(no subject)

[naath]

foreverdirt linked to this excellent talk about sexism in science, the talk is an hour long and there are introductions before and questions after so it is a bit long, but I think worth it.

One of the excellent points made, and one that I have failed to express when I wanted to, so I'll do it here instead - is saying things like "women are innately worse at science" is *actively harmful* to the progress of women in science, and that if you are thinking of saying such a thing in public then you really ought to be very sure that you are right; that just saying such things with the force of your reputation and your conviction that you are right will cause other people (in this case women) to internalise the message (and as a result be worse at science). It turns out that this has actually *been tested*; if you give girls a maths test then they *do worse on it* if you remind them that girls aren't good at maths before they sit it.

Comments

[atreic.livejournal.com]

If it is true that in the top 1% of scientists there are more men than women, saying "women and men are equally good at science" can also be actively harmful if it decays into "so the top institutions must take 50% men and 50% women"

[naath.livejournal.com]

Right; but if it is true that the top 1% of scientists contains more men than women that data is *not sufficient* to state that women can't do science - there are loads of other reasons; like schools that suck, universities that suck, hiring policies that suck, maternity leave and child care provision that sucks... and there really is no way to see to what extent (if any) "women innately suck at science" is a factor amidst all these confusing factors.

Using quotas might be the only way to force universities/schools/employers into accepting that women can (and do) do Good Science; which is a huge shame. Also sometimes I think that a quota system makes women think "I'm only here because of the quota" so I'm not really in favour. I'm in favour of forcing people to institute policies that make their workplace/study-place an attractive place to be for women - but that's much harder to achieve, and it's possible that with more women around places will change faster to accommodate them.

Besides the Top Institutions do not train only the Top 1% of Scientists. I know; because I have a Cambridge degree and no *way* am I in the top 1% of scientists; so clearly chucking out mediocre-boy-students in favour of mediocre-girl-students is not actually going to result in many fewer Top Scientists.

[pizza.maircrosoft.com (from livejournal.com)]

do you have views on something like an all-women's university? If Good Science emerged from such a thing people might get the point.

However I believe it is rather difficult to start from scratch and become a Good University if you don't have a few hundred years to spare.

[naath.livejournal.com]

Good Universities can't really just be invented - you have to attract the talent, and the funding and so on.

I was personally very happy at Newnham because having more women senior members meant that I had a greater chance of being supervised by women - which lead to greater confidence that, yes, women do go on to do well in Science. I know that other people didn't like it so much though, so I'm not sure if it is in general a Good Thing.

[rmc28]

I'm in favour of forcing people to institute policies that make their workplace/study-place an attractive place to be for women

'Attractive for women' is such a woolly term. Specific things like the right to flexible working, a sensible amount of parental leave, not being looked down on for leaving on time regularly, a low tolerance for rudeness, aggression & bullying in the workplace : all these are obvious improvements for everyone except the aggressive workaholics.

[naath.livejournal.com]

Ah, but we must think of all the poor aggressive workaholics! What will they do! /sarcasm