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

[Sparko]

Phil Plait provides a helpful collection for this sort of inquiry:

Source: Shirtstorm. Phil Plait. Bad Astronomy. Slate. 2014.11.17

If you think this is just complaining from wannabes who can’t hold a candle to someone who just landed a probe on a comet, you’re wrong. Talk to my friend, the cosmologist Katie Mack. Or the planetary scientist Sarah Horst. Or geologist Mika McKinnon. Or planetary geologist Emily Lakdawalla. Or radio astronomer Nicole Gugliucci. Or professor and science communicator extraordinaire Pamela Gay. Or Carolyn Porco, who worked on the Voyager mission and is the leader of the Cassini imaging team, the space probe that’s been orbiting Saturn for over a decade now.

If you think this is just a bunch of prudes, you’re wrong. It’s not about the prurience. It’s about the atmosphere of denigration.

© Copyright Original Source

I have noticed that radical feminists use feminine names. Don't they know that feminine names are just a way for men to control women and make them sound cute? They should change their names to something more appropriate, like, Gunner, or Axel.

[Paprika]

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).

I pointed out that the scientists involved in the study only came from 6 universities.

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.

Myers et al. have used the discrepancy (or sexual disparity) cited in the Guardian article (12% of the women and 21% of the men see academia as their preferred choice) as evidence for the claim significant systematic sexism. Talking about other causes of the disparity is perfectly relevant to whether the disparity is good evidence for sexism.

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.

That would be an interesting contention; unfortunately it's not one I've made. Is your memory perhaps failing?

[Sam]

I pointed out that the scientists involved in the study only came from 6 universities.

Which you also noted did not apparently detract from the representative nature of the study. If you're actually claiming that the data isn't representative of the larger sample, then you have to do the work to show that to be the case, or at least plausible. As it stands, this isn't a criticism borne of critical reading: you're simply claiming, without evidence, that the sample isn't representative of the whole.

Myers et al. have used the discrepancy (or sexual disparity) cited in the Guardian article (12% of the women and 21% of the men see academia as their preferred choice) as evidence for the claim significant systematic sexism. Talking about other causes of the disparity is perfectly relevant to whether the disparity is good evidence for sexism.

No; Myers and the Guardian author, Curt Rice, didn't use the discrepancy as evidence for systematic sexism. Both used that number as a starting figure and then explored why that statistic is so low. Both Myers and Rice went into some detail exploring the causes. Rice goes four paragraphs from stating the problem to landing on the existence of gender discrimination:

Source: Why women leave academia and why universities should be worried. Curt Rice. The Guardian. 2012.05.24

Part of The chemistry PhD discusses problems that arise while young researchers are PhD candidates, including too little supervision, too much supervision, focus on achieving experimental results rather than mastery of methodologies, and much more. The long-term effects, though, are reflected in the attitudes and beliefs about academia that emerge during this period.

The participants in the study identify many characteristics of academic careers that they find unappealing: the constant hunt for funding for research projects is a significant impediment for both men and women. But women in greater numbers than men see academic careers as all-consuming, solitary and as unnecessarily competitive.


Both men and women PhD candidates come to realise that a string of post-docs is part of a career path, and they see that this can require frequent moves and a lack of security about future employment. Women are more negatively affected than men by the competitiveness in this stage of an academic career and their concerns about competitiveness are fuelled, they say, by a relative lack of self-confidence.


Women more than men see great sacrifice as a prerequisite for success in academia. This comes in part from their perception of women who have succeeded, from the nature of the available role models. Successful female professors are perceived by female PhD candidates as displaying masculine characteristics, such as aggression and competitiveness, and they were often childless.


As if all this were not enough, women PhD candidates had one experience that men never have. They were told that they would encounter problems along the way simply because they are women. They are told, in other words, that their gender will work against them.

© Copyright Original Source

Myers quotes the last two paragraphs of Rice's article. You're simply straw-manning their arguments to fit something you can assail as over simplified.

That would be an interesting contention; unfortunately it's not one I've made. Is your memory perhaps failing?

It is, in fact. Narcolepsy. However, if you're not contesting that Taylor's shirt was inappropriate and you're not contesting the fact that gender discrimination in scientific disciplines is both prevalent and structural, I fail to see what your overarching complaint is. Do you agree with the criticism but just wish there had been less clamor about it?

[Paprika]

Which you also noted did not apparently detract from the representative nature of the study.

I suppose you're another one of those people who need sarcasm tags.

If you're actually claiming that the data isn't representative of the larger sample, then you have to do the work to show that to be the case, or at least plausible. As it stands, this isn't a criticism borne of critical reading: you're simply claiming, without evidence, that the sample isn't representative of the whole.

