Male Bio Students Underestimate Female Peers

[Choppy]

I noticed this article today on Science Daily and it got me wondering whether the same phenomenon (or perhaps something even stronger) is found in physics.

In summary, the findings were that male students showed a bias towards believing that male students out-performed female students, but the female students displayed no significant bias. This bias can potentially play a role in whether students continue in a specific field because is could influence peer-support.

 

[WWGD]

If you are going to leave a career for lack of emotional support, you are in the wrong field. And, does the study generalize outside of UW?
Try replicating it in other schools. And while you're at it, study why women are, as a whole, getting around 60% of all college degrees (1), yet there are no studies that I know off nor any real concern about men being left behind. More selective concern and outrage, it is a woman's world.

(1)http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/women-now-33-more-likely-men-earn-college-degrees

After all sorts of doubtful statements put out by women's groups, like the allegation of getting paid $0.77 for every $1 a man makes _for the same work_ , I remain skeptic.

 

[Silicon Waffle]

First, they didn't mention how many female subjects there are among 1700 samples for their surveys.
Second, the experiments/surveys look too simple (make questions or questionnaires to students and teachers and then draw conclusions).
I guess Washington state is having more than 50% of total voters in support of Hilary Clinton.

 

[f95toli]

And while you're at it, study why women are, as a whole, getting around 60% of all college degrees (1), yet there are no studies that I know off nor any real concern about men being left behind. More selective concern and outrage, it is a woman's world.

Sure there are, at least in the UK. While males from the lowest socioeconomic groups are very unlikely to go to university and that is being talked about quite a lot, they are e.g. quite a bit less likely than BAME from the same socioeconomic background to get a degree.

There are frequently articles about this in the press.

That said, once they've graduated white males are more likely to get a well paid job than anyone else...

 

[WWGD]

Sure there are, at least in the UK. While males from the lowest socioeconomic groups are very unlikely to go to university and that is being talked about quite a lot, they are e.g. quite a bit less likely than BAME from the same socioeconomic background to get a degree.

There are frequently articles about this in the press.

That said, once they've graduated white males are more likely to get a well paid job than anyone else...

Maybe the women's movement is more reasonable there. Here women tend to gravitate, for reasons I don't claim to understand, to jobs that don't pay as well as those that men gravitate to. And then they demand to be paid equally, and they make claims that are, to understate, factually innacurate.

 

[Choppy]

First, they didn't mention how many female subjects there are among 1700 samples for their surveys.

From the Materials and Methods section:

The gender distribution within lab sections is approximately normal and mirrors that of the overall class (Mean = 57.4% female, SD = 0.11).

Second, the experiments/surveys look too simple (make questions or questionnaires to students and teachers and then draw conclusions).

I agree that studies based on surveys have their limitations and potential biases, but I don't think that negates the results outright. Further, with any study, it's also important to examine it in context. In the introduction, the authors cite studies that demonstate biases favouring male students in other similar contexts incuding mentorship time, email response, and calling on students in class. Are there just as many or more studies investigating geneder biases in STEM fields that have found null results? I don't know, but I would expect that if their were the peer review process would at least require that they be cited.[/QUOTE]

 

[Choppy]

If you are going to leave a career for lack of emotional support, you are in the wrong field.

But socially don't we have a responsibility to strive for a bias-free atmosphere in which to educate people?

And, does the study generalize outside of UW?
Try replicating it in other schools.

The study reports a bias under the conditions cited. Sure, they could look at different schools, but that doesn't negate the results.

 

[WWGD]

But socially don't we have a responsibility to strive for a bias-free atmosphere in which to educate people?
The study reports a bias under the conditions cited. Sure, they could look at different schools, but that doesn't negate the results.

1) Yes, in a (more) ideal world, this would be the case, and we should aim for it, but, being realistic, one should prepare for these situations

2) I have seen so much dishonesty from the US women's movement that I tend towards skepticism, and I consider the pressure to go along with the PC police , e.g., questioning anything the U.S has ever done , market fundamentalism on the right and women's perpetual victimhood on the left

 

[Andy Resnick]

I noticed this article today on Science Daily and it got me wondering whether the same phenomenon (or perhaps something even stronger) is found in physics.

