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

[Cow Poke]

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Hesitations 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not Googled in thy name? and in thy name have cast out statistics? and in thy name done many internet quotes? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work in-wiki-ty.

[Sam]

Sam, the Guardian-cited paper is gold. Some issues are raised that would be of concern if true, but for the others:

Competition for academic posts is extremely high, and on average women are less inclined to make significant sacrifices to participate in such competition. Instead of being a obvious corollary of the general differences between men and women, is this supposed to be doubleplusungood? In which case what do you propose: making the field less competitive for women by affirmative action?

I will let the rest of the quotes pass without comment.

As you acknowledge that there are issues that are of concern if true, you cede the point. No one argued that the disparity between men and women in the sciences is completely because of discrimination. The argument is that it is a problem — you're left either denying that a significant number of concerns are true or acknowledging that women have a legitimate grievance regarding systematic, even structural, discrimination in the sciences. Cherry-picking a focus on certain findings that are not germane to the topic of discrimination in order to obscure or belittle the findings that are germane doesn't get you very far in the discussion. We may find instances of a "failure to thrive" among African-Americans in the post-bellum South that had nothing to do with slavery and persistent discrimination but that doesn't allow us to brush off continuing discrimination as a powerful force against African-Americans in the post-bellum South. Likewise, the Royal Society of Chemistry study highlights some powerful perceptions of discrimination toward women who start out highly interested in a career in chemistry; that there are also other forces at work dissuading some of these women does not negate the perception of discrimination. And when paired with other evidences and studies, as noted before, it becomes clear that we still have a real problem here regarding discriminatory treatment.

[Sparko]

What this proves is that feminists just sit around looking for ways to be offended.

[Cow Poke]

And when paired with other evidences and studies, as noted before, it becomes clear that we still have a real problem here regarding discriminatory treatment.

So, what changes that, Sam? Faux outrage over a guy wearing a tacky shirt given to him by his girlfriend? And would there be the same outrage if he had worn a shirt with half naked MEN posed in provocative positions, given to him by his boyfriend?

[Sam]

I have to wonder what would have happened if it had been a woman scientist who came out dressed in what is deemed professional attire and the Muslim community erupted in outrage claiming that because she didn't cover her hair that they felt that the community was hostile to them. They could cite statistics showing their underrepresentation in various scientific fields as proof of discrimination get some quotes from Muslim scientists saying how uncomfortable and hence unwelcome they were made to feel and declare that women walking about with their hair uncovered was symptomatic of the hostility to them and their beliefs.

Would the same crowd dismiss it with a "well that's different" (all cases of discrimination by their very nature will be different) or will we see a push for women to cover their hair as part of appropriate dress for the workplace?

Are you arguing that there is no significant difference between this:

112_1business_women_sample_1.jpg

and this?




'Cause I see a difference.

[Paprika]

As you acknowledge that there are issues that are of concern if true, you cede the point.

I cede nothing.

[Sam]

I cede nothing.

That's the TWeb spirit.

[Paprika]

If you're going to run around accusing others of debate games, at least get your terms right. Unsolicited, this would be an example of elephant hurling, not a Gish Gallop.

I bow to your superior knowledge of debate games.

Of course, this meta-analysis was provided because you decided that the PNAS study wasn't relevant to the topic at hand, seeing as how Matt Taylor is currently working for a European agency.

I merely questioned how the validity of extrapolation of the PNAS study. Should I take your linking of the meta-analysis as a concession as to this point?

And, having read the executive summary, I at least know that the commission's paper is on-topic, addresses the point, and deals with numerous studies showing that gender discrimination is a problem in scientific fields. You're just being more than a little lazy in your Goldilocks demands of finding something plopped into your bowl that's just right. But I'm not exactly willing to spoon feed you. You can read the executive summary easily enough, if you're so interested.

I don't see the need to read any paper you feel free to throw without having done detailed reading to examine if it is good evidence to support your point.

[Christianbookworm]

[Sam]

I bow to your superior knowledge of debate games.

I merely questioned how the validity of extrapolation of the PNAS study. Should I take your linking of the meta-analysis as a concession as to this point?


I don't see the need to read any paper you feel free to throw without having done detailed reading to examine if it is good evidence to support your point.

You didn't question the validity of extrapolating the PNAS study; you specifically "left it up to the reader," which can reasonably be inferred as casting doubt on the study's value in addressing gender discrimination in European institutions of science. Regardless, the commission's meta-analysis of European countries certainly addresses your question/implication. And the executive summary clearly concludes that gender discrimination in Europe is borne out by numerous studies. If this were really a contended or contentious conclusion, your professed skepticism of the conclusion might be merited. But it's really not and referencing an executive study is completely within the bounds of acceptable debate presentation, regardless. If you really think the commission's conclusion was in error, you have given precisely no reason for others to think so. You simply handwave it away because maybe the executive summary and the contents are really somehow totally different.

[Paprika]

That's the TWeb spirit.

Indeed

I do want to address a point:

And when paired with other evidences and studies, as noted before, it becomes clear that we still have a real problem here regarding discriminatory treatment.

Not so.

Cherry-picking a focus on certain findings that are not germane to the topic of discrimination in order to obscure or belittle the findings that are germane doesn't get you very far in the discussion.

Not at all. One of the main "problems" as per Myers and others is that women are less inclined towards doing science as a career (the Guardian article cited gives a statistic of 12% of the women vs 21% of the men seeing academia as their preferred choice). Supposedly, the discrepancy is evidence of some significant bias, possibly cultural or structural. But as I have quoted above, women do have other reasons besides "discrimination" to leave the scientific academic path. These other reasons are completely germane to the topic as long as relative proportions of the sexes working as a scientist or interested in such a career are used to support claims of systematic sexism.

