Support NeoGAF

[Faddy]

It's not even necessarily problematic that women aren't involved in STEM. It might be an issue if they are being actively discouraged, and thats a legitimate debate but that's not been proven just asserted. There have been.... other assertions, but they must not be discussed as any intellectual should know. We do not talk about the uncomfortable, even if we are able to rule it out.

All that is aside from this though, which is in fact, much ado about a shirt.


I recall your nonsense from other posts. This would be a good try if you were relatively anonymous and the whole vague dismissal coupled with ad hominem attempt was a new tactic.

Trying to shoehorn this shirt into STEM participation is academically bankrupt. There are deeper issues at hand. Gender differences in brain development makes mathematics and logic more easily understood to the average male compared to the average female, while women are on average better at communicating and empathy.

Coupled with the shitstorm that is high school where social groups are heavily aligned by gender. Part of the discouragement is from female peers sticking together socially which means that particularly the mathematically rigorous STEM subjects are more likely to be avoided because some of the group don't want to continue in the subject.

A lot of the female targeted science outreach stuff focuses on this without saying it outright. When you get past high school there is going to be a peer group at university and you will fit in. In general this is working as many have pointed out that STEM is getting more equal than it has been.

Of course not all subjects have been effected equally with many more women in Biology and Chemistry fields, Mathematics and Physics is doing OK but Computer Science and Engineering are lagging behind. (This is just from numbers I have seen at my institution)

 

[GameGuru59]

I think the fundemental problem in this thread is that those offended by the shirt take the concerns (offense) of those bothered by the shirt seriously- as though their feelings matter to them. While others (myself included) don't really care about how others feel- especially about such a minor issue. I think this is the fundemental obstacle facing femminism. Women and men that are femminists are asking men to empathise with their struggles, when most men are trained culturally to have little or no feelings (or at least, not to discuss them openly). There's benefits and costs to being socialized to not really have feelings, and I feel it breaks down discussions such as these. As I said earlier, I've been trained to "power through" adversity, to never show pain to my adversary, and to use opposition as a motivator to exceed expectations.

I would never complain about a shirt someone is wearing, even if it did bother me. Its irrelevant to my personal goal, and I wouldn't want a person to criticize a shirt I was wearing (so usually, there's an understood desire for there not to be reciprosity). Apparently, not everyone thinks this way. I (and most others downplaying shirt-gate) understand the concerns others are raising, we just don't see them as legitimate because the issue doesn't strike us as a true impediment to women being in STEM (largely because we cultivate the aforementioned mentality).

 

[Dash27]

No one is intimidated by the shirt. You're inventing this to fit into your narrative.

You're not paying attention then.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...eads-to-apology-from-european-space-scientist

Rose Eveleth @roseveleth
Follow

No no women are toooootally welcome in our community, just ask the dude in this shirt.

Astrophysicist and writer Katherine J. Mack tweeted, "You think a shirt like this makes women feel welcome? I don't."

Noting Taylor's apology today, Eveleth tweeted, "Glad to hear @mggtTaylor recognized his mistake & apologized... we can both move along with our lives."

I can't make you see it, I know you clearly don't want to, but yes people were objectively intimidated by the shirt. The felt unwelcome and excluded, because again... shirt.

 

[RedShift]

Once again

And once again, if the shirt is symptomatic of a larger problem (which I agree with to an extent), then don't you think it's wrong to start writing articles calling him a misogynist and basically calling the banners for people on Twitter to harass him about it?

You keep saying 'it's not just a shirt', but for Matt Taylor it was, and that's why people are pissed off at the amount of grief he got.

 

[KHarvey16]

You're not paying attention then.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...eads-to-apology-from-european-space-scientist







I can't make you see it, I know you clearly don't want to, but yes people were objectively intimidated by the shirt. The felt unwelcome and excluded, because again... shirt.

Because of what it represents about STEM as a whole, which is a point you would understand if you took a few minutes to read anything from the previous pages of this thread.

 

[God Dayumm]

Once again

STEM fields are very inclusive, intelligent women can and have been very successful in them. And so have many minorities. You won't be seeing this in fashion, banking, sports or entertainment, where women either don't matter at all or are bullied into anorexia and drugs. The big feminist issue in STEM is that there does exist a pay gap and it has nothing to do with ugly shirts. People here are demonizing these fields so they can justify their outrage against Matt Taylor.

