We know that women students and staff remain underrepresented in Higher Education STEM disciplines. Even in subjects where equivalent numbers of men and women participate, however, many women are still disadvantaged by everyday sexism. Our recent research found that women who study STEM subjects at undergraduate level in England were up to twice as likely as non-STEM students to have experienced sexism. The main perpetrators of this sexism were not university staff, however, but were men STEM degree students.
Not to mention that gay STEM students are more likely to face homophobia. It was rampant at my uni. We could not keep any sort of gay-related posters up without them getting ripped off and trampled within hours. Which in retrospect is wild because there were so many of us, and more who came out years later. lol
Uh… aren’t gay people the only segment likely to face homophobia? Like, you can’t be homophobic to a straight person…
Can’t you? What about not having “girly” hobbies because that “makes you gay”? Or having to dress a certain way? I feel like straight people aren’t excluded from homophobia…
100%, when I was in middle school and highschool I was regularly called gay for not liking football, or not knowing random car facts, or not liking spicy food, and other stuff like that. It was much better in university, but it was in a different region so I can’t compare directly.
Interestingly, one of these bullies came out as gay 10 years later, which I find sad that someone had so much internalised self hatred that he had to project it outwards to feel better about himself.
I don’t know what middle/high schools are like today since I don’t know anyone in that age range, but I bet it’s much better now with today’s internet culture being much more queer positive.
Or much worse thanks to the redpill movement and andrew tate.
Damn, I forgot that pile of garbage existed.
I believe they were implying in STEM vs non-STEM
I’ve seen people being homophobic to straight but feminine men.
Anyway, OP meant that homophobia, just like sexism, seems to be more present in STEM.
STEM students…
Meh not sure if it counts but an ex-client of mine decided to work out his fox news rage on me about my trans sister-in-law. Don’t worry, his manager was informed, the Google maps review of his employer now mentions it, and he really wasn’t expecting me when I knocked on his door late one night smirking and telling him what I did.
Christians going to Christian.
I was called gay long before I ever had a gay thought in my head (on account of being prepubescent).
When I was being brutalized by bullies, gay was a generic derisive, associating things with homosexuality, the way cuck (now a generic derisive) associates with cuckold fetishists.
They’re grouping non-binary people as female and pretending like this isn’t a problem for presenting a statistical analysis?
Who the fuck gave the go ahead for doing this research?
There should be separate reports on non-binary discrimination and female discrimination not combining the two and labeling them women. (in case you’re unaware, males and females can both be non-binary so grouping non binary people from either sex into “women” completely de-legitimizes the research)
Completely unprofessional.
They do include the effect size of including non-binary students when they write “(nb. Non-binary students account for 0.3% of this total)” etc. so the impact on the actual data is shown, if you’re concerned about the statistical analysis. It also does make sense to group them together in this context as they are both minorities in STEM. However the way the article is written makes it clear that including non-binary students was an afterthought; if it was clear in all the data and headings that the data is for both non-binary and female students with the interpretation that they are looking at just “students who aren’t men” then it would have been a lot better.
We cannot do effective corollary research if groups are not independently researched with their own data, a ‘minimum impact’ is still an impact, one which can be used to portray a larger or smaller effect than there is between the actual groups being compared against, especially when there’s a distinct call of ‘white males’ being a problem with no determination of class, culture or variance of religious vs non religious.
People are not blocks, they don’t vote as blocks they don’t work as blocks and they most assuredly do not behave as blocks. It’s important to specify, separate, and effectively research each group and sub group in order to determine the veracity rather than just applying a claim to a useful and popular current enemy, e.g. ‘white male’.
Does you website you linked have any relationship with the research being discussed in the article?
How is it unprofessional? It’s just a different data set, there’s nothing inherently professional or not about it.
Another way to say it would be “non-male” sexual discrimination. Which makes perfect sense given who are generally the target of that type of discrimination.
It’s just a statistic, dude. If you’re looking at it as something it isn’t, that’s on you.
