I have to declare a vested interest – I have a daughter who aspires to becoming a scientist. She and I both believe in *true* meritocracy (as I believe Paull Conroy does)

Yes, I do.

My 9 yo daughter is considered “gifted” and has gotten straight A’s in all subjects, in all 4 marking periods, for 3 years running. Her Math scores are usually 100%. She is very mature intellectually for her age, and her favorite thing we did last summer was visiting the “Lower East Side Tenament Museum” – http://www.tenement.org/ – and she takes a great interest in such things as the Arab Spring and so forth. I’m sure she will have a choice of careers ahead of her. This last year she has stated she wanted to be a model, lead singer, teacher, doctor, artist, billionaire and so on. More recently she wants to be an architect…

I encourage her to try everything, do everything, be everything, but to put some priority on starting a family early, so she doesn’t get tripped up by her Biological Clock later on…

As regards helping a girl get a foothold, I doubt it.

Years ago I knew this girl – 1/2 Puerto Rican/1/2 Indian – and she had grown up in a working class slum, but was the top pupil in her class. She was headed for a State school in New York, but was advised to apply for an Affirmative Action spot at Harvard. She got into Harvard and felt completely out of place, there was no one else like her in her classes and she couldn’t make friends. Her grades initially good, began to slip and she dropped out before her Freshman year was over.

IMO, she would probably have excelled at a state school, but the competition was too great and the social distance between her and her peers too great for her to properly integrate into Harvard, and so she failed. She then decided to never attend college again, as it “just wasn’t her thing” – and worked in a lowly hotel job.

I feel AA caused her downfall, and without it she would have done fine!

on issues of concern to american feminists i would argue only scandinavia beats the USA.

Just remember that to be a White male in Sweden is to live in hell – ask any hetero Swedish guy – you get no respect, you can be arrested in kindergarten for sexual abuse of another toddler by merely kissing them!

It’s outrageous, it’s immoral… it needs to end…

Sandgroper, I think AA is useful for getting a foothold in *some* fields. Just to get in the running. I doubt it helps very often after that point anyway. As I am “accepted as a normal, fellow scientist” in biology I am comfortable competing in this field; it becomes a difficult but exciting challenge. So no AA is necessary. Not all is rosy, the percentages drop during postdoc years, but things are good in my subfield. I don’t think we need AA if there is progress at least.

But in other fields there are such barriers, that seem so “entrenched” as you put it, and it takes so much distracting effort and vigilance to be accepted as an equal player and where there is constant energy-sapping negativity related to all this crap… I am not going to take an absolute position! But I admire your daughter for doing so. while noting that she is also still young and optimistic

Yes, she’s in Biology – not because it’s more female-friendly, just because she’s good at it and it’s what she’s most interested in. She did easily well enough in Math and Physics to have done Engineering. She’s a real hard-liner on AA, just doesn’t believe in it (but then she is half-Chinese and has come through the highly competitive Hong Kong school system, which is like a meat grinder). In any case, she’s attending university in Australia and there is no AA there except for indigenous people in certain fields like Medicine. If they had AA, on the numbers, except in a few highly male-dominant fields like Engineering and Agricultural Science it would have to be for white Australian males, who make up the majority of the total population anyway.

Australians pride themselves on being very ‘advanced’ and ‘liberated’, but at her (my old) university, the first year intake in Civil Engineering is 12% female (as opposed now to Hong Kong, which is 50%, with no AA). Not completely OT, I did a few simple numbers based on cases reported to police – whole population, if you are a female living in Australia, your average annual risk of being sexually assaulted in 10E-1. That’s 1 in 10 every year. Which means if you are a young and reasonably attractive female, your average annual risk is approaching unity. 16% of female university students in Australia report that they have been raped while at university. 1 in 6. The Australian Union of Students has made a report on it to the federal government, who have shrugged and done nothing. My daughter has avoided it so far by having a phalanx of Singaporean guys in the student college where she lives who have done their national military service and are happy to serve as her Pretorian Guard, plus the college employs security guards who patrol at night with German Shepherd attack dogs. But she has still copped plenty of verbal harassment – physical threats, phone calls and stuff. She intends to leave Australia permanently as soon as she graduates, and frankly, who could blame her? Last year two Indian students were randomly assaulted around the campus – a girl was stabbed in the back (literally) and a guy was beaten unconscious and dumped in the river, for doing nothing, just walking around and being brown.

Contrast Biology with Civil Engineering – in my daughter’s first year intake, 60% were female, and by third year, most of the males have failed and gone, there’s only a handful left – and they are inclined to behave themselves, just to survive or else. I don’t think any of that handful are white Australian anyway.

please recall there is a great deal of intra-european heterogeneity. italy != sweden. on issues of concern to american feminists i would argue only scandinavia beats the USA.