 

[Irminsul]

What does geekiness have to do anything? We're talking about women in STEM, a field most women haven't been encouraged to get into, if not intentionally steered away from. for as long as it's been around.

Mumei's post talked about it? It said that women were more interested in a certain field if its "geekiness" was removed. Which has at least the two possible explanations I mentioned, aside from the fact what qualifies as geeky and what doesn't.

Also, women being steered away from STEM doesn't mean STEM culture itself is unfriendly to women.

Because of what it represents about STEM as a whole, which is a point you would understand if you took a few minutes to read anything from the previous pages of this thread.

Ah, once again that great "if you could only see the light" narrative. Because lecturing is such a successful strategy. But oh well, maybe your goal isn't really to win anyone over, who knows.

 

[Kano on the Phone]

You're not paying attention then.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...eads-to-apology-from-european-space-scientist







I can't make you see it, I know you clearly don't want to, but yes people were objectively intimidated by the shirt. The felt unwelcome and excluded, because again... shirt.

It's what the shirt represents, not the shirt in and of itself. You're willfully missing the point. Do you really, honestly feel that the shirt, and only the shirt, is what's causing women to feel unwelcome in STEM careers? Do you honestly feel that the shirt exists in a world where women are equally encouraged and welcomed to get into STEM careers from birth as men are?

Mumei's post talked about it? It said that women were more interested in a certain field if its "geekiness" was removed. Which has at least the two possible explanations I mentioned, aside from the fact what qualifies as geeky and what doesn't.

Also, women being steered away from STEM doesn't mean STEM culture itself is unfriendly to women.

But women in STEM have said that it is.

 

[Stet]

These kind of reactions to the shirt is exactly why I couldn't take a side in that whole Gamergate joke.

How is this not bullying?

Something doesn't magically become bullying just because a large number of people have visceral reactions at once.

 

[stufte]

There's no reverse sexism here that I'm seeing. Please elaborate how you feel that anything being talked about is sexist toward men. I simply suggested that someone with a more level head approach the subject. You can replace "her mom" with "her dad" if you like. I don't know if the poster I responded to is a woman or a gay male.

First. Sexism is sexism, there is no "reverse" sexism.

Second. If you feel women could raise or instruct a girl better than a man, then you are being sexist.

Third. Quit trying to deflect your transgressions by saying "I meant the other partner, who must have a better understanding of how to raise girls." It's disingenuous.

 

[stonesak]

And once again, if the shirt is symptomatic of a larger problem (which I agree with to an extent), then don't you think it's wrong to start writing articles calling him a misogynist and basically calling the banners for people on Twitter to harass him about it?

You keep saying 'it's not just a shirt', but for Matt Taylor it was, and that's why people are pissed off at the amount of grief he got.

Agreed. Saying it was never about Matt Taylor or his shirt, but encouraging women into STEM is revisionist. And until the people who attacked Matt admit they were wrong, the discussion won't evolve into anything more than that.

 

[Irminsul]

But women in STEM have said that it is.

Which precisely means it is unwelcoming to those women that have said so. Or do you think "women in STEM" is some kind of hivemind?

 

[KHarvey16]

Ah, once again that great "if you could only see the light" narrative. Because lecturing is such a successful strategy. But oh well, maybe your goal isn't really to win anyone over, who knows.

You guys are so insecure. I didn't say you can't see the light, I said you're being willfully ignorant, ignoring what everyone is saying to you and failing to engage in a reasonable discussion like adults.

 

[Mumei]

So why did you even post this if you don't stand by it? Is wearing a star trek shirt on the STEM-field job "problematic" because it makes women feel not interested?

Because that's what i pick up from Mumei's post. Men should refrain from being so fucking geeky if they work the STEM-fields, because it makes women disinterested. They should go for more refined decor such as shirts with artsy Salvador Dali images (not the ones with scantily clad women, mind you!).

And if that post "covered this" very well, then.. i'll just say that if these are the trees that makes me not see the forest, it's a rather shitty forest to walk about in. One where geeks can't be who they are, because who they are is someone a woman don't like to associate with.