Making wide claims on entire groups based on inferential data is inherently unprofessional. They didn’t stop at observing they’re making claims without evidence to back it up.
How one person feels about something does not automatically mean that someone was intentionally or even unintentionally hurting them.
That is the issue at heart here.
The conclusion are the same that you group or not : men in stem are male chauvinists who doesn’t tolerate those not like them and feel the need to oppress those.
Thank you for completely missing the point and being a direct example of the issues I was discussing.
Yeah let’s level the field at the lowest point
Non-binary people can experience sexism regardless of how they’re born though. Your suggestion that just acknowledging that non-binary people exist without being disrespectful means research should be ignored is making the researcher’s point for them.
Did you read what I wrote or just immediately respond the second I said ‘non binary’? Also the fact you’re making this statement also indicates you didn’t read the source material at all.
I said, in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, that they classified non binary people as women.
Your clear lack of reading comprehension is absolutely not my fault.
There’s no need to be disrespectful to me. I read you. I read your source you linked. I read the original article. You’re the only one that said anything about grouping non-binary people as women. Did you read the article? Clearly the people voting you up and me down didn’t. Make something else up to get outraged about.
I said, in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, that they classified non binary people as women.
Except no, they didn’t. I know this because we are having this conversation. They are grouped together in this statistic, but they make it very clear that they did that, and what % of the block were non-binary.
There’s nothing wrong with what they did. Nobody is trying to trick anyone, they are very transparent about including non-binary people (people who also experience discrimination).
I know you want so bad to be a victim, but men don’t experience sexual discrimination in STEM. Anyone in a STEM career can tell you that.
Ah, so you don’t actually care about the research, the statistics or the facts, you would prefer to try and turn this into a discussion about personal problems than facts.
I’ve no interest given you are likely not in a STEM education or profession and given your notes here, likely wouldn’t make it far even if you tried.
Objective interest and observation is vastly more important than the individual, and instead of approaching it from a statistical and facts based approach you’re attempting to twist what I’ve said into some kind of rhetorical attack on women.
I guess it would make you feel better to believe I’m a man that hates women, but, tragically for you, I have XX chromosomes so your incompetent attempt to present me as the problem in this scenario falls short, especially considering I have been in STEM for the past 20 years both as a student and now a professional academic.
Your personal problems with the materials are ultimately immaterial when compared to the concerns I laid out.
I assume next you’ll start going “the jews are keeping women down”? Or maybe “the patriarchy is the problem, lets ignore the fact women on average choose caring professions over STEM professions”.
At no point did I say the abuse and discrimination wasn’t there, I specifically noted that more research is required to figure out “why” it is there, and not pretend like it’s just “white men keeping women down”.
I understand nuance can be hard, but if you read enough books you’ll get it eventually, I promise.
Nobody asked about your chromosomes. Nobody cares. That shouldn’t matter if what you’re saying has value. That’s kinda the whole point of discussing sexism. For someone talking about rationality you’re acting like you’re allergic to hearing other people’s points. You instantly resort to ad hominem attacks, put words in other people’s mouths and spew the most toxic shit. It’s pretty sad that this garbage gets upvotes on this Lemmy. Get off your porn account and get some sleep.
Way to miss the point and prove an ample example of incompetence.
Or maybe “the patriarchy is the problem, lets ignore the fact women on average choose caring professions over STEM professions”.
Why do women choose caring professions over STEM professions?
Assuming you’re being genuine and not rhetorically trying to present a ‘gotcha’, I’ll answer the question.
https://ilostat.ilo.org/these-occupations-are-dominated-by-women/ You’ll notice women have the advantage of being able to choose professions which don’t end their lives or break their bodies and minds prematurely.
