Why don't more women pursue a career in Physics?

[Raider5678]

We are trying to have a serious conversation here... let's keep it real.

I'm sorry, it's no longer serious. I can't stop laughing.

[StringJunky]

I'm sorry, it's no longer serious. I can't stop laughing.

Then your lack of life experience is becoming more evident. I wish I could be young again... when I knew everything and it was all so clear.

Edited April 25, 2017 by StringJunky

[quickquestion]

We are trying to have a serious conversation here... let's keep it real.

Here's the thing...the human humor instinct doesn't have much correlation between fact or fiction.

It may be funny, but no less true. There are lots of true, funny videos, and true, funny standup comics.

So if you find it funny, it does not make it more or less true.

[CharonY]

Although I have expressed this thought, I am open to discussing changing the statistic. Hyper's anecdote seems to suggest there maybe a bigger problem than i realised but nobody's yet coming up with a way forward. It'll take a long time, probably a couple of generations, when the youngsters who want the change are pulling the levers of power, just like with gay equality, which has taken 40-50 years to to get where it is today.

 

Ultimately a big issue is that it is one of the cases where there are lots of confounding variables, making it very difficult to even clearly formulate the issue, much less a solution. So far, various hypotheses (including e.g. stereotype threat) were unable to deliver clear results why things are as they are. The goal is not necessarily to have gender equivalence in all categories, but the fact that imbalances exist and we do not know why (just stating difference in interest is not helpful as it still does not explain the mechanism) is vexing from an intellectual standpoint alone.

But if we only focus on academic achievements and completely ignore career challenges for women at this point, there is another aspect that is interesting. In many countries there is gender parity in Chemistry, often more women then men in Biology but far less in Physics, Mathematics and Engineering. Interestingly this gradient seems to be true for many countries.

E.g. in the UK biology is dominated by women, there is parity in chemistry and in physics it drops to about 25%. In Germany there is about parity in biology, about 40% women in Chemistry and 10% in physics. Attention has been drawn to mathematics as a potential divider, though it would not quite explain the difference in biology and chemistry. It is also interesting that engineering often has fewer than physics, despite the latter is probably more maths-heavy.

 

It is possible that in the end it is much about perception and how we teach and it may take a few more generation to change that.

[Raider5678]

Here's the thing...the human humor instinct doesn't have much correlation between fact or fiction.

It may be funny, but no less true. There are lots of true, funny videos, and true, funny standup comics.

So if you find it funny, it does not make it more or less true.

It is funny, but simply because of what string said.

Otherwise, it was just confusing.

It is possible that in the end it is much about perception and how we teach and it may take a few more generation to change that.

I would think it's such.

In the younger generation, and even the older generation, as me and Lord have pointed out, sexism is much less prevalent then other generations.

Additionally, teaching is massively dominated by women.

So you can also discount the idea that teachers are "actively discouraging young girls" from going into stem fields.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Alright, thanks for the perspective, it is some valued information, even though it's anecdotal. I believe you and I must say that this happened to you more times than I would have guessed, which might mean something. HOWEVER, there is a big oddity in reference to swansont's statistic which I would like your input on.

 

His statistic quotes 31% of women being harrassed at some point during their career on the job, which includes once or all the time. It seems to me that your cases of harrassment are greatly disproportial with respect to this statistic. Judging by your case alone, one might assume that close to 100% will be harrassed and almost always multiple times. So, going by this statistic, you are in the highest percentiles of harrassment. In other words, the majority of women haven't experienced the level of harrassment you have.

 

ALSO, a question for you. Since we are arguing that sexism has decreased since ''ye olde ages of the 20th century'', it might be relevant to ask you have you noticed any difference in the last ~5 years. I don't know how old you are, but if you are ''older'' (whatever that means), you might have noticed some difference over time. Not if the people you're working with are the same people, mind you.

 

Also, I don't know if you read my post addressed to Swansont fully, but I think the last bit (the last fragmented quote) is especially overlooked. I would appreciate your input on that.

Warning: anecdotes ahead. It has been mentioned previously that harassment of this nature is wildly unreported. I can say from my own experiences that I have mentioned, in addition to at least one other case that I did not (not to mention the far more numerous cases when I worked in hospitality and office administration), only one was reported to management. It was dealt with in-house, and never went further than informal conversations that I can recall.

