Same difference.
The problem here is not that he claimed that STEM wasn’t for women, it’s that he straight up tried to deny that sexism of any kind towards women happens in the modern physics world, whilst trying to back up this by showing all of the incentives that women receive to become part of that world.
From what I read online before this thread came up here, he mostly got in trouble for this slide.
The way that the slide is phrased makes out like women were welcomed into academia, and the scientific world in general, instantly when the likes of Curie showed that women could equally contribute - a statement which is completely false. There existed, and still exists (although, not to the same degree), an amount of socially institutionalised sexism - something which has been backup up by a few friends of mine studying/working in Physics, Chemistry, and Engineering (inb4 “anecdotal REEEEEEEEEE”). Even if you’re incentivising women to join STEM fields - via bursaries, quota based hiring, etc… - they’ll still run into these problems.
The main thing is, you can’t show this kind of sexism in the way he’s trying to, as it’s not an objective thing, because people will hold prejudiced views to different degrees, and not all will admit to holding them.
I don’t know if that’s the reason that he took his view, or whether it was just blind denial, but his not wanting to have a proper discussion on the topic, instead of sticking to his views, is what got him in trouble, and ultimately fired suspended.
5 Likes
Woo wee.
Hmmm quick glance aroud the shop floor, huh no women in sight, I guess they are incapable of welding/fabricating…
No, that’s bullshit. I have seen quite a few do incredibly good work, same goes of fall fields. The thing is some people, not genders just people, are better at some things than others and choose to go into that field.
This natural aptitude does extend into gendered rolls. Not going to say unfortunately because I am thankful someone can do the things I am incapable of.
As for the reasoning and the CERN end of it. I have no looked into it I am on lunch… I imaging he could have put it across much better, and CERN could have not gone nuclear on him.
All parties at fault here I think.
Edit: wait… This was a CERN conference. Do they not get a list and brief of the presentation before they happen or do they just let people walk in and go?
Starting to think this is more CERN’s fault and now they are acting impulsively and childish.
3 Likes
As the Cat I’m keeping my distance with this here pole.
3 Likes
Men aren’t welcomed into CERN, or other scientific places, either. They get in by meric, hence the way he, albeit poorly phrased, said Curie was welcomed after proving she could do it. Science is meritocracy by nature and you can’t change that. Complaining about sexism in your anecdotal is ridiculous not because of its existence but because women aren’t choosing STEM as much. If the case was that women were leaving STEM after entering, that would actually make some sense, otherwise that anecdotal has no meaning.
1 Like
School itself is modeled around teaching women. Public schools have gone out of their way to take hands on away from the classroom, and thats the way boys learn in most cases. The education system is stacked for women in every single way.
Here is a recent study by the university of Georgia on the subject: https://news.uga.edu/why-girls-do-better-in-school-010212/
and as Streetguru pointed out, take a look at the the scholarship differences between men and women.
4 Likes
This is especially true in STEM fields. For every grant or fellowship I find I can apply for in chemistry, there is probably 3-4 for women.
If anyone doesn’t believe me, please, visit this link and Ctrl + F “women”
https://pathwaystoscience.org/programs.aspx?u=Grad_Graduate+Students&submit=y
And no, there’s nothing wrong with that, per se, but this narrative of there not being support for women in STEM is pretty far off the mark. There is far more support than there is for men. Support does not automatically lead to population, though. But it’s naive to say that there aren’t as many women as men in STEM because of support. There has to be other reasons, as well.
That said, (and I say this being unaware of the rest of the context of the presentation), if a scientist at CERN is seriously trying to relate correlation and causation with no evidence, he probably deserves to be suspended for that alone.
1 Like
You know perfectly well what I meant by welcomed. There’s no need to misrepresent what I was saying.
I’ll reiterate.
The degree that this exists today is up for debate, but flat-out denying it’s existence is tantamount to accepting it. You could also argue that the sexism isn’t exclusive to the fields, but rather to a small minority of people who happen to study/work in them. Neither one should be acceptable.