Do I really need to explain how findings from 6 universities - a small sample - are unlikely to be representative of the academic science nationally?

No; Myers and the Guardian author, Curt Rice, didn't use the discrepancy as evidence for systematic sexism. Both used that number as a starting figure and then explored why that statistic is so low. Both Myers and Rice went into some detail exploring the causes. Rice goes four paragraphs from stating the problem to landing on the existence of gender discrimination

I leave it to you to show where I've said anything about Rice. Myers, on the other hand, clearly draws on the statistic as evidence for sexism: he quotes an article to the extent that "Academic Science Isn’t Sexist", then accuses the authors for ignoring the "hemorrhage" of women.

It is, in fact. Narcolepsy. However, if you're not contesting that Taylor's shirt was inappropriate and you're not contesting the fact that gender discrimination in scientific disciplines is both prevalent and structural, I fail to see what your overarching complaint is.

You might want to refer to the OP to see why I started this thread.

[Sam]

I suppose you're another one of those people who need sarcasm tags.


Do I really need to explain how findings from 6 universities - a small sample - are unlikely to be representative of the academic science nationally?


I leave it to you to show where I've said anything about Rice. Myers, on the other hand, clearly draws on the statistic as evidence for sexism: he quotes an article to the extent that "Academic Science Isn’t Sexist", then accuses the authors for ignoring the "hemorrhage" of women.


You might want to refer to the OP to see why I started this thread.

Oh, no. I figured it might be sarcasm but just saying that drawing faculty from six universities isn't statistically representative isn't demonstrating that to be true. That's like arguing that because Gallup only polls 800 people, the results aren't statistically representative. It might be true but you've got to do some work to show that to be the case. Otherwise, it collaborates the conclusions of other studies regarding gender discrimination and is completely valid as evidence. Right now, it's just another case of you handwaving something away, rather than actually pointing out fatal flaws.

You mentioned "Myers et. al" — Rice is the only other writer I recall who used the 12% figure. If you've got someone else in mind, I'm interested in the source. And Myers does not draw on the statistic as evidence of of sexism simply because the statistic is low. He very clearly cites Rice's argument regarding structural gender discrimination as being part of the cause for the 12% figure. You are oversimplying him. Myers writes:

Source: Yay! Sexism in science is over!. PZ Myers. Pharyngula. 2014.11.02

Here’s another summary of why women leave academia from a completely different source that doesn’t dance away from the difficulties.

Men and women show radically different developments regarding their intended future careers. At the beginning of their studies, 72% of women express an intention to pursue careers as researchers, either in industry or academia. Among men, 61% express the same intention.


By the third year, the proportion of men planning careers in research had dropped from 61% to 59%. But for the women, the number had plummeted from 72% in the first year to 37% as they finish their studies.


If we tease apart those who want to work as researchers in industry from those who want to work as researchers in academia, the third year numbers are alarming: 12% of the women and 21% of the men see academia as their preferred choice.

So women find academia a far less pleasant prospect than men do, and abandon it in droves. But it’s by choice, so Williams and Ceci have an excuse to ignore this hemorrhage. And why do they find it less pleasant?

Women more than men see great sacrifice as a prerequisite for success in academia. This comes in part from their perception of women who have succeeded, from the nature of the available role models. Successful female professors are perceived by female PhD candidates as displaying masculine characteristics, such as aggression and competitiveness, and they were often childless.


As if all this were not enough, women PhD candidates had one experience that men never have. They were told that they would encounter problems along the way simply because they are women. They are told, in other words, that their gender will work against them.

But this is not a problem. Because they choose to leave. In the same way, I suppose we could argue that ISIS is not a problem in Iraq, because all those refugees chose to flee their homes.

© Copyright Original Source

And that's starting eight paragraphs into Myers' blog. Further down, Myers even explicitly states:

Source: Ibid

What’s really ironic is that the conclusion of their paper is that they have swept away all the attempts to reduce the causes of the attrition of women in STEM to a single “culprit” — it’s multifactorial and complicated, they proudly announce! Yeah, we already knew that. I don’t know anyone who has tried to explain it away as a consequence of a single factor…except those people who try to argue that girls just don’t like machines and building things. Or blue things. Or stuff that requires active involvement. Don’t you all understand that men do things, women have things done to them?

© Copyright Original Source

Emphasis added. You are strawmanning.