 

I didn't mention this in my last post as I cannot conclusively point to it being due to inherent sexism: the end result of that meeting I brought up was that my contract was terminated less than a week later. Up until that point, no issues regarding my performance had been raised, and my boss did mention explicitly that the meeting in question was what prompted the decision. I was told that, 'we want your departure to be amicable. The scientific community is a small place, you know?' In other words, if you make a big deal of this, we're going to make sure your future prospects are bleak.

 

I didn't report that. I didn't report the time that a fellow PhD student expressed his genuine surprise that I didn't know the process of obtaining government approval to work with children (his words: "but you are a woman, you should know how to look after children."). When I worked in hospitality, I never did anything about the comments made to me by men, or even the time one guy decided to place his hands on my hips and feel me up to 'diagnose my back problems' (later offering me - at 17 - the opportunity to come to his house for a treatment in which I would be naked). When I worked in reception, I never reported all the inane comments made to me by certain managers or sales staff about my abilities or appearance. I have never reported the instances where I have been grabbed in bars or out in the city, or alerted authorities when guys have approached me on trains to harass me and not left me alone when asked. One time late at night, a guy literally chased me down a dark and otherwise empty street to tell me he wasn't going to hurt me (I'll never understand that one).

 

I realise most of this is not related to STEM, but the point being: this stuff is very much unreported. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest to hear that 31% is an under-representation of the true state of things. Consider for example that in 2002, 63% of all sexual harassment went unreported. A more recent HuffPost poll found that 70% of people who experienced sexual assault in the workplace did not report it. On college campuses, that number was closer to 90%. It's probably also true that some comments (you mentioned the word slut as an example) are not deemed bad enough to be reported in the first place. I think this is problematic also.

 

On that note. I do think context is important. If one of my friends called me a slut or similar, I would not be offended in the slightest. My friends know me well enough to know that I am okay with it, and I know them well enough to understand that they would intend it to be taken jokingly and / or with affection. In a workplace with people you interact with primarily on a professional level, I do not think that calling someone a slut, or rating their appearance is in any way appropriate. Perhaps it is minor in comparison to actual physical assault, but I do not see how it is not sexual harassment all the same where the comments are unwanted. Your counter example of insults that you have received, or the claimed under-reporting of assaults committed against men reads like a straw man to me. The fact that we know sexual assault on women to be under-reported makes this:

 

 

But if a woman receives mild insulting comments (like slut), she is expected to immediately report it.

 

A rather perplexing statement. Moreover:

 

 

By doing this, it would in fact prove that women are the weaker sex, which is the exact opposite of what feminism should be doing.

 

Even if I believed the previous statement by you to be true, it proves nothing of the sort. It proves that preconceived expectations of a person's behavior based on gender is a complex and problematic issue for both sexes, which is not really the point of issue here.

 

I will say that as dire as it might come across, I have not had any issues whee I am currently, and I haven't had nearly as many issues working in labs as I have in hospitality and admin. As CharonY mentioned, biology and chemistry has either an even split or bias towards female participation; particularly at the PhD level, which is what I'm at currently. Five years ago I had just started my last PhD and was in my early-mid 20's; now I am in my late 20's, and half way through my current PhD in the same lab, so I cannot really comment on any differences in that sense.

 

 

Also, would you say that other women around you got harassed just as much as you did?

If not, it may be due to circumstances such as you being exceptionally pretty. Maybe that's sexist, but I'd assume males would be more likely to sexually harass someone who's considered pretty compared to someone who is not.

If so, then would you say we have misrepresented, manipulated, and falsified evidence in any way?

Do you find our argument fair or illogical?

I have never asked, so I wouldn't know and I wouldn't want to speak for them. Whether or not I'm 'pretty' has zero to do with this argument. I could have the face and body of a rotted potato, it doesn't excuse the harassment, and it doesn't change the statistics already mentioned here.

 

I find that your argument somewhat misses the larger issue of ingrained sexism, and how that plays out in things like the percentage of women in physics.

 

Two threads that address these issues very well (CharonY has some great posts in these):

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87451-why-is-the-female-crowd-not-attracted-to-stem-fields/

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79192-many-women-on-the-site/

 

 

[Raider5678]

I have never asked, so I wouldn't know and I wouldn't want to speak for them. Whether or not I'm 'pretty' has zero to do with this argument. I could have the face and body of a rotted potato, it doesn't excuse the harassment, and it doesn't change the statistics already mentioned here.

 

I find that your argument somewhat misses the larger issue of ingrained sexism, and how that plays out in things like the percentage of women in physics.