We see this all the time, especially in intro physics labs- these are groups of 4 students who work together. Very often, female group members are marginalized at every step along the way: setup, measurement, analysis, writeup. I've also seen this in group work sessions in a Calc I class- the males discuss, the females sit quietly.

My female students are also more likely to apologize for struggling with the material, even when they are in the top 25% of the class. By contrast, my male students typically allege that something is 'unfair' or otherwise make excuses.

Gender bias is real and corrosive, infecting all of STEM- and it's not limited to students. Faculty members often display similar patterns of behavior. The underlying causes are deeply rooted cultural biases that can't be easily negated. I have no problem with efforts to increase URM participation in Physics and STEM at all levels.

 

[WWGD]

We see this all the time, especially in intro physics labs- these are groups of 4 students who work together. Very often, female group members are marginalized at every step along the way: setup, measurement, analysis, writeup. I've also seen this in group work sessions in a Calc I class- the males discuss, the females sit quietly.

My female students are also more likely to apologize for struggling with the material, even when they are in the top 25% of the class. By contrast, my male students typically allege that something is 'unfair' or otherwise make excuses.

Gender bias is real and corrosive, infecting all of STEM- and it's not limited to students. Faculty members often display similar patterns of behavior. The underlying causes are deeply rooted cultural biases that can't be easily negated. I have no problem with efforts to increase URM participation in Physics and STEM at all levels.

Not quite, at least not always:
https://math.berkeley.edu/~kirby/sexism.html
http://www.awm-math.org/articles/notices/199403/jackson/node5.html
PC is too strong to allow the truth to come out. You won't find the truth on neither most women's issues , nor abortion, etc. because both left and right push too hard , lie and cheat to (appear to) be right.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Not quite, at least not always:
https://math.berkeley.edu/~kirby/sexism.html
http://www.awm-math.org/articles/notices/199403/jackson/node5.html
PC is too strong to allow the truth to come out. You won't find the truth on neither most women's issues , nor abortion, etc. because both left and right push too hard , lie and cheat to (appear to) be right.

I think your arguments about gender bias reflect a deeper, more frightening issue that we all must face at some point: irrelevance. As long as we define people relative to hetero-white-male norms rather than simply accepting full personhood, we have to accept complicity in the continued suffering and injustice resulting from unfair bias. Personally, I have benefited from and continue to benefit from gender bias. Racial bias, too..

 

[WWGD]

I think your arguments about gender bias reflect a deeper, more frightening issue that we all must face at some point: irrelevance. As long as we define people relative to hetero-white-male norms rather than simply accepting full personhood, we have to accept complicity in the continued suffering and injustice resulting from unfair bias. Personally, I have benefited from and continue to benefit from gender bias. Racial bias, too..

I don't know what arguments about bias you are referring to. I just mean that the far left and the far right cherry pick in order to win arguments. Women have many advantages that they neglect to mention. Now, on racial bias, there is a strong, defensible point to be made and legitimate issues that do need to be addressed. But the gender issue is full of hot air , and blown way out of proportion. Please do address the injustice of a male-female prison rate ratio of 10-1 + , similar for deaths on the job, suicide rate, school dropout rates, etc. But the loud mouths on the far left do not bring this up; they only cherry pick, so you only hear about areas where women fair poorly , so , unless you do some research, you believe this is the whole story. Ditto in other areas for the loudmouths in the far right.

 

[Bandersnatch]

I just mean that the far left and the far right cherry pick in order to win arguments. Women have many advantages that they neglect to mention

Whether they do or don't have other advantages (and disadvantages) should not stop us from acknowledging this particular bias and striving to negate it. If we do the same for any other gender bias we may find, regardless of which side it's on, we should make the society overall more egalitarian.
You seem to be saying that it's fine to have gender biases, as long as the other side is made equally miserable as a result.

