"I don't care if you landed a spacecraft on a comet, your shirt is sexist"

[Paprika]

Imagine the state of science and the consequent effects on our world if Marie Curie had been discouraged from pursuing her career in that field.

We might be missing 2 elements! If radium had not been discovered so early and only later when the harmful effects of radiation were better known, the radium industry would probably have killed less people.

Let us not also forget how her discovery of radium spurred discovery of uranium sources and subsequent production.

[Jesse]

The thing about "first world problems" jokes is that they very clearly aren't problems at all. They're things of utmost trivality like "My parents got me a Jaguar instead of a Mercedes" or "McDonald's forgot to add pickles to my triple BLT cheeseburger." But in this case, there IS an actual problem being perpetuated; the fact that people in other parts of the world face more directly severe problems doesn't change that fact or disallow us from addressing this problem.

And no, the big story IS that people landed a spacecraft on a comet, but a significant side story is that women have often been discouraged or barred from working in those science and engineering fields, and this particular scientist's fashion choice is indicative of the culture that discourages them. And unlike being given one highly expensive car rather than another type, or not having an unnecessary condiment in a sandwich, de facto barring half the world's population from pursuing careers in science and engineering IS an actual problem, as it potentially robs the human race of individuals who could make great discoveries and developments for the world. Not to mention, being made to feel objectified and viewed as second-class rather than as a human being deserving of equal respect and dignity is also a real problem.

In closing, certain people trying to dismiss this as completely insignificant are exhibiting no real thought at all and are teetering towards the brink of idiocy, or at least startling shallow-mindedness.

You are correct. Those are not problems. Including this one. This is one of the most trivial "controversies" I have seen in a while. This was started by one person and one person only, Rose Eveleth. And of course those of a particular political tribe mind decided to run with this non-story. Now that it's vapidity has been shown, it's being spun as "we are fighting against sexism in science!". No one is buying it. I am sure this will morph into something new again in order to keep it on the front pages.

I won't ask for any proof of this supposed sexism in the European Space Agency because I doubt you have any. Or proof of this rampant sexism in any scientific field. Did you think people were really going to buy that line? This was one feminist that had a wild hair up her butt about some dudes t-shirt, so she made a fuss about it. That is as far her thought process went. And for others it was easy click bait.

Again, a non story for those that have nothing better to do than try to inject politics in every facet of life. It's getting boring.

[Sam]

You are correct. Those are not problems. Including this one. This is one of the most trivial "controversies" I have seen in a while. This was started by one person and one person only, Rose Eveleth. And of course those of a particular political tribe mind decided to run with this non-story. Now that it's vapidity has been shown, it's being spun as "we are fighting against sexism in science!". No one is buying it. I am sure this will morph into something new again in order to keep it on the front pages.

I won't ask for any proof of this supposed sexism in the European Space Agency because I doubt you have any. Or proof of this rampant sexism in any scientific field. Did you think people were really going to buy that line? This was one feminist that had a wild hair up her butt about some dudes t-shirt, so she made a fuss about it. That is as far her thought process went. And for others it was easy click bait.

Again, a non story for those that have nothing better to do than try to inject politics in every facet of life. It's getting boring.

One recent study found that science faculty, after being presented with identical applications with half given a "female" applicant and half given a "male" applicant, rated the "female" applicant significantly lower in terms of competence, hire-ability, and mentoring. "Female" applicants were also offered ~$4000 less for the same job.

This is similar to those studies that show racial bias or political bias, even among people who don't consider themselves racist or partisan. It's indicative of a systemic, often structural problem that might look stupid until you see the truth in the numbers. Then you feel a little sheepish, hopefully, for being human.

[Paprika]

One recent study found that science faculty, after being presented with identical applications with half given a "female" applicant and half given a "male" applicant, rated the "female" applicant significantly lower in terms of competence, hire-ability, and mentoring. "Female" applicants were also offered ~$4000 less for the same job.

The study polls 127 scientists. Supposedly the number is sufficiently high to be representative, yet amazingly all the scientists polled belonged to six universities.

Presumably all six are colleges in the USA: I leave the question as to whether any findings are validly extrapolated to Europe, for example, to the reader.