 

Two threads that address these issues very well (CharonY has some great posts in these):

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87451-why-is-the-female-crowd-not-attracted-to-stem-fields/

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79192-many-women-on-the-site/

 

 

I had assumed you might have seen a male co-working harassing or making comments to a female co-worker.

Yes, you could have the face of a rotten potato. But do you think you'd get hit on at the same frequency?

 

I had a very large point made about ingrained sexism earlier:

 

As for what girls and boys are taught at a young age, I disagree on your viewpoint. They are raised differently, granted, but there are pros and cons for each. Boys are raised often to not cry and to deal with things on their own. They're taught to be independent and to focus hard on getting things done and being productive. But there are cons, as emotional problems are often dismissed as them being sissies. Any sign that they're weak, and they're picked on at school. Growing up as a male is often a large amount of competition between each other to be the strongest, smartest, and the best overall.

As for girls, they're far more pampered as a kid. I'm not being sexist, it's true. Their emotional problems are far more catered to, if they get hurt they are taken care of rather then told to deal with it, and if someone is bullying them physically someone will almost always step in. In school, if a guy pushes another guy nobody could care less. If a guy pushes a girl, immediately at least 3 guys will take a step toward him. But while they're pampered, they're not pushed as hard to focus on things such as education, sports, or to get a job. They're taught to have proper manners and to be good and probably to play a musical instrument of some kind. But recently, they've also being taught more and more to be independent. This shows a slight shift in how they're raised, but it's not enough yet.

 

Evidence of the differences in how they're raised shows in the higher occurrence of suicide and depression in males. For every 1 female that commits suicide, 3.5 males commit suicide. Out of all suicides, 7/10 are white males(not sure if this matters or not, so I included it.) This almost had a nation men's day started to raise awareness about suicide rates in males, but feminists shut it down saying it was for sexist pigs and that the men were just sissies(sigh).

 

The difference I believe starts with how they're raised. But the question is how to raise them?

Should we stop pampering girls emotional needs and push them harder to do well in school, sports, and education?

Or should we start pampering guys and stop pushing them as hard to succeed?

 

If we don't pamper anybody, then everything is one massive competition where every weakness will drastically decrease your chance of success.

But if we pamper everybody, then the drive to succeed isn't as high. The motivation to get into things like physics is less, and they will settle more to just get jobs.

 

[swansont]

1. I have never said sexism never existed. I have said that is changing. Do not put word in my posts that I have not said.

Where did I claim that you had?

 

And it is like the just about everywhere.

https://edsource.org/2017/girls-now-outnumber-boys-in-high-school-stem-but-still-lag-in-college-and-career/578444

Maybe a small difference of 5% between girls outnumbering boys some places and boys out number girls at others, but then we can't expect it to be perfect 50-50 can we? Or maybe you think it should. In which case, I was wrong. Sexism is alive and well in high-school.

If you read through the article it makes a number of points I've already brought up.

 

2. Maybe that entire post I said earlier about how they're raised with sexism? But rather then blunt saying "You shouldn't worry your pretty head" it's rather subliminal. Which is what I'm saying we should change. That extreme sexism you're saying exists today with girls being told they shouldn't do stuff just because they're a girl? I haven't found a single girl who answered yes when I asked "Do you ever have people tell you you shouldn't do science or math simply because you're a girl?". Out of estimated group size of 39(about 2 classes.). I'll keep asking. But mean while, the evidence is mounting that this extreme sexism you're talking about is gone(except for isolated cases, but that's a red herring) in the recent generation, and rather it's now a subliminal one in how they're raised.

In one of my links it's mentioned how a women had never been told that graduate school was an option, yet it was suggested to the men who were of similar ability. The pressure needn't be overt to be effective.

 

3. I'm sorry. Perhaps you were expecting sexism to disappear over night?

It's going to take a while. Our generation seems to have gotten rid of conscious sexism, so there is progress being made. But what progress can we make for those already past college? I'm not God. Neither are you. They're just going to have to deal with it. There's not much that can be done because all the other sexist pigs are still in control. Unless you have a way to change this?

If it's not an issue keeping people out of any particular field, how can this matter at all?

 

Did you read what I said?

I misread it as wanting to be in STEM fields. Apologies.

 

There's this link proving you're wrong about high-school, which might I add I'm currently in and you're not:

https://edsource.org/2017/girls-now-outnumber-boys-in-high-school-stem-but-still-lag-in-college-and-career/578444

Since I haven't been focusing on high school (except as rebuttal when you bring it up), how can I be wrong about it?