Honestly i find Mumeis post and what it suggests rather problematic. Because to me it's obvious that the geek paraphernalia wasn't sending a "i'm not welcome here" message to women, but rather the other way around - women sending a "i don't want to associate with these geeky losers and if this is what STEM is about i don't want any part of it"-message.
Should that kind of shallow really be catered to?

And for what's its worth i don't think this has anything to do with this "shirtgate", i'm just baffled that Mumei choose to post it in this thread (or anywhere at all).

I am leaving to go to the Field Museum shortly, but I'd just like to say that this is not at all what I - or the author of the book, or the study authors - were suggesting. The suggestion was rather that sometimes a stereotype becomes so strongly associated with a field of work that one can internalize the idea that you need to embody that stereotype in order to be a good fit for that field. And in the study, the women asked about their interest specifically mentioned feeling "less similar to" computer science majors - they didn't think they'd fit in. And when the study authors presented an environment that would trigger those stereotypes, women indeed felt much less interested versus how they felt in an environment that didn't announce that geekiness was prerequisite for fitting in.

There are, of course, men who are geeks in computer science, but there's a difference between "a profession that has more than its share of geeks" and "a profession in which people think you need to be a geek to be successful, so people - and more particularly women - who aren't geeks are less likely to try."

The only thing that was suggested by that study was that more women might be encouraged to explore computer science as a major if the environment they worked in didn't communicate that you had to be a geek in order to fit into it.

As for how it relates to the shirt: I thought that in the same way that the décor in that environment communicated that one needed to be a geek (and thus lowered women's interest), the shirt communicated that one needed to expect a certain level of casual, unthinking objectification. I made a broader argument about why I thought the shirt was emblematic of a larger problem later, but that's how I connected the shirt and the study.

You guys are so insecure. I didn't say you can't see the light, I said you're being willfully ignorant, ignoring what everyone is saying to you and failing to engage in a reasonable discussion like adults.

*looks at my tag*

 

[Dash27]

Trying to shoehorn this shirt into STEM participation is academically bankrupt. There are deeper issues at hand. Gender differences in brain development makes mathematics and logic more easily understood to the average male compared to the average female, while women are on average better at communicating and empathy.

Coupled with the shitstorm that is high school where social groups are heavily aligned by gender. Part of the discouragement is from female peers sticking together socially which means that particularly the mathematically rigorous STEM subjects are more likely to be avoided because some of the group don't want to continue in the subject.

A lot of the female targeted science outreach stuff focuses on this without saying it outright. When you get past high school there is going to be a peer group at university and you will fit in. In general this is working as many have pointed out that STEM is getting more equal than it has been.

Of course not all subjects have been effected equally with many more women in Biology and Chemistry fields, Mathematics and Physics is doing OK but Computer Science and Engineering are lagging behind. (This is just from numbers I have seen at my institution)

Good post. I'm not asking to cite sources but is there support for the gender differences in competence of math/communication etc?

As far as outreach your comment on engineering made me thing of this:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/16029337/goldieblox-the-engineering-toy-for-girls

Things like that are far more productive to me than harassing this poor guy for no reason in his moment of achievement.

 

[Kano on the Phone]

First. Sexism is sexism, there is no "reverse" sexism.

Second. If you feel women could raise or instruct a girl better than a man, then you are being sexist.

Third. Quit trying to deflect your transgressions by saying "I meant the other partner, who must have a better understanding of how to raise girls." It's disingenuous.

Come on, if you're just going to hold me to what you imagine I meant and disregard when I clarify, why bother bringing it up unless you were just going for a "ha, gotcha!" That isn't honest.

Which precisely means it is unwelcoming to those women that have said so. Or do you think "women in STEM" is some kind of hivemind?

I think that if women in STEM say "STEM is unfriendly to women" I can't say "I don't believe/can't know if STEM is unfriendly to women."

 

[Mumei]

Trying to shoehorn this shirt into STEM participation is academically bankrupt. There are deeper issues at hand. Gender differences in brain development makes mathematics and logic more easily understood to the average male compared to the average female, while women are on average better at communicating and empathy.

Which gender differences in brain development?

 

[Irminsul]

You guys are so insecure. I didn't say you can't see the light, I said you're being willfully ignorant, ignoring what everyone is saying to you and failing to engage in a reasonable discussion like adults.