 

[WWGD]

Whether they do or don't have other advantages (and disadvantages) should not stop us from acknowledging this particular bias and striving to negate it. If we do the same for any other gender bias we may find, regardless of which side it's on, we should make the society overall more egalitarian.
You seem to be saying that it's fine to have gender biases, as long as the other side is made equally miserable as a result.

Yes, you have a point, but I am also skeptic about a lot of these claims, having seen the PC pressure there is to produce results that support the party line. And , still, the results may not hold in other places. The reason I sometimes get upset over this, is that only one side is brought up, and the general perspective is one-sided. But this perspective often seeps into, or becomes public policy, laws. And you end up with laws favoring women in employment, etc. So these views and beliefs do have real-life consequences.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I don't know what arguments about bias you are referring to. I just mean that the far left and the far right cherry pick in order to win arguments. Women have many advantages that they neglect to mention. Now, on racial bias, there is a strong, defensible point to be made and legitimate issues that do need to be addressed. But the gender issue is full of hot air , and blown way out of proportion. Please do address the injustice of a male-female prison rate ratio of 10-1 + , similar for deaths on the job, suicide rate, school dropout rates, etc. But the loud mouths on the far left do not bring this up; they only cherry pick, so you only hear about areas where women fair poorly , so , unless you do some research, you believe this is the whole story. Ditto in other areas for the loudmouths in the far right.

From my perspective, redressing bias in STEM has nothing to do with proportional representation but has everything to do with acknowledging existing power structures.

White males currently have a preferred position in terms of setting top-level (science) agendas and research (earmarked) budget allocations; white males predominantly choose special focus topics for conferences and journals and thus also have a disproportionate say in setting future priorities and funding of science research; STEM texts are predominantly written by white males and STEM subjects are predominately taught by white males. Since rational thought is not the exclusive domain of white males, it seems to me essential that other perspectives be included, especially for a human endeavor that has global impact.

 

[WWGD]

From my perspective, redressing bias in STEM has nothing to do with proportional representation but has everything to do with acknowledging existing power structures.

White males currently have a preferred position in terms of setting top-level (science) agendas and research (earmarked) budget allocations; white males predominantly choose special focus topics for conferences and journals and thus also have a disproportionate say in setting future priorities and funding of science research; STEM texts are predominantly written by white males and STEM subjects are predominately taught by white males. Since rational thought is not the exclusive domain of white males, it seems to me essential that other perspectives be included, especially for a human endeavor that has global impact.

What is preventing women or anyone else from chiming in, from joining? What makes you think this is not the result of personal/individual choices ? Women are getting 60% of college , including graduate-level degrees, and it seems nothing has stopped them from doing so. Women are also evenly-represented in Astrophysics and over-represented in other areas, including Psychology, where they receive 72% of all degrees (1) (though you don't hear complaints about this in the U.S). This seems to suggest that there no real barriers, neither visible ones, nor "invisible ones", unless one believes these barriers exist only in STEM fields . My readings seem to agree with this last (lack of women's presence) being more a choice than anything else. I don't know about minority issues in education, though
Besides, while being OT, why not address the fact that men are getting only 40% of college degrees (and I believe this proportion is decreasing), to prevent an over-representation of women? Why is it that women's issues in this country seem to be given priority over everyone else's issues? I suspect it is the result of effective political organizing and lobbying. Their professional victimhood has become tiresome.

(1)http://dailyprincetonian.com/news/2014/05/art-psychology-class-of-2016-majors-overwhelmingly-female/

 

[Rx7man]

It kinda goes like this... For the political parties trying to get (re)elected to office, if they aren't likable enough to get a majority, they have to make themselves likable to any possible minority to make up for it.. And there's the reason why 'special interest groups' get far more representation than their relative population would command.

I'm all for everyone being treated equally, and I strive to make my ways a good example.. there's arseholes of any race and gender, and I should be forced to hire, be friendly, or give any consideration to one because of affirmative action or any leftist law.

About women not speaking up on group projects.. well.. Everyone should be treated equally, does not mean everyone is the same, and that is especially true of character traits... I would dare any guy to try to put my ex-girlfriend in his shadow in a conversation... She wasn't the kind of character that would allow that.