Here you’ll see an article (with corresponding associated research) that goes into the extreme biases surrounding this discussion, especially with individuals pretending to ‘know’ or ‘understand’ the core of the issue without engaging in the realities that there is a fundamental difference between the sexes. This doesn’t have anything to do with the individual and what the individual chooses to do, it has to do with the average and what the statistics say about that. Statistics cannot be applied to an individual and an individuals views and decisions cannot be applied to the statistics. (rather, should not since incompetent malcontents always will try)
The vast majority of ‘evidence’ that states that these issues in the choices women make are discriminatory or pay based are entirely corollary and not directly evidence based. (I.e. the subject matter is not directly evidenced, and only related data is used to infer a conclusion but not actually determine a conclusion based on clear evidence and research).
Females have the inherent ability to empathize and assist others and males inherently do not, on an average basis, not on an individual basis. (Men can be empathetic but not ALL men are able to be empathetic while most women can be empathetic not ALL women can be empathetic, as a direct example with evidence) https://www.acton.org/publications/transatlantic/2019/04/05/reason-women-dont-enter-stem-professions-revealed
Activists like to pretend it’s discrimination and sexism that prevents women from pursuing careers in STEM but the reality is, what few women actually want to get into STEM are the ones who suffer the discrimination therein, and that impacts THAT SPECIFIC group of women, not ALL women.
Again, this is an issue that comes down to small group data being used as an example of ‘why’ for the whole group without actually being the reason why, simply a useful point of data which people can abuse for their own agendas. The same thing assholes do when they have a negative reaction with someone of a different race and then they say “all X people are like this”.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/ https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/the-global-educational-gender-equality-paradox-the-more-gender-equality-in-a-country-the-fewer-women-in-stem/
Research:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797617741719?journalCode=pssa
https://phys.org/news/2015-01-explanation-gender-gaps-academia.html
https://sci-hub.se/10.1037/a0017364
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/
https://www.aaas.org/news/journals-and-funders-confront-implicit-bias-peer-review
https://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1240031/FULLTEXT01.pdf
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Gender_pay_gap_statistics
https://www.di.se/digital/bolag-grundade-av-kvinnor-far-1-procent-av-riskkapitalet/
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/02645505231221240
https://bmcnurs.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12912-023-01267-z
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09636625211002375?icid=int.sj-abstract.similar-articles.2
Articles:
https://www.aaas.org/news/journals-and-funders-confront-implicit-bias-peer-review
Also, regarding “the patriarchy”, anyone making that claim these days when the military industrial complex is almost entirely run by women are wholly disingenuous and should be completely barred from the discussion until they educate themselves on the reality around them.
Per example:
I asked Why do women choose caring professions over STEM professions?
You mostly link to articles saying that women choose not to enter STEM, but they don’t say why.
without engaging in the realities that there is a fundamental difference between the sexes.
What are these fundamental differences between the sexes?
Females have the inherent ability to empathize and assist others and males inherently do not, on an average basis, not on an individual basis.
Off-topic, but why didn’t you provide evidence to that claim? You provided a link, but it wasn’t relevant.
what few women actually want to get into STEM are the ones who suffer the discrimination therein, and that impacts THAT SPECIFIC group of women, not ALL women.
I agree! Women do face sexism in STEM fields!
So how do we end that disproportionate sexism, which would logically be a huge reason women are choosing not to enter those fields?
ITT: disappointment. Cmon Lemmy. You’re better than this.
I’ve posted things on sexism in STEM before, so I can say: no, it is not. I almost didn’t post this precisely because of how bad the comments were to those posts. Hope foolishly sprung eternal.
Lemmy is a collection of mostly contrarians who feel superior, it really isn’t better than this for the most part.
For a hot minute it was 100% marxists up in this bitch.
You weren’t kidding…
I’m more shocked that the vote counts are humane
Girls suck at math (Obligatory XKCD.)
r/transgendercirclejerk incoming
One truth about the modern media landscape: stories that pit groups against each other play well
If someone thinks that a claim of male on female sexism is an attack on men, that’s a them problem. If someone accuses me of sexism, I generally don’t go on the defensive immediately. Conscientious people ought to seek out ways they can improve themselves and not even unconsciously discriminate against their colleagues. Empathy is in rather short supply these days though.