No, wrong. You confuse ignorance with disagreement. Which is easy if you're completely sure the other participants of the conversation could only agree with you if they would think thoroughly about the arguments brought forward. That agreeing with you is the logical conclusion. Except that it isn't.

You can't have a discussion if your stance is absolute. That's just a little pastime.

 

[Dice//]

Trying to shoehorn this shirt into STEM participation is academically bankrupt. There are deeper issues at hand. Gender differences in brain development makes mathematics and logic more easily understood to the average male compared to the average female, while women are on average better at communicating and empathy.

Coupled with the shitstorm that is high school where social groups are heavily aligned by gender. Part of the discouragement is from female peers sticking together socially which means that particularly the mathematically rigorous STEM subjects are more likely to be avoided because some of the group don't want to continue in the subject.

[citation needed]

 

[stufte]

Come on, if you're just going to hold me to what you imagine I meant and disregard when I clarify, why bother bringing it up unless you were just going for a "ha, gotcha!" That isn't honest.

Fair enough, but I still stand by my critique of the notion of "reverse" sexism. Because that line of thinking is problematic.

 

[stonesak]

Which gender differences in brain development?

http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/how-male-female-brains-differ

 

[berzeli]

" a Star Trek poster, geeky comics, video game boxes, junk food, electronic equipment, and technical books and magazines. The second arrangement was substantially less geeky: the poster was an art one, water bottles replaced the junk food, the magazines were general interest, and the computer books were aimed at a more general level."

In Mumeis example women were less interested in STEM when it was presented in a room furnished with geeky stuff.
This isn't an example of exclusion, it's an example of not wanting to be included in something. They are not the same thing. They aren't being excluded because they don't feel like they're missing out on anything.

And again, i don't see how it has anything to do with shirtgate, and i don't see why Mumei posted it, here or anywhere. And i don't see how it explains anything. Unless you think that star trek shirts and similar "geek-stuff" are problematic. Which, apparently, you don't.

Yeah, you don't seem to have actually read what he wrote and quoted (specifically the second post). It is about how STEM (or more specifically computer science) went from being welcoming to women to being exclusionary and how items and attire can identify belonging to a culture and how that culture reflects on women (and vice versa).

It was to illustrate the why and how of finding the shirt problematic and how it fits in with the larger issues of women in STEM. The study showed that it wasn't due to something inherent with computer science that were making women avoid it but the exclusionary culture that surrounded it. And women not wanting to be included in a field of study is the problem, that the culture surrounding it is making them feel not at home. That ends up being exclusionary even if it isn't via some explicit misogony but rather via implicit signals.

 

[KHarvey16]

*looks at my tag*

Yep.

Also, if I were feeling more motivated I think I might trawl through the thread collecting posts that actually address a position being expressed and not a strawman. I see paragraphs upon paragraphs dedicated to an incompetent dismantling of an argument no one is making!

 

[RedShift]

You guys are so insecure. I didn't say you can't see the light, I said you're being willfully ignorant, ignoring what everyone is saying to you and failing to engage in a reasonable discussion like adults.

Is this something you feel you've done in this thread? Really?

 

[KHarvey16]

Is this something you feel you've done in this thread? Really?

Sure, utter contempt for these ridiculous arguments is reasonable.

 

[Dice//]

Is this something you feel you've done in this thread? Really?

I think KHarvey16 has.
Sometimes a bit more 'vocally' but I can blame him/her since s/he's (sorry) been through this topic as long as I have. It's exhausting and disheartening.

 

[Dash27]

It's what the shirt represents, not the shirt in and of itself. You're willfully missing the point. Do you really, honestly feel that the shirt, and only the shirt, is what's causing women to feel unwelcome in STEM careers? Do you honestly feel that the shirt exists in a world where women are equally encouraged and welcomed to get into STEM careers from birth as men are?

But this is all double talk. You and the people I quoted are in fact saying this shirt is emblematic, representative, whatever word you want to use, of a problem. And because you have hurt feelings, he shouldn't wear the shirt. The shirt helps make women feel unwelcome. So we need to censor it. And of course, true to their objective, the guy apologized. After which we got the comment that the woman who made the initial comment was glad he "recognized his mistake".

That mistake, yet again, was ... wait for it... wearing a shirt. So again, it's petty garbage and only serves to further push the term Feminism further away from legitimacy.