The more we try to pander to special interests of any kind by giving them special groups, benefits, etc the more alienated they are... if everyone just works together and is courteous of their own volition, I think a lot of the problems will fade with time

 

[Andy Resnick]

What is preventing women or anyone else from chiming in, from joining? What makes you think this is not the result of personal/individual choices ? <snip>

This is exactly my point- expecting others to obey your idea of what is good and proper social behavior is bias.

 

[WWGD]

This is exactly my point- expecting others to obey your idea of what is good and proper social behavior is bias.

Actually, it seems like it is you who has these expectations. You do expect women to study things they may not want to study. I am just letting them do as they wish. It is you who are upset that they are not choosing STEM careers -- your expectations for them. I just believe they are choosing to do what they want.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Actually, it seems like it is you who has these expectations. You do expect women to study things they may not want to study. I am just letting them do as they wish. It is you who are upset that they are not choosing STEM careers -- your expectations for them. I just believe they are choosing to do what they want.

Maybe you honestly don't realize that you are simply circling around and repeating yourself, or perhaps you simply demand agreement with your particular point of view. Having an honest, thoughtful, conversation about the extent of bias and the various forms it may be discomforting as it requires careful self-examination about your own values and sense of relevance in the context of a global community.

Let's put this on hold for a bit, I'm happy to continue when you can provide some original ideas and insight.

 

[WWGD]

Maybe you honestly don't realize that you are simply circling around and repeating yourself, or perhaps you simply demand agreement with your particular point of view. Having an honest, thoughtful, conversation about the extent of bias and the various forms it may be discomforting as it requires careful self-examination about your own values and sense of relevance in the context of a global community.

Let's put this on hold for a bit, I'm happy to continue when you can provide some original ideas and insight.

I truly don't get what you are saying; I think it is you who are going in circles: you are expecting women to do something they do not seem to be interested in doing. I have provided support for my view, yet you have provided no evidence whatsoever to the contrary. And it seems by original ideas , you believe is an agreement with you perspective, or changing my view. But I hold my view because I can support it. Why should I abandon something that makes sense to me? Give me evidence to the contrary and I will consider abandoning it. Meanwhile, you may consider breaking the loop of thought you are in yourself.

 

[Student100]

I noticed this article today on Science Daily and it got me wondering whether the same phenomenon (or perhaps something even stronger) is found in physics.

In summary, the findings were that male students showed a bias towards believing that male students out-performed female students, but the female students displayed no significant bias. This bias can potentially play a role in whether students continue in a specific field because is could influence peer-support.

Considering women earned some 58%~ of biology degrees in recent years, I don't see the problem...?

 

[WWGD]

Considering women earned some 58%~ of biology degrees in recent years, I don't see the problem...?

But nowadays, with the women's movement, every single time a woman is not happy
about _anything_ whether based on facts or not, this must be addressed--meaning changed -- immediately
or the noise machine will start cranking to the max, evidence be damned. If men are doing poorly, OTOH,
this will be no big deal.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I truly don't get what you are saying; <snip>/QUOTE]

Fair enough- please read the first sentence I wrote in post #15, i think that most clearly states my idea.

 

[Choppy]

But nowadays, with the women's movement, every single time a woman is not happy
about _anything_ whether based on facts or not, this must be addressed--meaning changed -- immediately
or the noise machine will start cranking to the max, evidence be damned.

Just because there is a vocal minority that doesn't automatically mean that every point they have is invalid.

The paper indicates a bias among males that under-values the accomplishments of their female peers or perhaps over-values the accomplishments of their male peers. There are potential consequences for this for female students. The consequences are speculation, but the paper is evidence that the bias exists in the first place.

 

[Choppy]

Considering women earned some 58%~ of biology degrees in recent years, I don't see the problem...?

This has been brought up already.

But what is that figure as a percentage of those females who enroll in the first place compared to males? And even if the bias has no significant effect on graduation rates, it is not important to identify systematic biases that could put females as disadvantages by other metrics (job opportunities, salaries, scholarships, graduate school admissions, etc.)?

 

[WWGD]

Just because there is a vocal minority that doesn't automatically mean that every point they have is invalid.

The paper indicates a bias among males that under-values the accomplishments of their female peers or perhaps over-values the accomplishments of their male peers. There are potential consequences for this for female students. The consequences are speculation, but the paper is evidence that the bias exists in the first place.

It may be a good idea to wait see if the same result holds in other schools. I am sorry, but the world is an imperfect place and one needs to be tough enough to get over relatively trivial things such as lack of support and appreciation. This seems too much even considering it is a 1st -world problem.

 

[WWGD]

This has been brought up already.

But what is that figure as a percentage of those females who enroll in the first place compared to males? And even if the bias has no significant effect on graduation rates, it is not important to identify systematic biases that could put females as disadvantages by other metrics (job opportunities, salaries, scholarships, graduate school admissions, etc.)?

Why do you worry only about females? How about the percentage of males that start out in STEM and then dropout and their respective disadvantages? 90%+ of prison population is male, 90% of deaths on the job are male, etc.

 

[Choppy]

It may be a good idea to wait see if the same result holds in other schools. I am sorry, but the world is an imperfect place and one needs to be tough enough to get over relatively trivial things such as lack of support and appreciation. This seems too much even considering it is a 1st -world problem.

What is too much exactly? The paper reports an effect. You seem to be making quite a few inferences from it.

 

[WWGD]

What is too much exactly? The paper reports an effect. You seem to be making quite a few inferences from it.

I mean , it seems like complaining about relatively minor things, like feeling unappreciated and not getting recognition. Is this really a serious obstacle? And this is a paper from one school, maybe it is good to see if results hold in different schools, before considering the issue more deeply. I think it was Russ Watters who put some perspective on it: (paraphrase) If Malala wants to go to school, she may get shot in the face. And you just feel unnapreciated?

 

[Choppy]

Why do you worry only about females? How about the percentage of males that start out in STEM and then dropout and their respective disadvantages? 90%+ of prison population is male, 90% of deaths on the job are male, etc.

Who said I was only worried about females? I only posted a link to a paper I thought was interesting.

If you want to start threads about some studies that show systematic biases against males in academia then go ahead. Just as with this study, I think it's important to be aware of such biases. Moving forward with strategies to correct for them is a different story though.

 

[WWGD]

Who said I was only worried about females? I only posted a link to a paper I thought was interesting.

If you want to start threads about some studies that show systematic biases against males in academia then go ahead. Just as with this study, I think it's important to be aware of such biases. Moving forward with strategies to correct for them is a different story though.

Sorry, I don't mean to ignore the results.

 

[Student100]

This has been brought up already.

But what is that figure as a percentage of those females who enroll in the first place compared to males? And even if the bias has no significant effect on graduation rates, it is not important to identify systematic biases that could put females as disadvantages by other metrics (job opportunities, salaries, scholarships, graduate school admissions, etc.)?

I brought up biology in particular, because that's what this study is about. We can't infer things other then what's actually in the study, although the authors try really hard.

Statistically, every women in class A and B in the study will graduate with a biology degree, and a few males will drop out. In class C, it's much closer to the actually percentage of women that will graduate with a biology degree.

So obviously this perceived bias isn't going to cause the females in the study to suddenly start dropping out. The trend continues into graduate school. Is there any evidence this "bias" is actually detrimental to women in this program? Is there another study detailing this?

 

[xeria]

Not surprised by the responses to this thread. You would think that such intelligent people would wonder about this mysterious reason *why* they claim women are clearly "not interested" in study STEM.
-this stuff also overlaps with issues people of color may face-
From birth (in the west) we are socialized a certain way. Sure, sometimes people may say that girls can do anything, but all the messages we are being sent otherwise say differently. We have little representation in media, our histories are erased and ignored, major scientists say that women don't belong in the lab because they distract the men, simply by existing while being female. Oh, and just take a look at how #ilooklikeanengineer came about. There are actual pay gaps between men and women (and poc) and studies suggesting discrimination in recruitment and amongst peers.

I, personally, have experienced sexual harassment and sexist remarks. When I introduce myself as a software developer, people don't believe me. I've had men less experienced than I try to quiz me. I hear the disgusting ways they talk about women, about me. My experiences are apparently not uncommon. You can find endless accounts similar to mine written by women in STEM.

These angry and defensive responses just outline more of the problem. When women try to talk about our experiences or even suggest that there may be a bit of bias we get jumped.

 

[WWGD]

These angry and defensive responses just outline more of the problem. When women try to talk about our experiences or even suggest that there may be a bit of bias we get jumped.

I would say because most of the claims are not supported by the data and because of the cherry-picking in complaints. Please do show me a study that shows that men and women get paid differently _ for the same work_. Too much selective outrage by the radical feminists, too many dubious/unsupportable claims make me a skeptic of their claims. EDIT: Give me data to support your claims and I may change my mind if I find it convincing.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Please do show me a study that shows that men and women get paid differently _ for the same work_.

I think you might be arguing against a straw man here, or recalling an argument with some rather misinformed opponent.

Gender pay gap takes into account the median wage across the economy. It reflects a range of biases in employment, including gender preference in filling high-paying (leadership) positions or being employed full time, or being promoted. But, it also includes preference for the female to take a break from a career to raise children, or educational choices - which reflect wider societal biases than just those occurring at the workplace, as well as actual legitimate lifestyle choices.
That's where the so-and-so many cents per dollar statistics come from. The data are available from government websites (or e.g. OECD's).

Pay gap for equal work can figure in there as a factor, but in your country it is illegal (as far as I understand the situation, it's covered by the 50-year old Equal Pay Act?). For a proof that this exists you shouldn't look at studies, but at occurrence of lawsuits that end up awarding damages (e.g.http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/epa.cfm).

 

[WWGD]

we couldn't underestimate females because there was no female in our mechanical engineering department

I think you might be arguing against a straw man here, or recalling an argument with some rather misinformed opponent.

Gender pay gap takes into account the median wage across the economy. It reflects a range of biases in employment, including gender preference in filling high-paying (leadership) positions or being employed full time, or being promoted. But, it also includes preference for the female to take a break from a career to raise children, or educational choices - which reflect wider societal biases than just those occurring at the workplace, as well as actual legitimate lifestyle choices.
That's where the so-and-so many cents per dollar statistics come from. The data are available from government websites (or e.g. OECD's).

Pay gap for equal work can figure in there as a factor, but in your country it is illegal (as far as I understand the situation, it's covered by the 50-year old Equal Pay Act?). For a proof that this exists you shouldn't look at studies, but at occurrence of lawsuits that end up awarding damages (e.g.http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/epa.cfm).

EDIT: But there is evidence that men tend to gravitate towards higher-paying jobs and are willing to take on more dangerous jobs and work longer--even to their detriment, as men's value in society is tied to their earning power . And there are many areas where women fare way better than men and biases against men that are rarely mentioned, e.g., longer sentence for the same crime, requirements to support children even after having DNA evidence showing the children are not theirs. So, while there are biases, I do not see how there are _systematic biases_ against women, as there are biases against men too. And the existence of lawsuits is a function of the political climate at the moment in which men are repeatedly demonized -- after a woman(1) is told almost daily that she is being exploited, she believes it, whether true or not . Notice how , while women are getting 60% of college degrees no one seems to care about that. You want to find real bias and _systematic_ , across-the-board mistreatment, you have race, but not gender, I don't think.

(1)Or member of any group that sees itself as a minority.

 

[Bandersnatch]

And the existence of lawsuits is a function of the political climate at the moment in which men are repeatedly demonized -- after a woman(1) is told almost daily that she is being exploited, she believes it, whether true or not .

That might be one of the reasons for the lawsuits in the 'no reasonable cause' rubric in the document linked to. However, there's almost 25 years of data on the EEOC website showing courts consistently finding merit in around couple hundred cases each year, and awarding benefits counted in millions of dollars.

 

[WWGD]

That might be one of the reasons for the lawsuits in the 'no reasonable cause' rubric in the document linked to. However, there's almost 25 years of data on the EEOC website showing courts consistently finding merit in around couple hundred cases each year, and awarding benefits counted in millions of dollars.

From what I read, if I understood correctly, the reasonable causes (cases with merit) were less than 100/year within the dataset, not
much within such a litigious society. And , even if there were merits to the case, what reason is there to believe that gender is not a confounding variable? How many lawsuits were filed by men for the same reason?

Just curious: are CEOs ignorant of this supposed difference in pay? If so, why don't they hire only women , have them do all the work at 77% of the cost and then pocket the difference? Why isn't there then a bias against hiring men, who, according to this claim , are on average 25% more costly per unit of labor than women? Do you think these CEOs don't crunch every number on the book?

EDIT: There are some 73 million women in the labor force(1), and, according to your link, fewer than 100 suits were found to have merit on each of the years. I don't see how that shows the existence of systematic bias in pay.
(1) http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_301.htm

 

[Choppy]

Notice how , while women are getting 60% of college degrees no one seems to care about that.

No. People do care about it. It looks like there have been a number of studies that have investigated possible reasons for the reversal in the gender gap in university education over recent decades. See:
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=related:F67mVBUWyeUJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

And not that I've read these studies in depth, but skimming the abstracts, it doesn't seem anyone is concluding that this difference in enrollment or graduation rates results from systematic biases against males. Maybe there are.

And if there is evidence of it, we should talk about that - but perhaps in another thread. Brining it up here seems like a straw man.

 

[WWGD]

No. People do care about it.

And if there is evidence of it, we should talk about that - but perhaps in another thread. Brining it up here seems like a straw man.

Not here in the US. And, sorry, it was just a minor comment in my reply to Bandersnatch.

 

[xeria]

@WWDG

hmm... male symbol avatar... typical men's rights rhetoric (which, btw, has been discussed and refuted a million times all over the internet)... totally ignored pretty much my whole post.. suggests that women are all lying and being manipulated into playing "the victim"...

nah. How about you prove to me that you're worth the time first, because right now you seem like all the others who don't care and just talking at me.

 

[WWGD]

@WWDG

hmm... male symbol avatar... typical men's rights rhetoric (which, btw, has been discussed and refuted a million times all over the internet)... totally ignored pretty much my whole post.. suggests that women are all lying and being manipulated into playing "the victim"...

nah. How about you prove to me that you're worth the time first, because right now you seem like all the others who don't care and just talking at me.

Maybe you should inform yourself first:
1)the avatar is a default avatar, not chosen by me. It is assigned to anyone who declares their gender in their personal PF page.
2) Women's positions cannot be refuted because they offer no _actual data_. You can, of course, cherry-pick sites where women make their points and ignore those where men make their points.
And, BTW: just what is wrong with men's rights? If you can talk about women's rights, why can't men address their rights, e.g., the right to not pay alimony for a child which has been proven through DNA not to be theirs. DNA: a man's best friend.
3) My position is that women are not systematically discriminated against: there are anti-women biases as there are anti-men biases. Women enjoy benefits men don't and viceversa. If you want to look at a genuine bias, look at race; there you have a legitimate case.
4) I made _specific_ claims, which you can refute if you chose to do so.

 

[xeria]

You're right, my mistake. By women's positions do you mean the anecdotal data of women's personal experiences in STEM? Because this can and has, in fact been used as evidence. When I said men's rights, I was speaking of the group. You know, the actual recognized hate group. As for talking about men, this thread was about bias against women in bio, so talking about men is completely irrelevant and derailing, regardless of your opinion on it, and this tactic is often used to silence conversations about these types of things, so you can imagine my annoyance. As for your claims about men and women 'gravitating' towards different types of jobs, this is influenced by socialization. I still resent your accusations that women just aren't into STEM, clearly, because, well, you know.. WOMEN, and your suggestion that we are being massively manipulated and clearly wrong or lying about our own experiences. I also wonder if you take into account the fact that, historically, women's work has been undervalued.

