Women Only Professorships

Arrival

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Yes, blame the women for not applying and not the fact that the entire sector has historically been extremely hostile to women. I absolutely loved programming as a kid and yet didn't choose comp sci as my degree...why? Because I hated being in the only girl in the class, subject to sexist 'jokes', not being credited for my work. It wasn't until I got old enough and angry enough at being underemployed with my sh1tty Arts degree that I decided to move into tech finally...and I still get plenty of stupid comments about being a 'diversity hire' from men who weren't even born yet when I was starting programming.

But yeah, let's blame women for the 'choices' they're making.

Oh you poor thing, so easily discouraged by the big nasty male patriarchy

And report any dickheads making those stupid comments, if it even happens at all

lainey_d_123

PonchoMcHoncho wrote: »

So you weren't successful in a couple of interviews but landed a great job and got promoted in the last 18 months. But because you were unsuccessful in some interviews it's proof that there's systematic industry wide discrimination against women?

I wasn't unsuccessful because I was a poor candidate. I was unsuccessful because they wanted to hire someone like them, as I have seen happen in the place I am now.

It doesn't mean women never get hired, it means there is often bias from panel members towards people who are like themselves. I said myself there is no conspiracy against women or even any deliberate action. It's simply people going 'oh he seems like he'd fit in' without considering that a major reason why he'd fit in is that he's another young man.

Wanting to hire people like yourself isn't a male thing, it's a human thing. I absolutely believe that men aspiring to work in childcare or other female-dominated professions face the same challenges (a lesser qualified woman being chosen over a man because she would 'fit in' better), and I think those should also be addressed.

lainey_d_123

Arrival wrote: »

Oh you poor thing, so easily discouraged by the big nasty male patriarchy

And report any dickheads making those stupid comments, if it even happens at all

Surprise, surprise.

Women who works in tech tries to engage and explain why more women aren't going into tech.

Gets shut down and insulted.

Turns out nobody actually wants to explore the reasons and feelings behind the lack of women in tech, and just want to blame women.

Same old.

This is why I rarely bother engaging.

I'm doing what I can to help the next generation of programmers.

You sit there and fester in your bile, you nasty little scab.

Gynoid

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Yes, I actually think it has got worse. I notice way more overt sexism and toxic attitudes now than I did as a kid/teenager in the 90s and my mother's generation actually seemed to have it easier in this regard than mine did. I think the 80s was probably the best time for women getting into male dominated roles...there has been a decline since then and I don't think it's fair to blame individuals rather than some structural cause.

It would have been the height of uncool to have a pink bedroom or wear pink back when I was a kid, and now I see little girls everywhere head to toe in pink or wearing Elsa costumes to the supermarket. There seems to have been a massive shift back to 'traditional' gender roles. I volunteer as a mentor in a Dublin school and I see it there as well, girls feeling like they have to be pretty for boys, huge fake eyelashes, hair extensions, even a few saying directly to me that programming isn't a job for girls.

There has been a big increase in the sexualisation of young people and even children. It has nothing to do with "traditional gender roles" and it does not affect womens ability to study and work as they have desire and capability. It is far more subversive. But there are contrary dogmas and creeds in the culture war that prevent this being properly addressed. People have walked rather blindly into that.

Charles Babbage

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

The point is that plenty of men got their position BECAUSE they were men!!!
Why is this such a challenge to understand?

Of course this happens in both directions, but it hasn't been my experience and is not as common as is made out.

lainey_d wrote:

There are lots of men in positions where they were not the best candidate for the job, but they were a 'good fit' for the job, chosen by people just like them. I've seen it with my own eyes.

'fit' is not only or mainly a question of gender and everyone has seen females given jobs precisly because they are few.

Anyone who believes that a department is 90% men because the women aren't good enough to get the jobs is sexist or delusional.

Woman would be good enough to get the jobs, if they took an interest in them and applied.

I basically do not agree with the premise of this discrimination, girls do not decide to study STEM because of some professor, they know little about the staffing in departments, they do so because of their science teacher.

Yellow_Fern

mickdw wrote: »

Does it even matter that they advertise women only roles - sure if you are a man and fancy one of the jobs, with the whole.gsnder nuetral thing, just roll up to the interview and state that today you feel like a woman.

O'Connor said on radio today that only transitioned females will be accepted. Whose job will it be to look under the skirts?

Arrival

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Except, you know what?

Men in STEM tend to hire other men, regardless of whether they are actually the best candidate for the job. And those men who were hired never question whether or not they deserved to be hired, and thus the cycle continues.