 

Also proving, that you're world view of girls everywhere not making it into the stem field simply because they're girls, is wrong. And that you're also wrong about how prevalent the stem field is among americans in general. Further more, you're also wrong that sexism due to differences in jobs are extreme and affect every woman.

I can't be wrong about claims I never made. These are straw men representations of my arguments.

 

On top of that, this statistic shows that your claim in another thread that women do not dominate any jobs that aren't degrading is wrong.

http://www.businessinsider.com/pink-collar-jobs-dominated-by-women-2015-2

Where did I make that claim?

 

Your view about how prevalent sexism is today in the modern world is wrong. I have openly provided evidence against most of your statements. I have given links, proof, statistics, and evidence.

I have seen no statistics from you (though one link is broken, so maybe that's it, but that was in response to a straw man)

 

No, but I'm actually asking around, unlike you.

And you know that I am not...how, exactly?

[Raider5678]

And you know that I am not...how, exactly?

Apologies.

What have you found so far?

[Lord Antares]

 

/cut

 

 

Alright, thatnks for the in-depth post.

You have made me aware of the problem of harrassment. Not that I didn't know about it, I've had to stop harrassment a few times in my life.

But you have made your point of it being under-reported. I am sorry about how you have been treated, it does make me angry.

 

However, this does not impact what we are talking about specifically. The question was ''why are there significantly less women in physics than there are men?''. Your examples of sexual harrassment only prove that it is a general issue, but what relevance does it have for the field of physics? In other words, women are generally harrassed in all careers, yet there is a significantly higher number of them in many other jobs. Why does your argument not apply to those? How can you say that women might not want to get into physics because of potential harrassment, when there is an expected equal amount of harrassment they would receive in many other jobs?

 

Furhtermore, swansont has made the point that since there is a higher amount of males in physics, there is a higher expected chance that a woman will get harrassed. This makes sense but it is not the case. In the statistic he linked early on, the rate of harrassment is about the same for STEM fields as it is for ''general'' jobs which have a much higher rate of women, which in turn means that, on average, men in physics are much more polite and therefore, you will have a higher percentage of people supporting you if you get harrassed!

[Raider5678]

Furhtermore, swansont has made the point that since there is a higher amount of males in physics, there is a higher expected chance that a woman will get harrassed. This makes sense but it is not the case. In the statistic he linked early on, the rate of harrassment is about the same for STEM fields as it is for ''general'' jobs which have a much higher rate of women, which in turn means that, on average, men in physics are much more polite and therefore, you will have a higher percentage of people supporting you if you get harrassed!

Yes, this occurred to me earlier when I was looking at the statistics of retail and stem fields in female to male ratios. But I didn't do the math yet.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Alright, thatnks for the in-depth post.

You have made me aware of the problem of harrassment. Not that I didn't know about it, I've had to stop harrassment a few times in my life.

But you have made your point of it being under-reported. I am sorry about how you have been treated, it does make me angry.

 

However, this does not impact what we are talking about specifically. The question was ''why are there significantly less women in physics than there are men?''. Your examples of sexual harrassment only prove that it is a general issue, but what relevance does it have for the field of physics? In other words, women are generally harrassed in all careers, yet there is a significantly higher number of them in many other jobs. Why does your argument not apply to those? How can you say that women might not want to get into physics because of potential harrassment, when there is an expected equal amount of harrassment they would receive in many other jobs?

 

Furhtermore, swansont has made the point that since there is a higher amount of males in physics, there is a higher expected chance that a woman will get harrassed. This makes sense but it is not the case. In the statistic he linked early on, the rate of harrassment is about the same for STEM fields as it is for ''general'' jobs which have a much higher rate of women, which in turn means that, on average, men in physics are much more polite and therefore, you will have a higher percentage of people supporting you if you get harrassed!

I was addressing the general points about harassment in the work place, hence why my examples were somewhat broad. I do not have time right now to address your question regarding physics specifically, but I would encourage you to read the threads I posted links to. There really is some good discussion in there, some of which goes into your questions.

 

I will aim to reply more fully in the morning.

[DrKrettin]

I think this is relevant to the thread, and I would be interested in opinions.

 

This link complains about the absence of women in a scientific environment. Don't bother with the Spanish text, but scroll down to the three large pictures, the first one with a space rocket, where in all the characters, there is supposed to be just one woman in each picture. The thrust of all this is that it is very difficult to find women working as scientists.