The division was there already, some just didn’t notice it. If you think we’d do better united, maybe consider challenging the sexists and other bigots creating the division.
It reminds me of MLK Jr denouncing the “negative peace which is the absence of tension” as an obstacle to true equality, as opposed to the “positive peace which is the presence of justice”.
quoting MLK
Wow smh far right extremist /s
deleted by creator
We are, without a doubt, living in some of the least bigoted societies in history.
Me, an enlightened Roman, explaining to my house slave how he has it good
Name 5 societies in all of history, that are as diverse as the western world today and have the levels of opportunity for minorities
Name five societies in all of history, circa the time of ancient Rome or before, that had the same level of opportunity for minorities as ancient Rome.
We can be less bigoted than the past while also having a long way to go still. You could even count as a sign of this improvement that these issues are taken seriously and discussed rather than ignored as “just the way things are”.
But we can’t take it for granted, because progress is not guaranteed and equality can decline. Say, such as the matter of abortion rights in the US and consequently how pregnancies are policed, leading to possible arrests even for natural miscarriages.
If you acknowledge that we aren’t finished fighting bigotry, I don’t really understand what’s your concern here.
We are less bigoted compared to the past, what the 1720s?
deleted by creator
TIL The Jungle is a woke moralizing hit piece and enlightened centrists (such as you, good gentlesir) should have dismissed it
What is good example comment of gaslighting for $400 Alex?
Must be nice being able to go thru life and thinking bigotry doesn’t exist while blaming the people who are reporting it. Yes it is the messenger that is at fault.
I get that clickbait is a thing, but as a community focused on Technology it seems pertinent to consider what the experience of different people in this area is like.
Should we pretend it doesn’t happen so that the journalists don’t “win”? It is upsetting to know that this happens, but I don’t see how we “lose” by being informed. This isn’t someone trolling on social media, it’s the reality of the world we live in.
Bullshit and it’s time for the Western World to admit that is bullshit.
Just in my city, solid blue district in solid blue state, the local Jewish temple has a police car in-front of it every time they have services due to a bomb threat over a year ago. People dropped fliers in mailboxes complaining about a person putting up a sign on their door in Arabic that said “god bless this house” The fliers called it un-American. The city next to mine had a mass protest against a Mosque being built.
Ever been to Thailand? The tolerance of the pagan feels like an understatement. Everyone there believes whatever they want without any shame. People worshipping statues and making offerings to ancestors. Signs everywhere bragging about hallel food and prayer rooms. And before you even try it I am an atheist and have had zero issues there, unlike the US where I have to occasionally lie. The atheist groups I go to half the members don’t want their picture taken or name recorded.
In what way are we Westerners less bigoted? It isn’t racism, it isn’t feminism, it isn’t religion, it isn’t LGBT. Go ahead and get a few beers in any minority in your country and ask them what they really think. Or you know you could spend thirty minutes of your life looking at all the documented peer-reviewed evidence gathered that paints a picture of our supposed tolerance.
One truth about the world is that oppressor wants the oppressed to shut up and take abuse.
I’m not even involved in a STEM job any longer but I still see tons of STEM employed men spewing manosphere bullshit all the time. I’m also starting to see more and more well educated, articulate women parroting it. These women also tend to be overwhelmingly conservative in their political positions, too. Especially well educated white women.
“Town square debates”, which anything like this is, tend to be driven by emotions and instincts. Those men may be better to their friends and acquaintances. Those women may too be parroting it simply because that position signals their belonging to some group.
My point is that being well-educated is less important here than it would seem, because it’s not about being correct.
In my experience the technology related fields are greater perpetrators than the base sciences. Though there is still an image problem for things like math (the not tech, engingeering or finance version) and a problem with people outside the field having sxcist expectations about those in it, I genuinely think the environment itself to be very inclusive.