[Paprika]

Oh, no. I figured it might be sarcasm but just saying that drawing faculty from six universities isn't statistically representative isn't demonstrating that to be true. That's like arguing that because Gallup only polls 800 people, the results aren't statistically representative.
It might be true but you've got to do some work to show that to be the case. Otherwise, it collaborates the conclusions of other studies regarding gender discrimination and is completely valid as evidence. Right now, it's just another case of you handwaving something away, rather than actually pointing out fatal flaws.

Nice attempt at reframing what I said: I was pointing out "flaws in the way you were using it to support your case", not flaws in the study itself. What was the context? Someone asking for evidence of rampant sexism: and you pull out this study on professors from 6 universities.

You mentioned "Myers et. al" — Rice is the only other writer I recall who used the 12% figure. If you've got someone else in mind, I'm interested in the source.

I misstated: Myers is the only one who uses the 12% figure; I intended to reference the many who use similar discrepancy figures to argue that sexism exists.

And Myers does not draw on the statistic as evidence of of sexism simply because the statistic is low. He very clearly cites Rice's argument regarding structural gender discrimination as being part of the cause for the 12% figure. You are oversimplying him...
Emphasis added. You are strawmanning.

I am not. He clearly uses the statistic as a rebuttal to the claim that "Academic Science Isn’t Sexist".

[fm93]

Your usage of two animated smileys constitutes such a thorough rebuttal.

Is there anything substantial you'd like to say?

[Cow Poke]

Your usage of two animated smileys constitutes such a thorough rebuttal.

Is there anything substantial you'd like to say?

Not at this time, thank you, but I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks at a subsequent time of my choosing.

[Sam]

Nice attempt at reframing what I said: I was pointing out "flaws in the way you were using it to support your case", not flaws in the study itself. What was the context? Someone asking for evidence of rampant sexism: and you pull out this study on professors from 6 universities.

Which, again, is perfectly valid as evidence unless you can demonstrate that the sample isn't statistically representative of what's being argued. Just saying it's not doesn't do anything for your case here.

I misstated: Myers is the only one who uses the 12% figure; I intended to reference the many who use similar discrepancy figures to argue that sexism exists.

Rice does too, notably. But of course, we can't really talk about "the many who use similar discrepancy figures ..." without knowing the who and what.

I am not. He clearly uses the statistic as a rebuttal to the claim that "Academic Science Isn’t Sexist".

You are, as shown by quoting Myers in context at length. Myers notes that statistic as shocking and notes that structural gender discrimination (sexism) is partly responsible. He actually goes on for quite a bit and links to a good many more sources. You are propping up a straw man and insisting he's the real deal.

[Jesse]

PZ Meyers actually took a look at that study recently; it's a good read. Specifically, Myers focuses on the authors' dismissal of women choosing to avoid specific disciplines in the first place and so finding no problem with gender discrimination. Myer's cites this article from "The Guardian" explaining why women might not be entering a hostile field:

Source: Yay! Sexism in science is over!. PZ Meyers. Pharyngula. 2014.11.02

Here’s another summary of why women leave academia from a completely different source that doesn’t dance away from the difficulties.

Men and women show radically different developments regarding their intended future careers. At the beginning of their studies, 72% of women express an intention to pursue careers as researchers, either in industry or academia. Among men, 61% express the same intention.


By the third year, the proportion of men planning careers in research had dropped from 61% to 59%. But for the women, the number had plummeted from 72% in the first year to 37% as they finish their studies.


If we tease apart those who want to work as researchers in industry from those who want to work as researchers in academia, the third year numbers are alarming: 12% of the women and 21% of the men see academia as their preferred choice.

So women find academia a far less pleasant prospect than men do, and abandon it in droves. But it’s by choice, so Williams and Ceci have an excuse to ignore this hemorrhage. And why do they find it less pleasant?

Women more than men see great sacrifice as a prerequisite for success in academia. This comes in part from their perception of women who have succeeded, from the nature of the available role models. Successful female professors are perceived by female PhD candidates as displaying masculine characteristics, such as aggression and competitiveness, and they were often childless.


As if all this were not enough, women PhD candidates had one experience that men never have. They were told that they would encounter problems along the way simply because they are women. They are told, in other words, that their gender will work against them.

© Copyright Original Source

You're trying to argue that this whole scene is about "one particular political group want[ing] total submission to its every trivial whim." I and others are arguing that this is actually a representation of a real and well-established problem in our culture, including scientific circles. And there's ample evidence to support our contention. So, no — you're not going to find agreement that the topic is political (in the partisan sense) or that this is about one particular political group's totalitarian whims. You'll just find us shaking our heads at talk like that.

I am not sure what I am to get out of a PZ Meyers post? His source is outdated by about 6 years and only includes PHD chemistry students who are in the UK. How does this have anything to do with the recent research? Does he think they skipped something that has been on the books for 6 years? I am tempted to believe he didn't actually read the study because this is just shoddy research.

