1. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    07 Jul '18 21:213 edits
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jul/07/why-science-is-breeding-ground-for-sexism

    "Why science breeds a culture of sexism
    Late-night research, isolation and a strict, male-dominated hierarchy
    are the perfect conditions for sexual harassment."

    "We heard multiple detailed accounts of campaigns of sexual harassment
    by numerous professors at various institutions – and of toothless,
    negligent and often nonexistent disciplinary procedures."

    "The exodus of women in science as they climb the academic rungs is
    well known – and dubbed the “leaky pipeline”. But while the trend had
    prompted much hand-wringing, and even research, experiences of
    sexual misconduct are rarely raised as a contributing factor."

    “Woman after woman says ‘I am afraid to be alone in a room with a man’‚Äč
    How are you going to have a productive career?"

    When alone with a much more powerful man who's lusting after her, what should a woman do?

    Sexual harassment (and worse) hurts. Women usually keep quiet because
    they rightly expect that no one in power will take their grievances seriously.
    What many women have learned is, "Never let them see you cry."
  2. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    08 Jul '18 15:0912 edits
    No, this is just equivocation (in logic. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation) of 'science' with 'science departments and their management' (or mismanagement, in this case).
    The two aren't the same at all. Science is blameless. Science is nothing more than scientific method and the application of scientific method and all the knowledge derived from it thus science is not the buildings/departments science is done/taught nor the people that manage those departments or teach in them or the culture in them.

    science departments ≠ science
    management of science departments ≠ science
    people/scientists/professors ≠ science
    culture of scientists/professors ≠ science

    Harassment should NEVER be tolerated so Something needs to be done to put a stop to that harassment regardless of whether it is in a science department or not.
    But harassment isn't caused by science so the issue is the same regardless of whether it is specifically in a science department or in some other kind department not science-related thus at least in that narrow sense science is totally irrelevant to the harassment issue even it coincidentally happened in a science-related department as opposed to elsewhere or in some other arbitrary non-science-associated context.
    I see this OP link as implicitly assuming science guilty by association rather than by reason.
  3. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3081
    08 Jul '18 16:45
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jul/07/why-science-is-breeding-ground-for-sexism

    "Why science breeds a culture of sexism
    Late-night research, isolation and a strict, male-dominated hierarchy
    are the perfect conditions for sexual harassment."

    "We heard multiple detailed accounts of campaigns of sexual harassment
    by numerous professors a ...[text shortened]... take their grievances seriously.
    What many women have learned is, "Never let them see you cry."
    Sexual harassment is a serious problem in the academic world, as it is outside of the academic world.

    That few women choose academia as a career is primarily related to the way an academic career is structured, providing little job security for junior researchers, precisely at a point when women often choose to have children.
  4. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    6975
    08 Jul '18 19:072 edits
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jul/07/why-science-is-breeding-ground-for-sexism

    "Why science breeds a culture of sexism
    Late-night research, isolation and a strict, male-dominated hierarchy
    are the perfect conditions for sexual harassment."

    "We heard multiple detailed accounts of campaigns of sexual harassment
    by numerous professors a ...[text shortened]... take their grievances seriously.
    What many women have learned is, "Never let them see you cry."
    Aside from the title, this article is about harassment, not sexism. Hard to take seriously if they can't get the title right. It seems counterproductive to refer to the very important issue of sexual harassment as sexism.

    If we're talking about sexism and not harassment, KazetNagorra is spot on about why women are under-represented in academic science. The career track involves an unusual amount uncertainty for highly-trained professionals well into their late 30s. You often need to move jobs and cities, keep unpredictable hours, and rely to some degree on luck. When the tenure clock turns on, usually in your early- to mid-30's, you have 5 years to "make a name for yourself". You need to be in the lab a lot, travel to conferences, write papers and win grant dollars. Lots of women do it successfully, but others who are well-trained and competent will choose another track (particularly if they want to have or already have kids), such as teaching, biotech or science editing. These tracks typically come with more job security, good benefits and predictable hours. Is that sexist?

    p.s. the numbers they give for % of women in STEM who have been harassed in this article is very similar to the norms across all areas of academia and life in general (Reference: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1994-11711-001)

    . It's happening everywhere, so it cannot be "science" that's breeding harassment.
  5. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    08 Jul '18 19:251 edit
    Originally posted by @humy
    No, this is just equivocation (in logic. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation) of 'science' with 'science departments and their management' (or mismanagement, in this case).
    The two aren't the same at all. Science is blameless. Science is nothing more than scientific method and the application of scientific method and all the knowledge derived from ...[text shortened]...
    I see this OP link as implicitly assuming science guilty by association rather than by reason.
    Can Humy comprehend or accept that it's a normal and accepted practice for headlines
    (which are required be terse) to use oversimplified terms (supposedly with nuances explained later)?

    If a journalism student said, "I want the headline to be 'Science Departments and their
    Management tend to Breed a Culture of Sexual Harassment'", the teacher would say
    that it should be much shorter.

    The headline's NOT supposed to be a complete accurate detailed description of the article.
    If the headline were that wonderful, then it would hardly be necessary to append the article.