I was on a panel where a young 20-something guy was interviewed for a developer role. He was absolutely useless, couldn't code his way out of a paper bag. And yet he got the role because he had 'potential', i.e. complete fluffy, nonsense decision making from the men on the panel who wanted someone just like them. We also interviewed a woman who had far superior technical skills and was far more deserving of the job, also a very nice lady, but 'not a good fit', apparently. Do you not think this happens every single day?

Men in this field very rarely seem to suffer from the same imposter syndrome women do. This guy truly believes he got the job because he was the best candidate. And why wouldn't he? He has no idea that a woman who was better qualified lost out because she was the wrong age and gender. He thinks he got it because he was the best, and he'd likely be against any gender-specific hiring process, even though he unknowingly benefitted from such a thing himself.

And so it continues.

So what you're saying is that you, a woman, were on an interview panel and you consciously allowed this situation to happen? You didn't argue for the qualified woman to be hired? Sounds to me like you need to do some talking with HR about the hiring practices of this one particular firm you've personally witness being bias...or do you expect that to change by arguing for gender quotas on online forums?

Knowing how eager tech companies are to hire women nowadays though I seriously doubt the legitimacy of this anecdote, especially as it's coming from someone who's in support of discriminatory gender quotas. As other posters have pointed out, tech companies especially are going above and beyond to hire women these days, they're actually overly politically correct

Sarcozies

Isn't it funny how 90-95% of the jobs they want equality in tend to be either CEO or politician with the reminding percent allocated to other, shall we say 'air-conditioned' typed jobs

I've yet to see a scheme advocated by feminists for a gender balance in sewage, off shore oil drilling, fishing, logging etc.

Very odd. It's as if it's not about equality at all, haha. But sure that can't be it.

lainey_d_123

Arrival wrote: »

So what you're saying is that you, a woman, were on an interview panel and you consciously allowed this situation to happen? You didn't argue for the qualified woman to be hired? Sounds to me like you need to do some talking with HR about the hiring practices of this one particular firm you've personally witness being bias...or do you expect that to change by arguing for gender quotas on online forums?

I did argue for the woman to be hired, and I was outnumbered. I did talk to HR, and I'm also running some sessions on bias in hiring procedures, which everyone is happy to participate in. As I've said all along, this isn't conscious discrimination. I wouldn't work with people like that. It's unconscious bias, and we're working on addressing it.

Calhoun

Treppen wrote: »

I was wondering why they didn't do the same for primary school where there is a deficiency of men applying.
The only conclusion I can come to is because there isn't a lack of women applying for professorships in 3rd level.... But rather they are applying but the interviewing panel is favouring men.

Maybe look at how the interview panel is made up rather than tokenism.

Doesn't mean there aren't barriers to entry in either the primary or secondary sector or that there isn't bias.

If we are saying that their is bias in the Tertiary sector because majority are men then the similar could be said in both the nursing and primary/secondary education.

If you know how the system works in primary education in Ireland its not easy by any means and it could do with some rigor in terms of equality and also transparency.

Calhoun

Arrival wrote: »

So what you're saying is that you, a woman, were on an interview panel and you consciously allowed this situation to happen? You didn't argue for the qualified woman to be hired? Sounds to me like you need to do some talking with HR about the hiring practices of this one particular firm you've personally witness being bias...or do you expect that to change by arguing for gender quotas on online forums?

Knowing how eager tech companies are to hire women nowadays though I seriously doubt the legitimacy of this anecdote, especially as it's coming from someone who's in support of discriminatory gender quotas. As other posters have pointed out, tech companies especially are going above and beyond to hire women these days, they're actually overly politically correct

You just don't have the gender studies degree or education to understand how the patriarchy is keeping these heroes down.

Also check your privilege as a male your experience doesn't matter over the other poster who is female.

PonchoMcHoncho

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

I wasn't unsuccessful because I was a poor candidate. I was unsuccessful because they wanted to hire someone like them, as I have seen happen in the place I am now.

It doesn't mean women never get hired, it means there is often bias from panel members towards people who are like themselves. I said myself there is no conspiracy against women or even any deliberate action. It's simply people going 'oh he seems like he'd fit in' without considering that a major reason why he'd fit in is that he's another young man.

Wanting to hire people like yourself isn't a male thing, it's a human thing. I absolutely believe that men aspiring to work in childcare or other female-dominated professions face the same challenges (a lesser qualified woman being chosen over a man because she would 'fit in' better), and I think those should also be addressed.

I've never picked it up as people want to hire people like them, they want to hire firstly someone capable of doing the job. Work needs to get done, everyone knows that. Slackers put strain on everyone so ability and experience is always priority 1.

After that each company and each team will have their own culture and way of working. So they have their pick of a number of qualified people they're going to choose who they feel will fit in better based on the interview. Just because they didn't think you were a good fit doesnt mean its because you were a woman. You say you know the minute you seen a load of bearded men? Maybe it's you who's got the prejudice not them? And it came across as standoffish in the interview?