You can shake your head until it falls off. Doesn't make what I am saying less true. This started out political and ended just the same. I guess the sexism is so bad in academia that a crying apology just would never happen. Look, I know those in this political group have a vested interest (for whatever reason) in seeing rampant sexism around every corner. The evidence just isn't there. No matter how much you wish it were so.

[fm93]

Look, I know those in this political group have a vested interest (for whatever reason) in seeing rampant sexism around every corner. The evidence just isn't there. No matter how much you wish it were so.

Again with this sentiment?

Is it really that hard to believe that people genuinely perceive sexism and are understandably troubled by what, if truly the case, would be a legitimate problem? I just can't wrap my mind around how some of you guys seem to think that others WANT to see sexism "around every corner." You really think feminists randomly decided out of the blue to fabricate tales of sexism, or so desperately wanted a cruel, unjust system stacked against them to be real that they started hallucinating it?

[Jesse]

Again with this sentiment?

Is it really that hard to believe that people genuinely perceive sexism and are understandably troubled by what, if truly the case, would be a legitimate problem? I just can't wrap my mind around how some of you guys seem to think that others WANT to see sexism "around every corner."

Yes. And the sentiment will continue. I can't wrap my mind around how some of you guys CAN see rampant sexism around every corner. You are telling me none of this smacks of politics? Yes people can genuinely perceive sexism. Perception is not always reality is it? I am still waiting for proof of all of this pervasive sexism in the sciences. Continuously shouting it is not proof or evidence.

[fm93]

Yes. And the sentiment will continue. I can't wrap my mind around how some of you guys CAN see rampant sexism around every corner.

No one sees rampant sexism around literally every corner. You're overexaggerating. But okay, let's consider the case of the science and engineering fields. With this, perceptions of sexism come from personal observations and reading reports. For instance, we remember and notice that as children, boys like myself were often encouraged to think big and set our goals high, and at birthday parties we were often given astronomy models and simplified microscopes and toy rocket ships. Meanwhile, girls were often encouraged to be "classy" and "pretty" and "lady-like," and at birthday parties were often given princess costumes and Barbie doll kits. When we asked, the justification was something along the lines of "we give boy-toys to boys and girl-toys to girls," which doesn't require much analysis to realize that science toys were implicitly associated with boys rather than girls.

Additionally, we progress through high school science classes and notice from the material that nearly all of the discoveries and accomplishments were by men. We go to colleges and observe that the student demographics at technology-oriented schools tend to significantly skew towards the male population. Science and engineering shouldn't be intrinsically favorable towards men, so the fact that a group constituting half the population is so underrepresented at such schools is significant. And finally, women friggin' tell us that they've personally experienced sexism in those fields.

You are telling me none of this smacks of politics?

Of course. How does believing that women tend to face sexism in science and engineering affect any political beliefs at all?

Yes people can genuinely perceive sexism. Perception is not always reality is it?

No, but it's a far cry from "having a vested interest in seeing sexism." You still have yet to explain that remark--what in the world makes you think people WANT to believe sexism against them exists?

[Jesse]

We go to colleges and observe that the student demographics at technology-oriented schools tend to significantly skew towards the male population. Science and engineering shouldn't be intrinsically favorable towards men, so the fact that a group constituting half the population is so underrepresented at such schools is significant. And finally, women friggin' tell us that they've personally experienced sexism in those fields.

Of course data shows this to be false. But I guess it is better to ignore the evidence then read it huh? You seem to be hung up on believing something I never said. Again, when you show me proof of this rampant sexism then we can move forward.

No, but it's a far cry from "having a vested interest in seeing sexism." You still have yet to explain that remark--what in the world makes you think people WANT to believe sexism against them exists?

I get it. So you believe there is no feminist cottage industry were grievances are concerned. Well let me ask you this. Since you seem to be very in the know where feminist politics is concerned. What is going to be next years grievance? T-shirts were big this year. Can you give us a heads up on what it will be in 2015 so we can apologize for it in advance? I like to keep a head of the curve.

[ChaosRain]

I just think people need to get their heads out of their donkeys. So, the guy wears a shirt that he likes on his big day. I'd say that he earned it; wanting to dress up funny, and getting a tattoo of his accomplishment on his leg is more than acceptable, considering what he accomplished. I just find it depressing how quickly the internet (esp. tumblr) Feminazis jumped on his case, and started crying misogyny, when it was clearly an isolated, localized event that was more than innocent and earned.

Sometimes, people read too far into things. This is a textbook example.