[Jesse]

One recent study found that science faculty, after being presented with identical applications with half given a "female" applicant and half given a "male" applicant, rated the "female" applicant significantly lower in terms of competence, hire-ability, and mentoring. "Female" applicants were also offered ~$4000 less for the same job.

This is similar to those studies that show racial bias or political bias, even among people who don't consider themselves racist or partisan. It's indicative of a systemic, often structural problem that might look stupid until you see the truth in the numbers. Then you feel a little sheepish, hopefully, for being human.

The study by PNAS is problematic. But only to those that might try to use it as proof of sexism. The PNAS study shows that both male and female faculty chose men over female students. What does that prove? Perhaps it has more to do with their experiences with male vs. female students and less about sexism. Am I saying that there isn't bias? No, everyone has a bias. What I am saying is I don't see a sexist bias. Certainly not one that would warrant trying to shame and bully some dude into apologizing for a t-shirt he wore. This is politics. Nothing more.

[Darth Executor]

One recent study found that science faculty, after being presented with identical applications with half given a "female" applicant and half given a "male" applicant, rated the "female" applicant significantly lower in terms of competence, hire-ability, and mentoring. "Female" applicants were also offered ~$4000 less for the same job.

This is similar to those studies that show racial bias or political bias, even among people who don't consider themselves racist or partisan. It's indicative of a systemic, often structural problem that might look stupid until you see the truth in the numbers. Then you feel a little sheepish, hopefully, for being human.

How is pattern recognition a problem?

[Sam]

The study by PNAS is problematic. But only to those that might try to use it as proof of sexism. The PNAS study shows that both male and female faculty chose men over female students. What does that prove? Perhaps it has more to do with their experiences with male vs. female students and less about sexism. Am I saying that there isn't bias? No, everyone has a bias. What I am saying is I don't see a sexist bias. Certainly not one that would warrant trying to shame and bully some dude into apologizing for a t-shirt he wore. This is politics. Nothing more.

based on that application. Nor is there a reason why, being offered the job, she should be paid $4000/year less for the same work.

You might not see sexism in the sciences. It exists nevertheless. And when you really start looking around and see the "death by a thousand cuts," as Phil Plait says, it becomes a sobering experience.

If by "politics" you mean that this is a partisan criticism, I don't see how you're making that claim. If you mean this is a piece of the culture wars, you are correct. I do not see how arguing that such attire is inappropriate in a workplace environment is on the wrong side of this particular culture war, however. It seems pretty clear that such attire is inappropriate and offends a good many people. I doubt TWeb would even look kindly on someone making those pin-up girls on the shirt his avatar. So this would be a good piece of workplace culture to change.

[Sam]

The study polls 127 scientists. Supposedly the number is sufficiently high to be representative, yet amazingly all the scientists polled belonged to six universities.

Presumably all six are colleges in the USA: I leave the question as to whether any findings are validly extrapolated to Europe, for example, to the reader.

Jesse claimed there was no proof of sexism "in any scientific field," arguing that sexism in scientific disciplines simply doesn't exist. No region lock on that claim.

[Paprika]

Jesse claimed there was no proof of sexism "in any scientific field," arguing that sexism in scientific disciplines simply doesn't exist. No region lock on that claim.

I won't ask for any proof of this supposed sexism in the European Space Agency because I doubt you have any. Or proof of this rampant sexism in any scientific field.

Emphasis mine.

[Sam]

Emphasis mine.

"this rampant sexism" pretty clearly referred to his earlier term "this supposed sexism." As he has already argued that the PNAS study doesn't show sexism, I'm fairly certain my interpretation was correct.

But, hey, if you want European meta-analyses, there's been a lot written on it.

[Jesse]

based on that application. Nor is there a reason why, being offered the job, she should be paid $4000/year less for the same work.

You might not see sexism in the sciences. It exists nevertheless. And when you really start looking around and see the "death by a thousand cuts," as Phil Plait says, it becomes a sobering experience.