I don’t know what the deal with the US is, but you are right. There is more hostility to women and feminists I think, and to both men and women straying from traditional sex roles; for example mocking men who do things that are “gay” here vs Europe (think of macho Italian men who hug, cry, and enjoy opera for contrast) and less tolerance of women who aren’t conventionally feminine, eg in politics or media, who are quick to be judged “men-women” or lesbians. Speaking of which we are way behind the curve in politics also.

” I have a daughter who aspires to becoming a scientist. ”

Depends which branch your daughter wants to go into. I feel much more accepted as just a normal, fellow scientist in biology but in my previous (non-science) career in a male-dominated field it pretty much sucked. And it hasn’t gotten better for women since I left. If there had been anything like an AA program I would have taken advantage- it is hardly a “favor” in that case.

I mean American society generally – sorry, but I do have to say “American society” because it is clear to me from actual data in my own field of civil engineering that there is a lot of variation nationally on this; and one of the somewhat surprising things is that some of the countries which might consider themselves the most “advanced” or “liberated” are actually not doing nearly as well as some others who they might be inclined to deliver condescending lectures to – I gave the example of Muslim female engineers in Malaysia, but I could equally have quoted Hong Kong or China generally.

Of course I recognise that advances have been made. I understand that women are even allowed to vote in elections these days. That is not really the point – what concerns me is that Schrödinger’s Hat (who I would say from my reading of past comments is *not* an idiot) clearly thinks that gender equality is a done deal – a triumph. My observation of America, Australia and some other western democracies is that it is not a done deal at all – people pay lip service to gender equality all the time, but the reality is that deeply entrenched gender biases remain, in both men and women. By ‘deeply entrenched’, I don’t know if they are unchangeable or not, just that I mean they are surely proving difficult to change in some countries in terms of equitable participation in some professions which should be gender neutral (i.e. there is no reason why men and women cannot practice these professions equally, given that they are of equal ability and application).

The evidence I have is that they should not be unchangeable, because I have seen change occurring among Chinese women within my own professional lifetime, and have even been instrumental in achieving some of that change – it’s one of the things I am actually rather proud of, particularly as female colleagues have gone out of their way to thank me for doing some things to give female engineers a fairer deal – one very bright and capable young female engineer even said “We will never forget you”, which really meant a lot to me.

What I don’t know is whether, for cultural or other reasons, this change has been achievable only among Chinese and some other Asian engineers (there is also the fairly recent example of the taboo in Japan against female construction workers working in tunneling finally being swept away), who have been just quietly getting on and doing it, with pretty encouraging outcomes (e.g. 50% of students who now enrol in civil engineering programs in Hong Kong universities are female, which is fairly reflective of their academic achievement and the fact that girls now see no reason not to consider a career in civil engineering as a perfectly viable option for them), and there is something fundamental that continues to prevent this level of female participation being achieved in countries like the USA and Australia.

That is what I am driving at, and that is why I wanted to know what definition of “feminist” was being used for the purpose of the survey (I know there is a dictionary definition), because I suspect that maybe it matters – few if any people will argue with the principle of gender equality, at least publicly, but that is not what the results of this survey show – given that the readers of this blog are a pretty smart bunch, I suspect that relates to interpretation of what it means to be a “feminist”.

I have to declare a vested interest – I have a daughter who aspires to becoming a scientist. She and I both believe in *true* meritocracy (as I believe Paull Conroy does), and I would obviously be deeply ticked off if she had to face career limitations simply because she happened to be born female. Likewise, she would detest getting any *favours* just because she is female.

But if you are implying that feminists have gone astray/lost their way in their focus (or maybe I am mixing you up with someone else?) I simply think there is more work to do, but there has been a lot of progress. And not enough generations have passed to be sure that women have reached their limits of achievement, even *if* things were not as that article shows. Meanwhile there are some crazy feminists out there, but that is irrelevant. So in any case I wouldn’t say it’s a done deal OR just hot air. Again, I may have totally misunderstood your comment, if so sorry!

“it has to do with fundamental entrenched gender bias”

by fundamental do you mean “unchangeable”?

A couple of people have emphasized on the thread that both men and women are being sexist toward women, so just to make it clear, I am not surprised by this at all, and agree that it is often the case and actually expected that many women would feel invested in the status quo for various reasons.

It certainly seems that way from the article linked from Sean Carroll’s blog. And it has nothing to do with leading horses or lack of ability, it has to do with fundamental entrenched gender bias among academic scientists in America, both male and female.

So the American ‘default’ is just hot air, right?