 

But just a minute - there are so many characters, most in lab coats, so how are you supposed to recognise a female one? You would only be able to spot one if she were wearing, say, fishnet stockings, high heels and with long flowing hair. In fact, you would only see one if she were the very stereotype which the authors would hate. So the inability to spot a woman could be interpreted in any number of ways, not necessarily the way this movement wanted.

[swansont]

Apologies.

What have you found so far?

 

 

I've found lots of instances of people who have felt this pressure. I linked to one of the stories.

[CharonY]

 

Alright, thatnks for the in-depth post.

You have made me aware of the problem of harrassment. Not that I didn't know about it, I've had to stop harrassment a few times in my life.

But you have made your point of it being under-reported. I am sorry about how you have been treated, it does make me angry.

 

However, this does not impact what we are talking about specifically. The question was ''why are there significantly less women in physics than there are men?''. Your examples of sexual harrassment only prove that it is a general issue, but what relevance does it have for the field of physics? In other words, women are generally harrassed in all careers, yet there is a significantly higher number of them in many other jobs. Why does your argument not apply to those? How can you say that women might not want to get into physics because of potential harrassment, when there is an expected equal amount of harrassment they would receive in many other jobs?

 

Furhtermore, swansont has made the point that since there is a higher amount of males in physics, there is a higher expected chance that a woman will get harrassed. This makes sense but it is not the case. In the statistic he linked early on, the rate of harrassment is about the same for STEM fields as it is for ''general'' jobs which have a much higher rate of women, which in turn means that, on average, men in physics are much more polite and therefore, you will have a higher percentage of people supporting you if you get harrassed!

 

As I mentioned, I am not sure how much relative impact harassment may have. However, it is possible that experiences discourage women to go into areas that are male-dominated to begin with. Also, can you show me where men in physics are more polite and supportive? If you mean the 31% STEM statistic it just means that even in STEM harassment is observed. Even if the rate is lower than hospitality, would you not agree that it may be prevent at least some women to enter a stressful, highly competitive career? One would need to e.g. see whether there are differences in the rates between disciplines to make any assumptions in that regard.

 

However, as hyper pointed out, I will also note the strong dependency of grads and postdocs on their advisor, which (IMO) creates an unhealthy power imbalance, specifically in STEM. Overall, however, I do think that it is more a contributing factor later down the pipeline rather than at the beginning (though I may be wrong, I just have not seen data to substantiate either claim). There are other important factors at play. For example, there was a paper in which the author sent out physics assignments to Physics teacher at various European schools to have them graded. The assignment was a slightly open-ended question to allow for leeway in evaluation. The interesting result was that if the same assignment had a female name as student, it was graded significantly worse than if it had a male name. Interestingly the trend was also there when the teacher was female. Another interesting thing is that the bias is larger for younger teacher, but is gone for older, more experienced ones (which meshes well with my personal observations). So there are two things here. One is the apparent gender bias in evaluating a person and second, the fact that the younger teachers (who, according to this board are less sexist) show the highest bias. I would assume that the bias would also be there when the teachers were students which could colour the interaction already early on.

One interesting bit was also that German male teachers did not seem to have that tendency, they just gave everyone low marks. While it may seem encouraging, it may imply that when we start evaluating things at the top (e.g. prestigious positions), the difference may become skewed again.

[swansont]

 

As I mentioned, I am not sure how much relative impact harassment may have. However, it is possible that experiences discourage women to go into areas that are male-dominated to begin with. Also, can you show me where men in physics are more polite and supportive? If you mean the 31% STEM statistic it just means that even in STEM harassment is observed. Even if the rate is lower than hospitality, would you not agree that it may be prevent at least some women to enter a stressful, highly competitive career? One would need to e.g. see whether there are differences in the rates between disciplines to make any assumptions in that regard.

 

However, as hyper pointed out, I will also note the strong dependency of grads and postdocs on their advisor, which (IMO) creates an unhealthy power imbalance, specifically in STEM. Overall, however, I do think that it is more a contributing factor later down the pipeline rather than at the beginning (though I may be wrong, I just have not seen data to substantiate either claim). There are other important factors at play. For example, there was a paper in which the author sent out physics assignments to Physics teacher at various European schools to have them graded. The assignment was a slightly open-ended question to allow for leeway in evaluation. The interesting result was that if the same assignment had a female name as student, it was graded significantly worse than if it had a male name. Interestingly the trend was also there when the teacher was female. Another interesting thing is that the bias is larger for younger teacher, but is gone for older, more experienced ones (which meshes well with my personal observations). So there are two things here. One is the apparent gender bias in evaluating a person and second, the fact that the younger teachers (who, according to this board are less sexist) show the highest bias. I would assume that the bias would also be there when the teachers were students which could colour the interaction already early on.

