naath: (Me)
[personal profile] naath
[livejournal.com profile] 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.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-05-08 10:51 pm (UTC)
rmc28: Rachel in hockey gear on the frozen fen at Upware, near Cambridge (Default)
From: [personal profile] 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.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-05-09 09:18 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] naath.livejournal.com
Ah, but we must think of all the poor aggressive workaholics! What will they do! /sarcasm

Profile

naath: (Default)
naath

December 2022

S M T W T F S
    123
45678 910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags