In Proofiness - How Gender And Pay Statistics Are Used To Do Bad Things, I noted that some of the statistics regarding gender and pay in science were misconstrued to make it look like science academia is sexist as opposed to simply being unequal in places.
It boggles the mind that academia, commonly regarded as the most progressive occupation in America, much less science academia, which leads the world in quality science due to a focus on excellence regardless of gender or color or religion, can be regarded as sexist. It takes careful manipulation and filtering of data to make it seem so. And if the numbers really are what advocates claim, there have been zero improvements for women in three decades, none, despite the fact that women get more Ph.D.'s than men and women are hired for faculty jobs at greater rates than men now.
To advocate something in defiance of obvious reality, like that STEM fields are stuck in the 1960s, it also takes an insistence that no one makes choices - if people earn less money or don't go into a field, it must be outside pressure keeping them down. If that is true, then according to American Association of University Women (AAUW) data, environmentalists are the most sexist group in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) fields - the disparity between male and female earnings there is tremendous. Women only earn 79% of what men do in environmental sciences. Are environmentalists stuck in the 1950s? Mechanical Engineering, on the other hand, is a poster child for NOW, leading occupations with 96%.
Those are statistics they parsed out as evidence. That is data, advocates insist. Yet ask anyone in the real world if women in engineering are actually treated better than a female environmentalist.
If the metrics advocates use are valid in science academia, they are valid everywhere. That means Wikipedia, the progressive knowledge commune, is incredibly sexist. Where are the groups protesting that? Wikipedia contributors are only 13% women so using the same cultural standard as some groups want to apply to science, it must mean that Wikipedia is hostile to women, or because there aren't already a lot of women, women are suffering gender fatigue.
I'm not kidding about the gender fatigue. Jane Margolis is a senior researcher at UCLA's Institute for Democracy, Education and Access and co-author of a book on sexism in computer science called “Unlocking the Clubhouse” and she believes Wikipedia is evidence of it. If there aren't enough women in a field, they have less confidence about participation. Who knew women were so emotionally fragile? Not me, the women I know are darn tough. What about men in psychology or the teaching professions, which are overwhelmingly female? Do men suffer gender fatigue there?
The problem with trying to social engineer a creative community like Wikipedia, is that because its development was organic and intellectual freedom is essential, trying to force gender equality through overt efforts will backfire. Indirect approaches and time work, Margolis agrees, even if they take a little longer. It's the same in STEM fields and the creativity needed in science. Because women do not face hiring obstacles nor are they discouraged from science fields, the gender gaps, small or large, will fix themselves as people retire and new ones take their place.
In the meantime, some groups are taking a more positive approach to outreach than manipulating statistics to raise donations. Five female chemists at Berkeley sought to improve the diversity of Wikipedia by actually writing articles on Wikipedia instead of writing articles about the "hostile environment and discrimination" on Wikipedia. They called it WikiWomen and it was basically some alcohol and smart people, like all good parties are - and they made others out there a little smarter, as a result, always a good thing. If you are in the Bay area and want to join a WikiWomen party too, here is the place to sign up. Or start your own. Maybe it will catch on.
I assume men can join, anyway. If not, that's sexism.
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- Greenpeace Says Its GMOs Are Better Than Science's GMOs, Still Hates Golden Rice
- Reduce Prostate Cancer Risk By Sleeping With Lots Of Women - But Not Men
- Homo Floresiensis: Hobbit Species Continues To Provoke Questions About Human Evolution
- Everyone Hates Daylight Savings Time - But It Might Improve Public Health
- Okay With Disgusting Images? You Vote This Way 95 Percent Of The Time
- Supersonic Laser-Propelled Aircraft Get A Step Closer
- This Mid-Term Election Can Have Evolutionary Consequences
- "How are both atheists & theists believers? Theists believe in god(s), atheists lack beliefs in..."
- "You, and Greenpeace, are doing just that. GMO is a legal definition, not a science one, and that..."
- "We lack new medicines because the patents expire too quickly and the regulatory burden is too high..."
- "The problem is, American agricultural science cannot be adopted world-wide for the simple reason..."
- "You're quote mining. When it comes to environmental risk, energy emissions from CO2 are back at..."
- Battle of Britain: NGOs and scientists clash over proposal to loosen EU GMO restrictions
- Genetically modified clean energy from bacteria
- Designer babies: You can screen for cystic fibrosis but intelligence is a ways off
- Science as profane: What superstition of 1752 and 2014 share in common
- What’s so “natural” about “natural crop breeding”?
- Worried you have cancer? Take a Google pill!
- Young adults ages 18 to 26 should be viewed as separate subpopulation in policy and research
- University of Tennessee study finds saving lonely species is important for the environment
- Post-operative radiation therapy improves overall survival for patients with resected NSCLC
- Active, biodegradable packaging for oily products
- Medicare costs analysis indicates need to decrease use of biopsies as diagnosis tool for lung cancer