Censoring those you disagree with is not empowering, this is the false path you're trying to go down.

 

[Pie and Beans]

And no, we won't rebrand, because fuck you, we're more vocal than ever and we're not stopping this party train just cause you're afraid you can't wear offensive shirts anymore

Its not you that will need the rebranding. Its the other side of the movement that will want to jettison the "FUCK YOU!" side to become a progressive positive movement again rather than one based on shaming, negativity, FUD and attack vectors.

 

[Irminsul]

I think that if women in STEM say "STEM is unfriendly to women" I can't say "I don't believe/can't know if STEM is unfriendly to women."

The problem I have with this notion is that it's a bit of an argument from authority. I mean, if "women in STEM say they feel unwelcome" in itself is an argument, there's nothing to discuss really. What would you discuss? There's nothing in this sentence that you could argue about. These women surely exist and the feelings they talk about are probably very much sincere.

Ah, you say, now we come to the part how to improve the situation of women. Right. But to do this, "women in STEM say" isn't enough, you need reasons why they feel unwelcome. Otherwise you can't improve anything. And I simply don't see how "geekiness" would be a reason. That's as unspecific as it can be.

I also don't see what part of geekiness is inherently and unchangeably male.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

I find it hilarious that we call it censorship when people are merely talking about things, but we don't call it censorship when people actively try to silence or prevent people from talking in the first place.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. It is not censorship to have society judge your actions, behaviors, or words as unwanted.

 

[Irminsul]

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence.

As an aside, I always felt this sentence is a bit empty. Because it says nothing about the form or severity of the consequence.

And as every short and nice-sounding sentence, it's only nice as long as it is applied to the "right" side of the argument. Well, some idiot gamergater probably already used it to defend death threats.

 

[berzeli]

I also don't see what part of geekiness is inherently and unchangeably male.

Yeah, you're going on about a different topic about how geek culture was born, how it was catered to and how it is evolving. Hint: it pandered heavily to males and skewed very male in its formative years, which even is mentioned in the post by Mumei.

So the culture have (rightly or wrongly) the perception of being a male dominated space that caters almost exclusively to men, it has changed in recent years but the perception is still there. Geekdom isn't an inherently male culture but it has been dominated and advertised by/to males for so long that the perception of it being for men still lingers. No one is suggesting that it can't change (or isn't changing) but it still has the public perception problem.

 

[KHarvey16]

As an aside, I always felt this sentence is a bit empty. Because it says nothing about the form or severity of the consequence.

And as every short and nice-sounding sentence, it's only nice as long as it is applied to the "right" side of the argument. Well, some idiot gamergater probably already used it to defend death threats.

And the difference is they were wrong because death threats are illegal.

 

[Dice//]

But this is all double talk. You and the people I quoted are in fact saying this shirt is emblematic, representative, whatever word you want to use, of a problem. And because you have hurt feelings, he shouldn't wear the shirt. The shirt helps make women feel unwelcome. So we need to censor it. And of course, true to their objective, the guy apologized. After which we got the comment that the woman who made the initial comment was glad he "recognized his mistake".

That mistake, yet again, was ... wait for it... wearing a shirt. So again, it's petty garbage and only serves to further push the term Feminism further away from legitimacy.

Censoring those you disagree with is not empowering, this is the false path you're trying to go down.

Oh for goodness sake. For how quickly people go "it's just a shirt", the EXACT statement can easily be flipped around, it's not that darn hard to change what you're wearing and maybe have some iota of consideration of who's watching. Women barely have/wear shirts with men in sexy-skimpy leather in risqueé poses and we're hardly suffering for it or lack ways to express ourselves. Hell, a little professionalism goes a long way that people even judge kempt hair and a good handshake, so "oh no a man was asked to change his shirt that's at odds with the current work climate". "Yeah well, who cares?" SOME people do and it's NOT that hard to accomodate and it feels similarly explosive to start condemning feminism [again] for something so easily changed.

A shirt can say/do a lot of things and people who keep downplaying the importance of fashion or the statement it can make in this billion dollar industry are distracting why this topic has indeed gone for as long as it has.

But again, this attire isn't the biggest problem in feminism debate today, not at all. It's the attitudes that have followed and the harsh words some have used against those who hope a little change.