If by "politics" you mean that this is a partisan criticism, I don't see how you're making that claim. If you mean this is a piece of the culture wars, you are correct. I do not see how arguing that such attire is inappropriate in a workplace environment is on the wrong side of this particular culture war, however. It seems pretty clear that such attire is inappropriate and offends a good many people. I doubt TWeb would even look kindly on someone making those pin-up girls on the shirt his avatar. So this would be a good piece of workplace culture to change.

The PNAS may show gender discrimination, but it does not show rampant sexism. Which is what Rose Eveleth brought up. If male and female faculty as a whole have a problem with their female students, that study does not show what it is.

I never said there wasn't sexism in science. I said I see no proof of rampant sexism.

Of course no one said his attire was inappropriate. Did anyone other than Rose Eveleth say this? Was there a dress code he was disobeying? No. It only offended a particular groups sensibilities. Why should he live his life according to your political beliefs? He shouldn't. He did apologize though (dumb move), so that should satiate this groups blood lust until they get offended by something else trivial.

[Paprika]

But, hey, if you want European meta-analyses, there's been a lot written on it.

So tell us: what part of this 229-page report are we supposed to focus on?

[Sam]

The PNAS may show gender discrimination, but it does not show rampant sexism. Which is what Rose Eveleth brought up. If male and female faculty as a whole have a problem with their female students, that study does not show what it is.

I never said there wasn't sexism in science. I said I see no proof of rampant sexism.

Of course no one said his attire was inappropriate. Did anyone other than Rose Eveleth say this? Was there a dress code he was disobeying? No. It only offended a particular groups sensibilities. Why should he live his life according to your political beliefs? He shouldn't. He did apologize though (dumb move), so that should satiate this groups blood lust until they get offended by something else trivial.

You also implied that such proof could not be found. Of course gender discrimination is sexism, just as racial discrimination is racism. That the parties involved might not call it that or might not even be aware of it doesn't change the fact that the terms are functionally equivalent.

Yes, many other people other than Rose Eveleth have said that Matt Taylor's attire was inappropriate. That is an uncontested fact. It's also been said that Matt Taylor has every right to own a shirt like that; he need not "live his life" according to others' political beliefs in this regard. He should, however, refrain from bringing such a shirt into a professional setting where it might well offend others, especially women who regard it as further evidence of their lesser value among colleagues. As I've written, I find such a claim to be utterly uncontroversial. Workplace attire should have a minimal set of standards and in a workplace such as ESOC, those standards should not include pictures of pin-up girls. Taylor, to his credit, has made a genuine apology for his oversight and seems to "get it." It's odd to me that others don't.

[Sam]

So tell us: what part of this 229-page report are we supposed to focus on?

The executive summary would be a good place to start, I imagine. Work your way down from there if your interest holds. If you want European findings for an ostensibly European problem, you now have a meta-analysis (!) to critique.

That's two rather big-name studies in less than five minutes of Google. I imagine a bit of actual labor would produce dozens more. The idea that gender discrimination in scientific disciplines is uncommon or not really all that much of a problem is manifestly untrue for even those of us with even a passing familiarity with the topic.

[Jesse]

You also implied that such proof could not be found. Of course gender discrimination is sexism, just as racial discrimination is racism. That the parties involved might not call it that or might not even be aware of it doesn't change the fact that the terms are functionally equivalent.

Yes, many other people other than Rose Eveleth have said that Matt Taylor's attire was inappropriate. That is an uncontested fact. It's also been said that Matt Taylor has every right to own a shirt like that; he need not "live his life" according to others' political beliefs in this regard. He should, however, refrain from bringing such a shirt into a professional setting where it might well offend others, especially women who regard it as further evidence of their lesser value among colleagues. As I've written, I find such a claim to be utterly uncontroversial. Workplace attire should have a minimal set of standards and in a workplace such as ESOC, those standards should not include pictures of pin-up girls. Taylor, to his credit, has made a genuine apology for his oversight and seems to "get it." It's odd to me that others don't.

I implied no such thing. I clearly said I see no proof nor do I think there is any. This still stands. So the PNAS states the reason why female students at these 6 universities are not getting these spots? Where is that in the study again? Or should I just infer sexism and be done with it? No other possible reason could exist right?

Ok who at his agency said his attire was inappropriate? What dress code was he ignoring? Or again, was it just offensive to you and so he should be shamed for it?