[Paprika]

You didn't question the validity of extrapolating the PNAS study; you specifically "left it up to the reader," which can reasonably be inferred as casting doubt on the study's value in addressing gender discrimination in European institutions of science.

"Casting doubt" is significantly different from "you decided that the PNAS study wasn't relevant to the topic at hand" - I remain open to the possibility of the relevancy.

Regardless, the commission's meta-analysis of European countries certainly addresses your question/implication. And the executive summary clearly concludes that gender discrimination in Europe is borne out by numerous studies. If this were really a contended or contentious conclusion, your professed skepticism of the conclusion might be merited. But it's really not and referencing an executive study is completely within the bounds of acceptable debate presentation, regardless. If you really think the commission's conclusion was in error, you have given precisely no reason for others to think so.

But I'm not arguing that no discrimination exists. On the other hand, you are taking a stand that there is significant systematic sexism, while elephant-hurling papers that you've likely not critically examined before using them as supporting evidence. Whether your approach is convincing, I again leave to the reader.

[Sam]

"Casting doubt" is significantly different from "you decided that the PNAS study wasn't relevant to the topic at hand" - I remain open to the possibility of the relevancy.

And yet you seemed quite willing to leave that potential relevancy "to the reader." I trust you can see how your continued use of that phrase leads to the inference that you're not really pursuing the possibility of relevancy.

But I'm not arguing that no discrimination exists. On the other hand, you are taking a stand that there is significant systematic sexism, while elephant-hurling papers that you've likely not critically examined before using them as supporting evidence. Whether your approach is convincing, I again leave to the reader.

I read the PNAS study, read the executive summary + ~10 pages of the EU commission meta-analysis, read the Findings section of the Royal Society of Chemistry . . . I've done sufficient reading on a point that no one has seriously challenged (exempting Jesse, who at least found a contradicting study, which was read and responded to).

And, like I said, there's a pretty good wealth of data backing the fact that gender discrimination exists in the sciences. And as it's totally appropriate to reference an IPCC executive summary when arguing for the totally incontestable fact of global warming these days, it's perfectly appropriate to reference the executive summary of a meta-analysis of gender discrimination. If you contest that there, in fact, is gender discrimination prevalent in European institutions of science, "I don't want to have to read enough to contest your source" isn't a persuasive argument.

So you should come down on a side here: are you arguing that the findings of the meta-analysis are in error? Do you accept the conclusions of the executive summary? If the former, what are you finding fault with? If the latter, what of your argument remains pertinent?

[Paprika]

And yet you seemed quite willing to leave that potential relevancy "to the reader." I trust you can see how your continued use of that phrase leads to the inference that you're not really pursuing the possibility of relevancy.

Quite. You're the one who has the burden of proof to show that a US study has any relevance to behaviour in Europe.

I read the PNAS study, read the executive summary + ~10 pages of the EU commission meta-analysis, read the Findings section of the Royal Society of Chemistry . . . I've done sufficient reading on a point that no one has seriously challenged (exempting Jesse, who at least found a contradicting study, which was read and responded to).

And, like I said, there's a pretty good wealth of data backing the fact that gender discrimination exists in the sciences. And as it's totally appropriate to reference an IPCC executive summary when arguing for the totally incontestable fact of global warming these days, it's perfectly appropriate to reference the executive summary of a meta-analysis of gender discrimination. If you contest that there, in fact, is gender discrimination prevalent in European institutions of science, "I don't want to have to read enough to contest your source" isn't a persuasive argument.

Given that I've read
a) the PNAS paper (evidenced by my ability to point out flaws in the way you were using it to support your case)
b) the RSC paper (evidenced by my ability to point out flaws in the way Myers, you, et al. were using it to support your case, as well as to extensively quote from it)

it should be pretty clear that I'm not at all adverse to critically reading papers you link. I'm just not inclined to read something you've barely glanced at and then elephant-hurled.

[Sam]

Quite. You're the one who has the burden of proof to show that a US study has any relevance to behaviour in Europe.




Given that I've read
a) the PNAS paper (evidenced by my ability to point out flaws in the way you were using it to support your case)
b) the RSC paper (evidenced by my ability to point out flaws in the way Myers, you, et al. were using it to support your case, as well as to extensively quote from it)

it should be pretty clear that I'm not at all adverse to critically reading papers you link. I'm just not inclined to read something you've barely glanced at and then elephant-hurled.

You didn't point out any flaws in the PNAS study; you merely implied that the discussion of gender discrimination should be limited to Europe (a contention no one else has made). Neither did you point out flaws in the Royal Society of Chemistry study in the way I, Myers or others are using it to support the case. You merely dismissed the parts that we use, the parts that discuss gender bias and discrimination, and chose instead to focus on quoting parts that talk about causes of gender disparity other than discrimination or bias — a claim no one has disputed. That's a red herring, for folks playing NatSci debate lingo bingo.

If you're not adverse to critical reading, you have to address those papers as it pertains to the topic: the PNAS study clearly shows a discriminatory effect of gender, the RSC paper clearly references structural discrimination and the EU commission meta-analysis clearly concludes the same. If you dispute any of those findings, the burden has been moved over to you. You can accept the meta-analysis' findings, you can actually find something wrong with how the commission arrived at its conclusion or you can handwave it away.

And then, somehow, you can tie everything back together to support the contention that Taylor's shirt is appropriate in a professional setting at ESOC or NASA or anywhere else that isn't a strip club or its equivalent.

Best of luck.