tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374266320411149509.post6018229559086474661..comments2024-03-25T10:22:36.277-04:00Comments on Women In Astronomy: Where are the women professors? Unconscious gender biasesAmanpreet Kaurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08734178178113146899noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374266320411149509.post-29962367681011494992013-01-29T01:19:41.302-05:002013-01-29T01:19:41.302-05:00I don't think that objection makes the Yale ph...I don't think that objection makes the Yale physicist's point invalid. If candidate A has unpaid domestic support that will allow them to work 70 hours a week, and candidate B does not, then A > B. But that's not the sort of thing that shows up on a CV, so an employer may - completely rationally, consciously or not - look for proxies, like the candidate's sex.<br /><br />The next question, of course, is: if this is the case, what do we do about it? Do we prevent employers from discriminating against women - even when it's rationally motivated - by, say, redacting first names from CVs? Do we start putting candidates' home-partner situation on CVs, so that information is directly available to employers, and they don't need sex as a proxy anymore? Ideally we should be addressing the underlying asymmetry by increasing the number of men or decreasing the number of women who act as stay-at-home-partners - but I don't see any easy way to do that.<br /><br />I should add that I don't think this sort of rational motive underlies all sexual discrimination, or even a majority. But it'd be nice to see some hard data measuring it. I can even think of how you'd do it, as an extension of the Moss-Racusin et al. study. Just include, with the information on the prospective employees, various sex-correlated details (childcare responsibilities, availability of domestic support, etc.) - and, of course, make these details the same for the male-named and female-named applications. If employers are discriminating on sex as a proxy for these other factors, then this study should show more or less of an effect than the original study. If they're discriminating on sex purely for its own sake, the results should be the same as the original study.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374266320411149509.post-8299356327676698662013-01-18T13:43:58.902-05:002013-01-18T13:43:58.902-05:00The Yale physicist may really mean that a woman is...The Yale physicist may really mean that a woman is less likely to have someone taking care of everything at home so that they can work 70 hours a week.Douglas Duncanhttp://casa.colorado.edu/~dduncannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374266320411149509.post-11151661253303405292013-01-15T11:59:49.232-05:002013-01-15T11:59:49.232-05:00How timely for this post to appear! I just saw Jo...How timely for this post to appear! I just saw Jo Handelsman give the Physics Colloquium at Yale: "The Fallacy of Fairness: Rethinking the Meritocracy of Science". She spoke about her study, but also put it in context with lots of other studies. It was very interesting and drew a full auditorium.<br /><br />I had two reactions while she was talking, which I tweeted, but which I feel I should re-tweet(?) here:<br /><br />Yale Physics colloquium speaker, Jo Handelsman: "sex" added to civil right act as a poison pill. Not in original bill. I had NO idea!<br /><br />Yale Physics colloquium speaker, Jo Handelsman is met with the predictable argument (by dinosaur male physicist) that women aren't driven enough.Eilathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04385916134242030549noreply@blogger.com