I have never personally seen someone overlooked simply for being a woman. In fact I have always seen the opposite. Female engineers are like gold dust, they always seem to be hired regardless of how good the interview was.

MrMusician18

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

I wasn't unsuccessful because I was a poor candidate. I was unsuccessful because they wanted to hire someone like them, as I have seen happen in the place I am now.

It doesn't mean women never get hired, it means there is often bias from panel members towards people who are like themselves. I said myself there is no conspiracy against women or even any deliberate action. It's simply people going 'oh he seems like he'd fit in' without considering that a major reason why he'd fit in is that he's another young man.

Wanting to hire people like yourself isn't a male thing, it's a human thing. I absolutely believe that men aspiring to work in childcare or other female-dominated professions face the same challenges (a lesser qualified woman being chosen over a man because she would 'fit in' better), and I think those should also be addressed.

Shouldn't you call out such a discriminatory workplace?

Bad things happen when the good stand idly by.

Gerry T

The problem starts at college. If theres say 100 places in college for engineering then there should be 50 boys and 50 girls allowed in, same for nursing and primary teaching, marketing etc. That way you will have balance in people applying for jobs in all sectors.
If there are constantly 90% Male students in engineering then 90% of top jobs will be filled by males. Anything less would be descrimination.
So how do we force 18yr old girls into trades, engineering and manual labour jobs, we need to do this to be fair.

Calhoun

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Shouldn't you call out such a discriminatory workplace?

Bad things happen when the good stand idly by.

The bigger question though should be if people have unconscious bias and hire people like them, then just replacing all the men with women wont change anything it will just be exactly the same with role reversal.

Arrival

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Yes, I actually think it has got worse. I notice way more overt sexism and toxic attitudes now than I did as a kid/teenager in the 90s and my mother's generation actually seemed to have it easier in this regard than mine did. I think the 80s was probably the best time for women getting into male dominated roles...there has been a decline since then and I don't think it's fair to blame individuals rather than some structural cause.

It would have been the height of uncool to have a pink bedroom or wear pink back when I was a kid, and now I see little girls everywhere head to toe in pink or wearing Elsa costumes to the supermarket. There seems to have been a massive shift back to 'traditional' gender roles. I volunteer as a mentor in a Dublin school and I see it there as well, girls feeling like they have to be pretty for boys, huge fake eyelashes, hair extensions, even a few saying directly to me that programming isn't a job for girls.

Yeahhh, nahhh. Most lads don't even like the fake dolled up, plastic caked on makeup look lots of Irish women go for - and you're all perfectly free to do so of course, they're your bodies - and when lads let women know this they're told "we don't wear makeup for you, we wear it for ourselves", and it's true

sportsfan90

Gerry T wrote: »

The problem starts at college. If theres say 100 places in college for engineering then there should be 50 boys and 50 girls allowed in, same for nursing and primary teaching, marketing etc. That way you will have balance in people applying for jobs in all sectors.
If there are constantly 90% Male students in engineering then 90% of top jobs will be filled by males. Anything less would be descrimination.
So how do we force 18yr old girls into trades, engineering and manual labour jobs, we need to do this to be fair.

Here's a crazy idea - maybe we don't force people into degrees and careers that they've no interest in.

Calhoun

Gerry T wrote: »

The problem starts at college. If theres say 100 places in college for engineering then there should be 50 boys and 50 girls allowed in, same for nursing and primary teaching, marketing etc. That way you will have balance in people applying for jobs in all sectors.
If there are constantly 90% Male students in engineering then 90% of top jobs will be filled by males. Anything less would be descrimination.
So how do we force 18yr old girls into trades, engineering and manual labour jobs, we need to do this to be fair.

The problem with that is the educational component of it wont realistically fix the problem, its the hiring practices that must be brought in place to dictate balance.

Caquas

Arrival wrote: »

Anyone who played a part in this bull**** being implemented isn't intelligent enough to be working in academics.

....

The promoters of this wheeze do not lack intelligence. The American writer Upton Sinclair used to say that

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”

We can now confirm the corollary:

“It difficult to get a woman to understand something, when her big raise depends upon her not understanding it“

Sadly, no female academic will criticise this stunt while every male academic will take it as a signal that all Professorships are political gifts, like judgeships.

Gynoid

Jobs should be assigned to the most capable. If I am on a plane I want to know it has been serviced by the person with the most expertise not someone appointed by quota. If I have to have surgery I want to know that it will be done by the person who is most capable, not by someone appointed by quota. I am going for surgery soon, the surgeon is female, she is fantastic. She got her job on merit.