 

[WWGD]

You're right, my mistake. By women's positions do you mean the anecdotal data of women's personal experiences in STEM? Because this can and has, in fact been used as evidence. When I said men's rights, I was speaking of the group. You know, the actual recognized hate group. As for talking about men, this thread was about bias against women in bio, so talking about men is completely irrelevant and derailing, regardless of your opinion on it, and this tactic is often used to silence conversations about these types of things, so you can imagine my annoyance. As for your claims about men and women 'gravitating' towards different types of jobs, this is influenced by socialization. I still resent your accusations that women just aren't into STEM, clearly, because, well, you know.. WOMEN, and your suggestion that we are being massively manipulated and clearly wrong or lying about our own experiences. I also wonder if you take into account the fact that, historically, women's work has been undervalued.

I don't know, in my experience, I did not have any special reinforcement; I was even told to drop out of my STEM career, and I did not listen. I knew what I wanted and went for it, despite many people's disapproval(including in my family).So I just don't understand their issues on not being appreciated or being socilalized. Yes, this does have an influence, but it is ultimately up to you to overcome the garbage that is put into your head. And the issue about women in Bio was , I think, done away by Student 100's post: how damaging can the effect be if 58% of degrees are earned by women? If such a large percent of degrees in Biology is earned by women, isn't this a sign that there aren't many significant barriers in Biology?

 

[Student100]

You're right, my mistake. By women's positions do you mean the anecdotal data of women's personal experiences in STEM? Because this can and has, in fact been used as evidence.

Personal experience is evidence of nothing - other than someone had a personal experience. It certainty can't be used to prove systematic discrimination against an entire gender of people.

As for talking about men, this thread was about bias against women in bio, so talking about men is completely irrelevant and derailing, regardless of your opinion on it, and this tactic is often used to silence conversations about these types of things, so you can imagine my annoyance.

Actually the thread was about the papers results extending into other areas of science/peoples thoughts on it.

I disagree with the paper quite a bit, I actually think applying the results they saw in biology class to science courses in general is deeply flawed and troubling. If they/or we for that matter, wanted to infer about biases in other science courses, we/they should have found evidence/studied those courses as well.

The paper itself should have also look at a wide swath of courses from lower division to upper division, before coming to some of the conclusions they did.

The fact that they picked biology is also funny, where there is a real male gender gap in terms of degrees awarded.

As for your claims about men and women 'gravitating' towards different types of jobs, this is influenced by socialization. I still resent your accusations that women just aren't into STEM, clearly, because, well, you know.. WOMEN, and your suggestion that we are being massively manipulated and clearly wrong or lying about our own experiences. I also wonder if you take into account the fact that, historically, women's work has been undervalued.

The actual thread has nothing to do with whether historically women work is undervalued or not. Also, feel free to talk about your experiences, but don't expect people to look at the sample size of one and draw sweeping conclusions the way you'd like.

 

[xeria]

This discouragement happened to you, but was it because you're a man? Have a majority of men faced these obstacles ( and it is NOT just "discouragement") because they are men? We have faced these things BECAUSE of our sex. Also, socialization is deeper and more powerful than a few people's discouragement. As for your last question, yes, I do believe it is still relevant, if the rate of women dropping out is much higher than the amount of men (or vice versa), it should be looked further into.

 

[WWGD]

This discouragement happened to you, but was it because you're a man? Have a majority of men faced these obstacles ( and it is NOT just "discouragement") because they are men? We have faced these things BECAUSE of our sex. Also, socialization is deeper and more powerful than a few people's discouragement. As for your last question, yes, I do believe it is still relevant, if the rate of women dropping out is much higher than the amount of men (or vice versa), it should be looked further into.

The point is that if you want something, you go for it. Unfortunately, the world is not a perfectly fair place, and we all need to deal with this. And we all have to deal with biases because of some aspect of ourselves, this is not reserved to women.

 

[xeria]

@Student100 Have you ever heard of scientific polls? As for the contents of the bio paper, I have not asserted a stance and my posts weren't really about this specific paper. As for my remark about women's work being undervalued, that was specifically aimed at WWGD, about his personal opinion.

Your assumptions about what I would like are wrong.

 

[WWGD]

@Student100 Have you ever heard of scientific polls?

.

Then please cite the sources here, with links.