Matt Taylor is a great guy, he just made a bad decision when he woke up that morning by wearing something at odds with the climate of his job.

 

[Irminsul]

So the culture have (rightly or wrongly) the perception of being a male dominated space that caters almost exclusively to men, it has changed in recent years but the perception is still there. Geekdom isn't an inherently male culture but it has been dominated and advertised by/to males for so long that the perception of it being for men still lingers. No one is suggesting that it can't change (or isn't changing) but it still has the public perception problem.

Which is why I mentioned that it isn't necessarily the culture itself that is unwelcome to women. And you can only influence public perception so much from within the culture. Public perception only changes slowly.

And the difference is they were wrong because death threats are illegal.

Fine, change it to hundreds of abrasive, non-illegal comments because someone dared to let women take away my vidya gaems talk about tropes in video games. That probably isn't something anyone would want, but would still be supported by the sentence I quoted above. Which means it's hollow as an argument.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

As an aside, I always felt this sentence is a bit empty. Because it says nothing about the form or severity of the consequence.

And as every short and nice-sounding sentence, it's only nice as long as it is applied to the "right" side of the argument. Well, some idiot gamergater probably already used it to defend death threats.

Ignoring the implicit attempt to draw a comparison between death threats and mere criticism, it's not an empty statement. The content is just so obvious and simple people keep trying to make it out to be more than it is.

It's not a political argument, it's just a statement of fact. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with how your speech is received. People will react to speech in different ways, and people will respond to those reactions in different ways. None of that is censorship.

 

[RedShift]

Matt Taylor is a great guy, he just made a bad decision when he woke up that morning by wearing something at odds with the climate of his job.

And in return he got a huge amount of anger poured over him, including that Verge article that accuses him of misogyny and compares him to a group of men calling women bitches, not to mention all the shit on Twitter.

If you agree he's a nice guy who just made a mistake don't you think that really sucks, especially considering it should have been one of the best days of his life? That's why people are so pissed off at the Verge article.

 

[Entropy912]

I'm a professional scientist in my late 20s and from my observations, women are very well represented in this industry. Both of my previous bosses were women, incredibly smart, and very well respected within the company and our new executive director of research who is female is also brilliant and has company wide influence and respect. The great thing about STEM is that at the end of the day your data, techniques, and research are a tangible thing and represents how good of a scientist you are regardless of gender, creed, or anything else.

In response to the story, his shirt was tacky and unprofessional under any circumstance, and he should have known better pHd physicist or not. But does his shirt say anything about the state of women in STEM careers? IMO, absolutely not.

 

[Kano on the Phone]

But this is all double talk. You and the people I quoted are in fact saying this shirt is emblematic, representative, whatever word you want to use, of a problem. And because you have hurt feelings, he shouldn't wear the shirt. The shirt helps make women feel unwelcome. So we need to censor it. And of course, true to their objective, the guy apologized. After which we got the comment that the woman who made the initial comment was glad he "recognized his mistake".

That mistake, yet again, was ... wait for it... wearing a shirt. So again, it's petty garbage and only serves to further push the term Feminism further away from legitimacy.

Censoring those you disagree with is not empowering, this is the false path you're trying to go down.

I never said it bothered me or hurt my feelings or anything. That's an assumption (a false one) on your part. You're also assuming that the guy is insincere in his apology, which you also have no basis to believe is true. You very clearly have an axe to grind here but you can't grind it in this context without some serious strawmen.

The problem I have with this notion is that it's a bit of an argument from authority. I mean, if "women in STEM say they feel unwelcome" in itself is an argument, there's nothing to discuss really. What would you discuss? There's nothing in this sentence that you could argue about. These women surely exist and the feelings they talk about are probably very much sincere.

Ah, you say, now we come to the part how to improve the situation of women. Right. But to do this, "women in STEM say" isn't enough, you need reasons why they feel unwelcome. Otherwise you can't improve anything. And I simply don't see how "geekiness" would be a reason. That's as unspecific as it can be.

I also don't see what part of geekiness is inherently and unchangeably male.

An argument from authority isn't always wrong and it isn't always a logical fallacy. I don't know how else I'm supposed to understand this without deferring to someone who's in the position, and one that I can't possibly ever be in. Calling it an argument from authority is meaningless as to the validity of the argument.