    This thread already seems full of excessively defensive responses by men.
  6. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    08 Jul '18 19:498 edits
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    it's a normal and accepted practice for headlines (which are required be terse)
    I personally doubt that is a real requirement.
    The way I personally see it, where all that is needed is to add just one extra word to turn a highly misleading statement (which is what I personally perceive to be so in this case) to one that is accurate, the benefit of adding just that one extra word outweighs the cost thus, regardless of whether it is accepted practice to so shorten it, it shouldn't be.
    What is the cost of adding that extra word? Will people suddenly find the title so long and tiresome to read they won't? Will there be a flood of complaints by readers saying it should be shortened at the cost of not saying exactly what is meant by it? Somehow, I don't think so.
    And I noticed they made one of the same kind of misleading statement in the article as in its title. Was that just to shave of just one word in the whole article? Is the word count constraints really that tight? Somehow, I don't think so.
  7. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    08 Jul '18 20:053 edits
    Originally posted by @humy
    I personally doubt that is a real requirement.
    The way I personally see it, where all that is needed is to add just one extra word to turn a highly misleading statement to one that is accurate, the benefit of adding just that one extra word outweighs the cost thus, regardless of whether it is accepted practice to so shorten it, it shouldn't be.
    What is the ...[text shortened]... the whole article? Is the word count constraints really that tight? Somehow, I don't think so.
    "I personally doubt that is a real requirement."
    --Humy

    The space for headlines (as printed on paper) is far from infinite.

    "The way I personally see it, where all that is needed is to add just one extra word
    to turn a highly misleading statement to one that is accurate"
    --Humy

    What exactly is Humy's proposed replacement headline with 'just one extra word'?

    P.S.
    No more vague hand-waving claims about how easily superior Humy's replacement headline would be.
    Let's see it.
  8. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    08 Jul '18 20:193 edits
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    "The way I personally see it, where all that is needed is to add just one extra word
    to turn a highly misleading statement to one that is accurate"
    --Humy

    What exactly is Humy's proposed replacement headline with 'just one extra word'?
    Don't know what would work best but, perhaps with a title overhaul, this alternative would be better;

    why-science-institution-culture-fosters-sexism

    ANYONE;
    Although I think this would be better, I think this is probably not the best alternative title (still possible to semantically read it the wrong way) and I welcome any suggestion from anyone here of what alternative they can think up and post it here.
  9. Joined
    11 Nov '14
    Moves
    16719
    08 Jul '18 20:211 edit
    Oh dear, humy, I fear you are ' pissing in the wind '

    Ho humy, here we go again, another D64 rant
  10. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    08 Jul '18 20:302 edits
    Originally posted by @humy
    Don't know what would work best but, perhaps with a title overhaul, this alternative would be better;

    why-science-institution-culture-fosters-sexism

    ANYONE;
    Although I think this would be better, I think this is probably not the best alternative title (still possible to semantically read it the wrong way) and I welcome any suggestion from anyone here of what alternative they can think up and post it here.
    "No more vague hand-waving claims about how easily superior Humy's replacement headline would be.
    Let's see it."
    --Duchess64

    "I welcome any suggestion from anyone here of what alternative they can think up and post it here."
    --Humy

    So even Humy apparently grudgingly concedes that writing a headline's not as easy as he assumed.
  11. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    08 Jul '18 20:32
    Originally posted by @blood-on-the-tracks to Humy
    Oh dear, humy, I fear you are ' pissing in the wind '

    Ho humy, here we go again, another D64 rant
    Blood on the Tracks apparently finds it more easy and enjoyable to troll me rather than
    to respond to Humy's request for suggestions on how to improve the article's headline.
  12. Joined
    11 Nov '14
    Moves
    16719
    08 Jul '18 20:33
    D, I have no interest in either.

    Enjoy your banter with whoever takes the bait
  13. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    08 Jul '18 20:363 edits
    Originally posted by @duchess64

    So even Humy apparently grudgingly concedes that writing a headline's not as easy as he assumed.
    I never assumed it would be easy. Even now, I still agonizing over what exactly the title of the book I am writing should be. I have thought up hundreds of alternatives, none I like; see problems with each one.
  14. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    08 Jul '18 20:412 edits
    Originally posted by @humy
    I never assumed it would be easy.
    "The way I personally see it, where all that is needed is to add just one extra word to turn
    a highly misleading statement (which is what I personally perceive to be so in this case)
    to one that is accurate, the benefit of adding just that one extra word outweighs the cost
    thus, regardless of whether it is accepted practice to so shorten it, it shouldn't be.
    What is the cost of adding that extra word? Will people suddenly find the title so long
    and tiresome to read they won't? Will there be a flood of complaints by readers saying it
    should be shortened at the cost of not saying exactly what is meant by it?
    Somehow, I don't think so."
    --Humy

    If his excuse now were true, then what Humy wrote earlier was extremely misleading (at best).

    Humy then clearly claimed that the headline could have been made much better, if not perfect,
    easily by adding just 'one extra word'. But, obviously now, Humy did NOT know what that
    magical 'one extra word' would be when he made that claim.
  15. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    08 Jul '18 20:44
    Originally posted by @humy
    I personally doubt that is a real requirement.
    The way I personally see it, where all that is needed is to add just one extra word to turn a highly misleading statement (which is what I personally perceive to be so in this case) to one that is accurate, the benefit of adding just that one extra word outweighs the cost thus, regardless of whether it is accept ...[text shortened]... the whole article? Is the word count constraints really that tight? Somehow, I don't think so.
    "...a highly misleading statement (which is what I personally perceive to be so in this case)."
    --Humy (complaining about the article's headline)

    To me, it's obvious that, in the headline, 'science' meant 'scientific institutions, people,
    or culture' rather than 'the scientific method' itself.

    Here's an analogy: Headline--'Why Chess has Sexism'.
    Obviously, 'chess' refers to 'chess institutions, people, or culture' rather than to chess itself
    as a game (which has gender-neutral rules and equal starting positions for male and female players).
    When someone writes about sexism in chess, one obviously is NOT claiming that female
    players must, for instance, start every game by giving pawn odds to male players.
Back to Top