, whose grandmother got PhD in Physics around 1960 when overall PhDs were more strict than today, and especially for women, I think it is both bad when women are being held back “because they should stay at home and raise a family”, and when we want to right a historic wrong by having double standards so we could hire more women in STEM roles. We need meritocracy.

wpietri 4y ago
I get that, and I have been there before. But how do you fairly judge true merit in an oppressive world? A lot of the typical ways just support or amplify existing biases. That's not to say it's impossible, but an awful lot of people crying "meritocracy" do so in defense of conspicuously unexamined hiring practices.
- mpweiher 4y ago
  Which hiring practices are those? The ones that favor women by 2:1? https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1418878112 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1418878112 Anecdotally, an executive recruiter friend I talked to recently here in Europe said that she now has to get approval from corporate headquarters in the US for a straight white male candidate.
  - DSMan195276 4y ago
    If you read that article they believe it is due to women self-selecting out of the field before ever applying for those positions. Or IE. the hiring standards for both groups are not necessarily different, but female candidates are less likely to apply and those that are willing to apply are better qualified: > Our research suggests that the mechanism resulting in women’s underrepresentation today may lie more on the supply side, in women’s decisions not to apply, than on the demand side, in antifemale bias in hiring. The perception that STEM fields continue to be inhospitable male bastions can become self-reinforcing by discouraging female applicants (26–29), thus contributing to continued underrepresentation, which in turn may obscure underlying attitudinal changes. > Thus, real-world hiring data showing a preference for women, inherently confounded and open to multiple interpretations because of lack of controls on applicant quality, experience, and lifestyle, are consistent with our experimental findings. > We hope the discovery of an overall 2:1 preference for hiring women over otherwise identical men will help counter self-handicapping and opting-out by talented women at the point of entry to the STEM professoriate, and suggest that female underrepresentation can be addressed in part by increasing the number of women applying for tenure-track positions. Edit: Hence why this is complicated. You're clearly suggesting the 2:1 ratio indicates it must be unfair in some way, but the article itself suggests it's not. Fundamentally, you cannot assume that merit-based hiring would result in a 1:1 ratio of male/female, at least not initially.

froeb 4y ago

In physics at least, it's been my experience that even though the percentage of women physics professors is low, almost every one is an above-average researcher. They are certainly harder working on average. Meanwhile, there will be several men in the department who have just coasted. This isn't among new profs, but among those who have been around long enough that they definitely experienced gender discrimination in hiring. I don't think this is a biological thing, just an interesting side effect of strong gender discrimination, where the women who make it in have to be exceptional to do so.

Swenrekcah 4y ago
This is undoubtedly true for almost all women who have advanced significantly in any field up until about a decade ago. Since then however, things have turned so sharply it’s almost the opposite now. Some people think it’s fine, they are so mad at the men of the 1950s that they’re perfectly willing to inflict their revenge on the young men of today. Then everyone is surprised when young men start listening to political operatives that don’t talk to them like they’re the scum of the universe.
- dingusdew 4y ago
  [dead]

lgleason 4y ago

Unless the majority of academy is female, I would guess that you probably have a lower number of women running and a lot of pressure to get more women into these positions. This is what happens when you favor equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity.

gtmitchell 4y ago

This isn’t particularly surprising to me. I’m a scientist, and in my field, women have outnumbered men in my undergraduate and graduate programs, and also in every lab I’ve worked in as a professional. The hard sciences haven’t had the gender imbalance currently seen in engineering and tech jobs for decades now.

wonderwonder 4y ago

I dont understand, I am constantly told that Stem is patriarchal and full of white supremacist's. Its almost as if we have been lied to.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

The headline has lost some nuance: > The paper finds that since 2019, female researchers have comprised around 40% of new members in both prestigious academies1. Historically, across disciplines in each academy, there have been substantially fewer female researchers than male ones. Before the 1980s, female members comprised less than 10% of total academy membership across all scientific fields. So, if you choose a random person getting admitted, they'll probably be a man. They claim that if you equalise for "achievement" then woman are overrepresented. Which you can interpret as "woman are inferior, even if we give them an advantage they're still not good enough" or "woman are broadly equal to men, but are held back by the predominance of men in science (and society) and consequent sexism"

FrontierPsych 4y ago

We are living in the matriarchy now, and it will only increase in the future. Women now get 60% of all degrees, and I've read somewhere that projections are that they will get 70-75% in the next 10-15 years. The only reason men are still most of the Fortune 500 CEOs, president of the USA, and other positions of power is because of legacy reasons - men who graduated 30 or 40 years ago and were in the workforce for a long time. With fewer men graduating from university, now and even more in the future, it's logical that women will take over all forms of power in society in the medium-term future - starting now but snowballing faster and faster until in 25 years, it will be all females ruling most of society. Sure there still will be powerful men, but I'm talking about society as a whole. Title IX started in 1972 to make an equal academic playing field for women. At that time, in 1972, the diparity between men and women was men had 12% more of university graduates. Now women are 20% more and rising. We are living in the matriarchy but it's like that "he who must not be named" kind of thing. If you say that we live in a matriarchy, it is instant banishment from the kingdom in the form of instantly being labeled as a misogynist or incel, just for saying we live in the matriarchy.