I'm a professional scientist in my late 20s and from my observations, women are very well represented in this industry. Both of my previous bosses were women, incredibly smart, and very well respected within the company and our new executive director of research who is female is also brilliant and has company wide influence and respect. The great thing about STEM is that at the end of the day your data, techniques, and research are a tangible thing and represents how good of a scientist you are regardless of gender, creed, or anything else.

In response to the story, his shirt was tacky and unprofessional under any circumstance, and he should have known better pHd physicist or not. But does his shirt say anything about the state of women in STEM careers? IMO, absolutely not.

I work in a STEM job and the work force in my particular company is less then 10 percent women, and of those ten percent, less than half are actually in the engineering part of the job. I live and work in silicon valley and know people at several major tech companies and my experience isn't by any means unique. We can do this anecdotal stuff all day.

 

[Kuroyume]

For the upteenth time

The shirt is symptomatic of the problems with being inclusive to women in STEM fields. It, specifically, does not produce all of the toxicity and other things that is found to be problematic in the fields. It is the straw that broke the camel's back. It's the drop in the bucket that made it run over.

Wearing a shirt with partially naked space bondage babes is VERY different from a real, living woman choosing to present her self as sexy. One is an object, and the other is a person with agency.

No. You need to learn what bondage is. Women wearing latex and holding guns is not bondage. And the images aren't inherently sexy. That's in the eye of the beholder. Get over yourself thought police.

 

[berzeli]

Which is why I mentioned that it isn't necessarily the culture itself that is unwelcome to women. And you can only influence public perception so much from within the culture. Public perception only changes slowly.

This assumes that there isn't a problem with women in geek culture, in my (and many others) opinion there do exist a problem with the treatment of women in geek culture. But that is a discussion for another thread. A point of the study was to illustrate that the surrounding culture influenced how women perceived computer science, not that it was the field itself.

So we agree that public perception matters, which is why the message you are communicating whilst in the public spotlight matters. Wearing a shirt that uses women as decorative objects which is something a lot of women take umbrage with isn't helping the public perception of women and their role in STEM and taking issue with this is a fair response, no?

 

[Brawndo Addict]

I'm a professional scientist in my late 20s and from my observations, women are very well represented in this industry. Both of my previous bosses were women, incredibly smart, and very well respected within the company and our new executive director of research who is female is also brilliant and has company wide influence and respect. The great thing about STEM is that at the end of the day your data, techniques, and research are a tangible thing and represents how good of a scientist you are regardless of gender, creed, or anything else.

In response to the story, his shirt was tacky and unprofessional under any circumstance, and he should have known better pHd physicist or not. But does his shirt say anything about the state of women in STEM careers? IMO, absolutely not.

As a scientist you should know about using objective evidence instead of anecdotal.

Scientists presented with application materials from a student applying for a lab manager position and who intended to go on to graduate school. Half the scientists were given the application with a male name attached, and half were given the exact same application with a female name attached. Results found that the “female” applicants were rated significantly lower than the “males” in competence, hireability, and whether the scientist would be willing to mentor the student.

In a finding that poses uncomfortable questions for the UK scientific establishment, researchers uncovered evidence of women scientists working in the field of infectious diseases being disadvantaged in crucial funding allocations for more than a decade. Out of more than 6,000 funding grants between 1997 and 2010, less than a quarter were awarded to studies led by women. Male scientists received nearly £1.8bn of funding in the time period, compared to just £488m for women.

Studies led by women were also more likely to receive lower sums of money. The average grant for a woman-led study was £125,556 – compared to an average award of £179,389 for research proposed by men – a difference of 43 per cent . The authors of the study, published in the online journal BMJ Open today, said their findings could not be taken as evidence of gender bias on the part of funding councils, but urged funder to “urgently investigate” the reasons behind the differences.

 

[KHarvey16]

Fine, change it to hundreds of abrasive, non-illegal comments because someone dared to let women take away my vidya gaems talk about tropes in video games. That probably isn't something anyone would want, but would still be supported by the sentence I quoted above. Which means it's hollow as an argument.

Disagreement and criticism is always a good thing. Abuse is not and should always be condemned, as it has been in gamergate and here.

 

[Dash27]

Sure, utter contempt for these ridiculous arguments is reasonable.