One interesting bit was also that German male teachers did not seem to have that tendency, they just gave everyone low marks. While it may seem encouraging, it may imply that when we start evaluating things at the top (e.g. prestigious positions), the difference may become skewed again.

 

 

 

There was a also a study where job candidates' applications were graded. Women got lower marks and starting salary offers, despite the resumés being identical.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/

 

Also the anecdotal story about a man named Kim who sent out his job application and got no responses, but sent it out again with "Mr." and got immediate job offers (though this is not STEM)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/man-named-kim-job-offers-adding-mr-article-1.1399919

[Lord Antares]

 

As I mentioned, I am not sure how much relative impact harassment may have. However, it is possible that experiences discourage women to go into areas that are male-dominated to begin with. Also, can you show me where men in physics are more polite and supportive? If you mean the 31% STEM statistic it just means that even in STEM harassment is observed.

 

No, it doesn't mean just that. The figures were (I believe) that 20% of students in STEM fields were female, which means 80% were male. In average, ''general'' careers, the figures are 50/50. However, on average, all careers have around 30% rate of harrassment. There being more men in STEM means that men in STEM are, on average, more polite and supportive of women. Do you see what I mean?

 

 

 

Even if the rate is lower than hospitality, would you not agree that it may be prevent at least some women to enter a stressful, highly competitive career?

 

No. Why would it? The figures for STEM are ~30% and the figures on average are still 30% for other fields. How does that mean that the other fields are less stressful for women?

In other words, why would, based on these numbers, other careers be more appealing to women if the rate of harrassment is about the same? Thus, the statistic says nothing about STEM being less appealing to women.

 

EDIT: In other words again, the 50% of men in other fields harrass the 50% of women to a degree of 30%. In STEM fields, the 80% of men harrass the 20% of women to a degree of 30%. This means that the men in STEM fields are, on average, much nicer.

 

 

 

There are other important factors at play. For example, there was a paper in which the author sent out physics assignments to Physics teacher at various European schools to have them graded. The assignment was a slightly open-ended question to allow for leeway in evaluation. The interesting result was that if the same assignment had a female name as student, it was graded significantly worse than if it had a male name.

 

 

 

 

 

There was a also a study where job candidates' applications were graded. Women got lower marks and starting salary offers, despite the resumés being identical.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/

 

Also the anecdotal story about a man named Kim who sent out his job application and got no responses, but sent it out again with "Mr." and got immediate job offers (though this is not STEM)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/man-named-kim-job-offers-adding-mr-article-1.1399919

 

Alright, this already makes sense. I agree that this shows the existence of the issue. There might need to be repeats of this experiment for more accurate results, but I agree that it is relevant to the point.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Lord Antares

[Raider5678]

There was a also a study where job candidates' applications were graded. Women got lower marks and starting salary offers, despite the resumés being identical.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/

 

Also the anecdotal story about a man named Kim who sent out his job application and got no responses, but sent it out again with "Mr." and got immediate job offers (though this is not STEM)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/man-named-kim-job-offers-adding-mr-article-1.1399919

Again, proof of our argument.

I realise this is merely anecdote, but I did find the coincidence rather striking when the day I stopped getting told I was stupid, immature and uneducated (in the more mild examples) by random people on this forum was the same day I removed my gender from my profile here. Women in general do not tend to participate in these sorts of fora, nor do they tend to engage in online debate so much as men tend to.

I've changed my profile to say I am a female.

It may have to do with you being a moderator.

[Strange]

Women in general do not tend to participate in these sorts of fora, nor do they tend to engage in online debate so much as men tend to.

 

 

And that may be, at least partly, to do with the way they are treated on forums like this.

[swansont]

 

No, it doesn't mean just that. The figures were (I believe) that 20% of students in STEM fields were female, which means 80% were male. In average, ''general'' careers, the figures are 50/50. However, on average, all careers have around 30% rate of harrassment. There being more men in STEM means that men in STEM are, on average, more polite and supportive of women. Do you see what I mean?

 

 

One thing you must account for, however, is that there will be some groups that are men only, and this will occur more often in fields with a large disparity. e.g. a physics department at a small school that has 3 faculty, all men. Women physics faculty will not interact with them in such an environment.