I don’t know why any women sticks it out in that segment. The crap they deal with. No amount of money could make it worth it. The shitheads won.
I studied at the Technical University of Denmark and there was so much sexism towards the women there. I was oblivious to it the first year, and then got into a friend group of primarily women. It was mind-blowing hearing their stories, and of the way that university management and leaders shut them down every time they formally brought up the issue. There was (and still is) serious cover-ups of multiple rape cases.
Don’t think it’s not happening just because you don’t hear about it. People in power are actively trying to keep this quiet, and it’s working.
That sucks dude here in the united states i have known professors to keep pretty masters or phd students for near a decade not letting then complete their projects
Do you have some examples so I know what sort of stuff may be going on?
We coulda told you that without a study bruh
STEM (both technical university and workforce) has been a cesspit of misogyny from my personal experience.
Comments are a shit show 🙂
I’m a woman in STEM. I only went to a CC, so maybe there’s a difference there, but I didn’t experience much sexism in my time there.
I have experienced it at work, but usually from the younger, unsocialized men. Is it a problem? Sure, but I’ll take that over my bosses being sexist.
Also, along with the sexism does come some privilege. When I do something wrong, I tend to get taken easier on when it comes to punishment. I also am able to form… different (non-sexial) bonds with the higher ups. These dynamics are much different to any bonds I had with female bosses from my previous field of work, and they’re different than the bonds the higher ups have with my male counterparts. I can say that I don’t worry about being laid off or fired.
However, I’m also fairly certain that I have a sharp awareness of these bonds and how to manipulate them to get what I want.
Not trying to poo-poo any sexism claims, just that there’s also certainly a privilege to be had being a woman minority in a male-dominated field.
That entire post was an ode to Internalized misogyny.
Is it a problem? Sure, but I’ll take that over my bosses being sexist.
Both can be wrong…When someone asks you if you’ve experienced sexism, It isn’t to fill some imaginary, arbitrary quota we’re reaching. No need to omit. No one’s grading your essay here.
Ah yes someone has a different experience?? They must internally hate themselves. 🙄
I’m not omiting anything, just adding that some privilege comes along with the sexism.
You don’t know what internal misogyny is. This is sounding more and more like a pipe dream of an MRA incel trying to strawperson stories that situations women find themselves in are a privilege of power just so you can misogyny about it.
I know what it means, its just used incorrectly a lot, like it is here.
Jesus fuck you sound horrible
Why’s that? People like me fine.
According to you. Get comfy with the block list psycho.
It’s lemmy. Who cares
I’m curious if they asked the men if they’d experienced sexism too. Most stem subjects are predominantly female so this seems to be a study seeking an answer that suits a narrative.
STEM is dominated by men. Especially the workforce. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23315/. About 50% of women that take STEM majors switch to non-STEM majors, while about 35% of males switch. This is a Yale source, though.
You’re being disingenuous. The study posted relates to sexism at university where stem subjects are predominantly female.
Workforce stats /= University stats which I think you’re aware.
Source? The Yale link above specifically mentions:
Nationally, women make up 57.3% of bachelor’s degree recipients but only 38.6% of STEM bachelor’s degree recipients.
Anecdotally, I was in a STEM-focused school and major over 20 years ago, and it was overwhelming male-dominated. One of my colleagues graduated less than 10 years ago, and her experience was not dissimilar. She had to deal with quite a bit of sexism too, unfortunately.
Your own damn link contradicts that bullshit stem bachelor degree stat.
I’d search for another but people shooting themselves in the foot amuses me to no end 😂
What are you even going on about? It literally says:
Women represent 57.3% of undergraduates but only 38.6% of STEM undergraduates
That means women are obtaining most of their degrees via non-STEM studies.
Women represent 52% of the college-educated workforce, but only 29% of the science and engineering workforce.
And that is reflected in the study’s figures for employment as well.