Of the friends I mentioned who’ve faced sexism, none of them have quit they’re jobs because of it, because they’re smarter than that. Why let someone’s opinions get to you when you can prove that you’re better than them at what you both do?
I understand some people’s frustration with how men and women aren’t given equal opportunities in education - like how women are given more incentive to join STEM careers - but surely creating your own success in your chosen field is more valuable than being given a helping hand? Like you said, ‘[scientists/engineers/etc…] get in by merit,’ when it comes to actually getting work done, I don’t think anyone receives special treatment because of their sex. People prove their own worth in their jobs, and if someone’s been given help to get to the same level of skill/reputation, I see no issue with that. Even better if it encourages more smart, talented people to join career paths that they wouldn’t otherwise take.
1 Like
Hold on a tick… Replying to my own edit.
Not only did they aproove it to be presented, assuming, they apparently made no effort to stop the presentation once they could see, again, want was in it…
Yeah CERN are totally in the wrong here.
It has become all too common, nowadays PR is simply removing the controversial element and move on. Plenty more drones available…or so they think for now. Soon everyone who shuns meritocracy in favour of cleanliness of ideas will reap what they sow. Unfortunately the rest of us will be left behind and face the same consequences as them as our civilization falters.
Never forget
3 Likes
At my school Women get free tutors, there are also plenty of exclusive scholarships for women. This claim is just false.
2 Likes
Stalin would be proud comrade.
So stating observed numbers is being a jerk now?
This is how scientific progress dies.
3 Likes
I think the term for that is “TRIGGERED!”
He isn’t implying anything, he is stating a point. You are making your own inferences from that statement.
2 Likes
This sort of phrasing comes off sounding very disturbing/manipulative:
- This is true
- It doesn’t matter if it’s only infinitesimally true
- You’re part of the problem if you say this is false
- but, If this is false, there is still something else that is true
It makes it sound like you are merely trying to assert your authority and/or get whoever disagrees with you to shut up.
In the interest of having an actual discussion, maybe you could try to explain what you mean by “socially institutionalised sexism”?
2 Likes
it’s all about the systemic systems of institutionalized oppression! lol
Why be scientific and objective when you can be vague and get away with it in academia.
Sorry, I should’ve made it clearer, that part was just talking about sexism in general. I should’ve phrased it better.
By socially institutionalised sexism, I’m referring to prejudice which comes about from apparent preexisting notions of STEM fields being ‘male occupations’, for lack of a better term - one of the main focuses of the presentation. The same prejudice which historically prevented a lot of female input into the scientific community.
I think that this (societal norm?) is what ‘prevents’ a lot of women going into STEM fields. There’s no actual preventative mechanism behind the low numbers, it’s a passive thing.
I reacted the way I did, not because any of the number were inaccurate, but because, by trying to disprove the existence of this kind of sexism, they phrased their argument in such a way as to come off as denying the existence of any sexism. In doing this, as seen by the knee jerk reaction of the media, and everyone involved, they were inadvertently justifying the attitudes of people who support things such as hiring quotas - the exact same people he was arguing against.
Again, I’d like to repeat the fact that it’s hard to distinguish the line between the two kinds of sexism I’ve used in my arguments, especially due to the abstract nature of social science.
Anyway, I don’t think I’m anywhere near qualified to have any strong opinions on this haha
3 Likes
Yeah imma gonna need some citation on this…
Oh wow…okay here is some insight, women’s brains are strucured towards socializing while men’s are structured toward focussing on one thing, be it hunting or obsessing over solving a problem. There i just solved your life misery. oh but #NotAll
Edit. solved some spelling issues
2 Likes
are you serious?
There is no suck thing as a men or women brain. You’re just perpeating gender bias which cause gender-based discrimination in the first place. Worst than that is third wage feminism.
Social science is not straight. You cannot take numbers and say “well that’s obviously what’s happening” without taking into account the multitude of factors having an effect on those numbers, either they are intentional or unintentional.
As witten above, going only with numbers without other consideration and saying you got the absolute truth is being a jerk (with that hint of man superiority)
See any older book or scientific paper where a woman used an alias to publish.