 

Also, is it true that the workforce is 50:50? In the US, men's labor participation rate is about 12% higher than women's (69.2% vs 57%), so it's more like 55:45

https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm

[swansont]

 

I am not sure why objectivity would be excluded by the fact that us 3 are men. We can try to make objective observations, such as yours of sexism. I'm not sure why you're saying I think sexism is not an issue. It is, but at a much lower level of frequency. Cars running over people is an issue, but not so statistically significant that we should remove cars from use.

When you are in agreement that something shouldn't be a problem, but it's not something that you've personally experienced, coupled with disregarding first-hand accounts of the behavior, how can you say that you are making an objective assessment?

This confuses me. What do you mean by that? Do you mean that, of the 1/3 women who were harrassed, 3/4 did not report it? I actually condone not reporting it in many cases and I will get to why I think so. This is an important point of discussion for me. But a few other things first.

Reporting harassment to whomever is in charge of such actions is not the same as responding (presumably anonymously) to a poll

 

As we do with serious offenders. Someone saying ''hey sexy'' is more like the asshole driver who drives really close to your back. You don't ''remove'' such a person from driving/working.

Do we? How long were Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly in their respective positions before the enhanced social pressure of today forced them out (and with severance packages of more than any of us are likely to make in ten lifetimes)? Has Trump been removed from any position of influence because of his actions?

 

The huge difference between this and your car driver analogy is that there is usually not an independent enforcement team (ie. the police) to take action when harassment occurs. It's the employer. And they are likely to be more motivated to keep everything quiet than to deal with the situation. There's also the unusual (if not unique) way we put the target on trial in these cases and with sexual assault. When someone's house is burgled, we don't tell the victim that they shouldn't have nice things, because what do you expect will happen? Dismiss it with "Boys will be boys, after all". Sweep it under the rug. Or just assume that the victims are making it up. But that's what happens a lot in harassment/assault situations.

 

No we don't, and this doesn't happen with rapists either. They are put to jail. If someone says ''hey sexy'', you don't remove him from work forever. That would be stupid.

 

That you summarize sexual harassment as someone saying "Hey, sexy" is part of the problem. It belittles the people who have to deal with it.

 

Might I argue that if I were to make a poll on this forum on how many people are male as opposed to female, and sufficient people took part in it over time, it might prove or disprove my point about interest in physics? Surely, if they vote for their gender anonymously without having to expose their identity, a significantly higher percentage of men WOULD mean that women have a lesser interest in physics, no?

No, you would not be doing random sampling, and even if you could do that, it doesn't remove bias of anyone that might have already been dissuaded from interest. Further, we have reports (and one anecdotal data point) of younger women being just as interested and capable as men in physics.

 

Alright, this is what I wanted to talk about.

 

''Cosmopolitan surveyed 2,235 full-time and part-time female employees and found that one in three women has experienced sexual harassment at work at some point their lives.''

 

First of all, at some point in their lives which might span up to 50 years. Secondly, something as simple as ''slut'' and ''hey sexy'' constitutes as harrassment in this survey. SURELY, over a years span of time, it is very much expected that you will receive a comment like this at some point in time.

Both you and Raider have made this claim, and I can't find anything that backs it up. I don't see a link to the survey questions, so how can you state with certainty that this is the case?

 

There's another survey I ran across, and the "You look nice" kind of comment that Raider pointed to is in it. Only a few percent of respondents though this was harassment (and only 1% of women). So at least that comment is not likely to be well-represented in the survey as constituting harassment

 

http://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/sex/a33555/esquire-cosmopolitan-sex-survey/

 

(There's much in that survey that goes well beyond the scope of this discussion, as well)

 

 

This is my main issue here. Serious sexual offense is completely different than mild, rare verbal offense. I have received a few insulting comments during work (through the principle of randomness and interaction with a lot of people) and I didn't report them. But I wasn't sexually harrassed, so that makes it alright, right?

Two strawmen for the price of one. You call it rare, without having established that it is, and then you equate this with common insults.

 

A line needs to be drawn at what reportable sexual harrassment is. Obviously, we won't talk about rape, physical moves etc. as this goes without saying.

The line exists already. What constitutes sexual harassment is codified.

 

But look at this. When a man receives a mild insulting comment, he is expected not to report it, otherwise he is a ''pussy''. I would never think to report it either, because it is so weak of an offense, that if I am bothered by it, then I will have problems in life. But if a woman receives mild insulting comments (like slut), she is expected to immediately report it.

I will again point out that this is not mere insults that are being discussed, and categorizing it that way marginalizes the problem.