You could possibly see it that way, but forcible labeling of energy drinks to show how children and pregnant woman shouldn’t drink them hasn’t killed that industry. I tend to think of it as a “compromise” solution. The frankenfood nuts can go to whole foods and be sure the purity of their scrawny vegan bodies is not compromised, and us normal folks will buy the cheaper GMO stuff, not die en masse like the fanatics think we will, and it becomes a non-issue over time. Trying to go at it from the libertarian angle just doesn’t go over well because this ain’t a rational issue. Toss the more moderate doubters a bone and let the frothers froth and let price point do it’s job for the majority of Americans who do not give a crap either way.

Moreover it could be interpreted as a good thing in the long run from a liability standpoint. While it’s definitely not destructive, and a positive way of getting better yields, hardier crops and more productivity at a lower cost investment, I’m not completely convinced that there is zero chance of allergenic potential down the line for some GMO developed products. Some of those histamine triggers are pretty obscure.

The question is why?

Both male and female scientists rated the female applicants lower.

I strongly suspect it is related to sterotypes that both hold in common. But then my views on the subject are pretty much hertodox among the usual suspects.

These views are on the order of “you can lead a horse to water, but you can not make it drink” and from that perspective, I doubt that we will see anything but marginal gains in the number of women in science, no matter what resources are expended.

uh, have you been to finland?

in what sense?

“My “Maths Medals example” was what caused Larry Summers to lose his job. He”

his speech got a lot of publicity but I just did a google search to confirm my suspicion that it wasn’t the cause, and the first three sources (the Harvard Crimson, wikipedia and one other) were all pretty adamant that that event was just a catalyst, or an excuse that his *many* detractors were happy to take advantage of. So again, feminists are looking bad for something that wasn’t their fault.

“Fig 2, which is highly distorted for affect – I call cod’s wallop on the piece!”

Haha nice expression, but you must admit that an almost $4K average difference in salary, with a low paid employee, is a pretty big difference.

”

“i’ve asked about drug prohibition. most support full legalization. liberal + libertarian supermajority.”

Oh, okay, thanks. But still would be nice to know about cannabis use. That’s a surprising amount of alcohol use for a population of introverts. no?

No, the justification for mandated labeling needs to rely on meaningful evidence of harm. Otherwise there is no consumer protection. If consumers are simply curious or have their own private concerns, then of course it makes better sense to let them do their own research. (Not that this would be too onerous as competing brands can easily rope in these individuals through voluntarily labeling: No Genetically Modified Ingredients).

Are there real benefits to labeling? Not really. But is there a real possibility of harm? Yes! The very act of labeling implies the product is harmful and incentivises alarmed consumer reactions that may well smother the profitability of the technology.

Granted, this may be because I have an intolerance to any sort of sugar alcohol and so many manufacturers bury it deep in the ingredients under a chemical compound name other than “sorbitol” or “xylotol” that I have a bit of sympathy for the whole lack of clear labeling.

i’ve asked about drug prohibition. most support full legalization. liberal + libertarian supermajority.

No, I’m not a regular reader of Sailer – though I do read an article there about once a month.

Many of Sailer’s posts follow on, or are a kind of commentary for the masses, from posts on other blogs I read – which are more hardcore.

My “Maths Medals example” was what caused Larry Summers to lose his job. He pointing out to the obvious – to all numerate folks, that is – and the Feminists couldn’t handle it and successfully lobbied to have him fired. An example that harkens to Galileo’s troubles with the Catholic Church… oh how times have NOT changed!

My aunt example was that great companies hire great talent whenever they can, regardless of where they find it – and most likely have done so for a long time before Feminism, and a long time after Feminism is but a distant memory.*

I didn’t read that article you linked, as that’s not generally a blog I read – from a very quick perusal – mainly Fig 2, which is highly distorted for affect – I call cod’s wallop on the piece!

* The reason being is that there is a negative correlation between being Feminist and bearing children…

You must be one of the Steve Sailer readers What was that figure-42%? Yikes.

I saw that he was recently blaming feminists for sports doping. What next??

Don’t worry pconroy! I’m not like those *Bad* feminists you and Sailer apparently love to hate. I’m a good feminist; I never shriek. Pretty hardcore though

btw what did you think of this?

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/09/19/scientists-your-gender-bias-is-showing/

This is the kind of thing all the feminists I know or have ever encountered are concerned about. Don’t know anything about your maths medals example, but it is suspicious that you see this as a typical example. Of course difference in outcome follows from difference in opportunity, yet you seem very confident that you know when difference in opportunity is the problem and when it isn’t. I am suspicious of people who have that level of confidence and impatience with those who feel otherwise, especially when they clearly have no way of really knowing. Have all those women you know never experienced sexism? That isn’t what I hear on the blogs from women in math and physics.