I’d search for another but people shooting themselves in the foot amuses me to know end
Well let’s look over the score here. Someone has provided two different links to back up their argument and you’ve provided… Oh look, none. You’re making claims and pointing out things that clearly do not exist or are anecdotal. Nothing you have done in the last three comments indicates to anyone that any of us should take anything you have to say with any kind of value.
So I guess you are amused to know [sic] end, but a point or logical argument you have not made. But hey if you thinking you took the W here and that keeps you quiet, then good job you totally owned everyone here. Amazing wordsmithing.
Your Yale link is nonsense as I think you’re aware. Your original link shows a closer stat to reality though it’s based on 2020 data - currently stem is predominantly female.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6759027/
Interesting; you have to dig past the usual misandry sites to find an impartial source but Pew research found 53% of stem graduates female in 2018 and rising.
You can also just check unis individually.
Well I mean, do you read the links you provide?
While women now account for 57% of bachelor’s degrees across fields and 50% of bachelor’s degrees in science and engineering broadly (including social and behavioral sciences), they account for only 38% of bachelor’s degrees in traditional STEM fields (i.e., engineering, mathematics, computer science, and physical sciences; Table 1).
There’s where your 50% comes from. And as you can see, your link also aligns with the 38.6% previously mentioned.
See? Now was that hard? See how once you explained yourself we could clear up the confusion you were having? Nothing wrong with that, easy to be confused by the various terms that are being tossed around.
There can’t be many places in uni where women are outnumbered by men. It seems like that are taking a majority and trying to make out they are not the minority.
They aren’t talking about university as a whole. They aren’t talking about courses where men are massively outnumber by women. It seems they are using the one group of people where women come off worse than men to fit a narrative.
Either use the data from all the the university or not at all. Otherwise it’s data selection and biased.
Also the self reported sexism is very tiring because it in itself is biased. You hear it all the time something like Woman A : I get so much sexism of man A. He always talks over me.
Man b: yea man A is an arsehole. He talks over everyone, I don’t think he can help kt.
Yet you use that data and it looks like sexism because it is self reported. It’s not, I’ve noticed many women struggle in loud environments, that’s not sexism if she is treated the same as everyone else and just struggles with it.
This is the most “not all men” answer I could ever imagine. You literally got angry at the data, not because there’s sexism, but because there are other men who exist in other places who aren’t sexist.
It’s well-documented that women don’t go into STEM. When data explains why women don’t go into STEM, getting pissy because there are men who are in other fields who aren’t sexist completely misses the entire goddamned point.
I think he may have stumbled past a interesting point (his main point was kind of dumb)-
While I would say the STEM crowd is more susceptable to a certain kind of intellectual narcissism that allows shitty behavior, anyone doing this kind of study should hopefully be making an effort to address the idea that if like 1/6 of dudes are extra shitty then are the STEM students uniquely shitty or are they just normal shitty and the classroom breakdown just means that there’s like 50% more shitty dudes and half as many targets for their shittyness.
That said, I’d love to see the stats on law schools as they tend have the “bro-est bros”
deleted
Or, hear me out, it’s just sexism.
So not worth studying? How do you address things like sexism without attempting to understand it? the tech bro sexism itself might be an overlap with incel culture which may be solveable in a variety of ways or religious sexism which could be harder for a public US institution to address.
IMO it also affects how many extra counselors you’d need to hire to expand tech degrees vs non tech degrees and whether maybe some kind of socializing class should be included in curriculum - this isn’t just some game, both the victims and perpetrators are real people who have to be accomodated/resocialized appropriately.
Does the data explain why women don’t go into stem, or does it simply state what women in stem self-report?
Don’t go into stem, you can’t read data. And I say that while honestly not caring about your genitals.
No it doesn’t.
I’m getting pissy that it’s always about women and women alone that are underrepresented.
If this data also included data on subjects where women outnumber men to the same rate then it would be interesting as a control. But seeing as they are just looking at data where women are already outnumbered it is manipulating the data to either get nothing or the result you want. It won’t for example show the result you don’t want.