[Lord Antares]

When you are in agreement that something shouldn't be a problem, but it's not something that you've personally experienced, coupled with disregarding first-hand accounts of the behavior, how can you say that you are making an objective assessment?

 

And being in that position can make you biased as well. Take the following thing from the statistic you linked below:

 

52% of men and 48% of women think that most men are capable of rape, under the right circumstances. This is ridiculous.

One would think that referring to statistics would be the most objective way to do this.

 

 

Do we? How long were Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly in their respective positions before the enhanced social pressure of today forced them out (and with severance packages of more than any of us are likely to make in ten lifetimes)? Has Trump been removed from any position of influence because of his actions?

 

The huge difference between this and your car driver analogy is that there is usually not an independent enforcement team (ie. the police) to take action when harassment occurs. It's the employer. And they are likely to be more motivated to keep everything quiet than to deal with the situation. There's also the unusual (if not unique) way we put the target on trial in these cases and with sexual assault. When someone's house is burgled, we don't tell the victim that they shouldn't have nice things, because what do you expect will happen? Dismiss it with "Boys will be boys, after all". Sweep it under the rug. Or just assume that the victims are making it up. But that's what happens a lot in harassment/assault situations.

 

 

Alright, excuse me but I will skip on some of these things as they are getting further and further away from the initial point. Not that it is your fault, I'm just saying.

 

 

That you summarize sexual harassment as someone saying "Hey, sexy" is part of the problem. It belittles the people who have to deal with it.

 

Strawman argument from you. I will address it below quoted at the proper place.

 

 

 

Both you and Raider have made this claim, and I can't find anything that backs it up. I don't see a link to the survey questions, so how can you state with certainty that this is the case?

 

 

Quote from the 31% percent statistic:

 

 

There are at least some women who don't realize that the behaviour they are experiencing at work constitutes as sexual harrassment.

16% of women said ''no'' when asked if they were sexually harrassed, but said ''yes'' to experiencing sexually explicit or sexist remarks.

 

I don't know what you would define as a ''sexually explicit or sexist remark'', but it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that ''hey sexy'' might be it, as per this article.

So, I didn't say that, the statistic did.

 

 

 

There's another survey I ran across, and the "You look nice" kind of comment that Raider pointed to is in it. Only a few percent of respondents though this was harassment (and only 1% of women). So at least that comment is not likely to be well-represented in the survey as constituting harassment

 

 

Yes, I see it here but it isn't the same thing as we are talking here. Plus, I personally didn't say that this would be considered sexist, but a more ''ugly'' version, such as ''hey sexy babe'' might be considered sexist. A significant part of the 31% statistic might be this. YOU DON'T KNOW THAT.

 

Also, this cosmopolitan article says that 1 in 5 women will be raped at some point in their life. In another part of the article, 27% of women said that they have been raped. There is a significant disparity there. And seriously, 1 in 4 women are raped? Even more than that?

 

And most significantly to the topic:

 

 

 

 

One thing you must account for, however, is that there will be some groups that are men only, and this will occur more often in fields with a large disparity. e.g. a physics department at a small school that has 3 faculty, all men. Women physics faculty will not interact with them in such an environment.

 

 

 

So what? The point still stands that the rate is not higher than in other fields. However you twist it, the numbesr themselves that there is no reason that sexual harrassment should divert women from physics, as opposed to other jobs where they get equally harrassed. This has shown nothing so far. The other thing you said about blind grading etc. stands. It is clear indication that something is wrong. But not this.

[iNow]

I've changed my profile to say I am a female.

It may have to do with you being a moderator.

Maybe, though the fact that it happened when she was a standard member / prior to her becoming a member of staff implies that your suggestion here almost certainly misses the mark.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Maybe, though the fact that it happened when she was a standard member / prior to her becoming a member of staff implies that your suggestion here almost certainly misses the mark.

 

Most / almost all of it came after I became staff. I actually wasn't a standard member here for very long before I became a Res Expert (about 10 months), and I was here (IIRC) just over a year before I was a mod. You do tend to attract more vitriol and attention from members when you're the one giving out the warnings and suspensions. I just haven't seem to have had as much of it (and certainly no comments explicitly telling me that my age and / or gender made me silly or uneducated) since I took my age and gender off my profile page.

[iNow]

Fair enough. Appreciate the correction. Suppose the next reasonable question then is whether all mods receive vitriol and demeaning remarks with the same frequency and intensity as you or if instead your experience remains distinct due solely to your nether plumbing.