Agree, so stop making them. Also the drive by non-posts are ridiculous so stop those too. If you'd like to make an actual argument, feel free.

I also don't see what part of geekiness is inherently and unchangeably male.

Exactly, does nobody watch Arrow? Felicty Smoak? Come on.

But in all seriousness that's not even the argument. It's that women dont like the geek culture, it's just "Women felt that they were less similar to the typical computer science major. "

So less similar. Not unwanted, or harassed, or dismissed or whatever else. Just less similar.

Another quote by the article Mumei posted:

In the geeky room, men considered themselves significantly more interested in computer science than did women. But when the geek factor was removed from the surroundings, women showed equal interest to men.

So it's a matter of women not liking the nerd stereotype as opposed to making women not feel welcome... because shirt. Thus the argument is essentially "How dare you wear clothes I don't connect with"

In that context, it's easy to see why there is so much blowback.

 

[KHarvey16]

Agree, so stop making them. Also the drive by non-posts are ridiculous so stop those too. If you'd like to make an actual argument, feel free.

Oh but I have. You don't know this because you ignore nearly everything.

 

[Dice//]

And in return he got a huge amount of anger poured over him, including that Verge article that accuses him of misogyny and compares him to a group of men calling women bitches, not to mention all the shit on Twitter.

If you agree he's a nice guy who just made a mistake don't you think that really sucks, especially considering it should have been one of the best days of his life? That's why people are so pissed off at the Verge article.

None of US are doing that here though (or at least). A lot of us "anti-shirt-people" (if you will) have condemned the condemnation! My posting here and agreeing with misogynistic undertones is because of the commentary in this very topic

 

[Entropy912]

As a scientist you should know about using objective evidence instead of anecdotal.

I wasn't trying to present evidence for anything, it was simply an opine based on my observations in my field. I'm curious if the breakdown is similar across the various areas of STEM. When I was in college the ratio of male to female engineers was much higher than that of the biology or chemistry majors.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Some more:

Young Scientists Say They're Sexually Abused In The Field

In a survey of scientists engaged in field research, the majority — 64 percent — said they had personally experienced sexual harassment while at a field site, and 22 percent reported being the victim of sexual assault.

Most of the people reporting harassment or assault were women, and the vast majority were still students or postdocs.

And for female victims, the perpetrator was more likely to be a superior, not a peer. "This is happening to them when they are trainees, when they are most vulnerable within the academic hierarchy," says evolutionary biologist Katie Hinde,

Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science

We find that in the most productive countries, all articles with women in dominant author positions receive fewer citations than those with men in the same positions. And this citation disadvantage is accentuated by the fact that women's publication portfolios are more domestic than their male colleagues — they profit less from the extra citations that international collaborations accrue. Given that citations now play a central part in the evaluation of researchers, this situation can only worsen gender disparities

 

[Brakke]

And in return he got a huge amount of anger poured over him, including that Verge article that accuses him of misogyny and compares him to a group of men calling women bitches, not to mention all the shit on Twitter.

If you agree he's a nice guy who just made a mistake don't you think that really sucks, especially considering it should have been one of the best days of his life? That's why people are so pissed off at the Verge article.

People are pissed off at The Verge article because they have poor reading comprehension. The article even says "we don't know why he chose to wear it", and it's mostly about a climate of insensitivity toward the gender representation disparity.

And what makes his feeling of success so sacrosanct anyway? Why is him being happy on one day more important than the many people he made unhappy? Nobody's taken away his accomplishment, he's going to be super in-demand to lecture at every space agency and engineering department around for a long time to come. His image is totally fine right now.

 

[Dice//]

I'm a professional scientist in my late 20s and from my observations, women are very well represented in this industry. Both of my previous bosses were women, incredibly smart, and very well respected within the company and our new executive director of research who is female is also brilliant and has company wide influence and respect. The great thing about STEM is that at the end of the day your data, techniques, and research are a tangible thing and represents how good of a scientist you are regardless of gender, creed, or anything else.

I worked at EBGames for 3 years. Despite the allegedly (or close to) 50/50 split between men and women gamers, I can tell you, anecdotally, that most of the customers I served at my store were male and the 'female gamers' were moms or girlfriends buying for their sons or boyfriends. Sooooooo....research or anecdote?