The question is are people just sexist when they outnumber the other sex? We don’t know because it doesn’t get asked. Something needs to be done but what is unknown until you find out.
Girls quite possibly don’t enjoy stem as much as boys. That’s an entire possibility for men outnumbering women. But nevertheless there is a push to put more women into the only departments were they don’t already outnumber men. But there is never any push to put men into areas they are under represented. Like I said one sex might naturally enjoy something at a higher rate and that’s not a problem I don’t think, but with one exception. I think teachers should largely be evenly distributed. Especially in primary school there was 0 male teachers we could talk to or could help us with anything. I was lucky I had male role models that could teach me about being a guy at home and in afterschool clubs. But some kids don’t, they might not get a male role model until they are 13, then it might be too late.
Yep. I was right. You turned a conversation about “women are being harrassed” into how upset you are that we aren’t talking about problems men face. If you want to advocate for the problems men face, actually do that, instead of bitching when we are discussing problems women face.
Sorry I belive in equality and think the data should be for the whole population.
Science doesn’t work when you hope for a certain answer and select the data in a way to maximise that outcome.
Dismissing sexism within a particular group because it is disproportionately prevalent in that group is, frankly, treating that sexism as acceptable.
You can just as easily extend this approach until you either reach a group where it’s evened out, or is the entirety of humanity.
“It’s more prevalent in stem? No, you have to look at university students overall”
“It’s prevalent in university students overall? No, you have to look at all students”
“It’s prevalent in students as a whole? No, you have to look at everyone involved in education”
“It’s prevalent in education in general? No, you have to look at public services as a whole”
“It’s prevalent in public services as a whole? No, you have to look at all non-private entities”
“It’s prevalent across non-private entities? No, you have to look at all forms of work”
deleted
deleted by creator
I abhor sexism and racism and what I say next may sound like both of those things but what if women and POC are worse at math than Tall White Guys®?
Should we make it even harder for them to access STEM fields? My workplace is a total sausage fest and I desperately seek the touch of wamman.
You coulda keep this to yourself hope you find some solace in your life
Thanks. I hope you can one day interpret subtext and nuance.
what or whom are you even trying to troll? this is a strawman of 100% of everything
Such experiences included sexist microaggressions and stereotyping; such as questioning women’s academic legitimacy,
That’s the core of a STEM degree. You are constantly challenged about your conclusions. That’s not sexism, that’s how science works.
I think the issue here is that it’s the default kneejerk reaction to not take a woman’s observations or experiments as seriously as a man’s. Sexism can exist in many insidious forms that don’t necessarily need to be conscious decisions made by the perpetrator. Academic rigor is of course important, so it should stay as academic rigor and nothing more.
default kneejerk reaction to not take a woman’s observations or experiments as seriously as a man’s
The default kneejerk reaction in acidemia and high level engineering in general is to do just that. For example: “The fuq, you did not get superconductivity at room temperature.”
That’s not sexism…it’s healthy skepticism, and I think the root of all this. People get questioned in the field, hard…The good scientists and engineers put up with it, because it’s appropriate, and they can defend their data.
I get the point you’re trying to make, but I’ve seen enough healthy skepticism be misconstrued as sexism to be really skeptical of these results.
That’s not what they are talking about, and it’s super fucking obvious.
Other types of sexism include disbelief when a woman explains their experiences and baselessly denying evidence they present to support their claims.
Which proves my point. I question the data, I’m a sexist pig. It’s a hard field when your data is shaky.
It’s sexist if you don’t look further into the claims, instead just relying on your immediate assumptions about them being false.
If you immediately assume women are lying about experiencing sexism, and you don’t look into it further at all, and your reasoning is based solely on them being women as opposed to men, then yeah I’d say that’s pretty sexist. I’m not sure how someone could think otherwise.
I didn’t make any assumptions. By default, the statement made in the paper is not sexist.
By making assumptions, you bring in your bias and sexism. You just made 3 or 4 to justify your position
LMFAO ok bud, nice deflection