Calhoun

Gynoid wrote: »

Jobs should be assigned to the most capable. If I am on a plane I want to know it has been serviced by the person with the most expertise not someone appointed by quota. If I have to have surgery I want to know that it will be done by the person who is most capable, not by someone appointed by quota. I am going for surgery soon, the surgeon is female, she is fantastic. She got her job on merit.

They will swear up and down the candidate is very qualified and good for the position, it really depends on where we go from here.

It is ripe for abuse from people who are just coasting through.

Bannasidhe

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

There is no evidence of biased selection. There is no evidence that men mostly like to hire other men. 55% of lecturers are female and most postdoc and PhD students are female. Universities are very mixed and have been for decades and decades. Professors job is to research. Being female doesnt make you more likely to make discoveries.

Except that there is evidence.

https://www.thejournal.ie/lecturer-gender-1785387-Nov2014/

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/four-female-lecturers-promoted-after-nuig-gender-discrimination-dispute-1.3575465

Gerry T

sportsfan90 wrote:

Here's a crazy idea - maybe we don't force people into degrees and careers that they've no interest in.

And then we dont have a balance of qualified engineers or a balance in the workplace.

Gerry T

Calhoun wrote:

The problem with that is the educational component of it wont realistically fix the problem, its the hiring practices that must be brought in place to dictate balance.

But how can you have a balance then. If there are 90 Male applicants to 10 women then men will most likely get the job, that's not discrimination, that's just logic. To make it fair you would have to say for every 9 men employed in that field 1 woman does.

Gynoid

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Except that there is evidence.

https://www.thejournal.ie/lecturer-gender-1785387-Nov2014/

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/four-female-lecturers-promoted-after-nuig-gender-discrimination-dispute-1.3575465

This almost qualifies as anecdotal evidence. One woman wins a case, and four other women go for the same process on the back of her ruling in the same university. Total = 5. I have a young male relative in the same institution who struggles terribly to get research funding because it is going more to females. Anecdotal of course. But he tells me this is the case for many young male researchers.
I cannot see how encouraging bias in any field - especially via policy instruments - is any way morally legitimate.

The anecdotal evidence game can be played by anyone.
https://www.newsweek.com/man-wins-gender-discrimination-lawsuit-after-woman-gets-promotion-he-wanted-853795

minggatu

" Now a new, large study of students from Poland suggests that even when women have abilities as high or higher than their male counterparts, they still shy away from studying math at higher levels. In fact, the researchers found, young women who are gifted in math are both less likely to choose it than young men of the same skill level, and actually less likely to choose it than women with lower math scores. The researchers noted that industries that rely on technical qualifications are certainly missing out on gifted women."

"Why are clever women self-selecting out of math? The study doesn’t seek to answer the question, but the researchers suggested some possibilities. On the one hand, there are factors pushing women away from choosing math. These include societal norms (which, the researchers notes as a limitation, could be different in Poland than elsewhere), and school environment (which they also controlled for.) On the other hand, there are pull factors: Women who scored well in another mandatory Polish exam that tests verbal skills were more likely than similarly-scoring men to eschew math for humanities."

qz.com/work/1613476/…

Silentcorner

This Junior Minister, a previous Senior Minister, who has, by any objective analysis been promoted beyond her level of competence, is an excellent example of what is wrong with gender quotas.

She plays the feminist cards as to be fair she has f##k all else to play...in the hope that other women will vote for her...again, she assumes that ordinary women are as thick as she is...that is a huge gamble in my experience....playing the feminism card has failed politically everywhere it has been played!!

Yurt2

On the legality of this, positive discrimination (edit: the technical term is 'positive action') is allowed - however, the test is it must be proportionate and the scope must not harm others' rights. The legal fun will start when the first male has his application returned to him and passes it straight on to his solicitor.

From memory, two similar jobs for the girls schemes went all the way to the European courts. The Dutch scheme was found to be proportionate (it was restricted to one University in the Netherlands and I think I recall it was only for mathematics professorships), and the Swedish scheme was found to be disproportionate and discriminatory towards males.

Interestingly, Scary Mary said the Attorney General gave her the green light for her girl crew initiative, yet wouldn't publish the advice. Whispers at the time this was announced that many civil servants were uneasy as to the legality of this.

Bring on the legal challenges - my money is on this hitting a legal wall (as morally it should).

KWAG2019

What is also needed is new recruitment procedures. When applications for positions are submitted with no gender identifying material hires of women increase. Everyone wants to arrive at a truly level playing field but the only way to get there (given bias emerging even in AI) is probably corrective.

granturismo

Yurt! wrote: »

..
Bring on the legal challenges - my money is on this hitting a legal wall (as morally it should).

IFUT and Unite wont challenge this. I doubt if any individual academic will challenge it either.

Of the 20 posts it will be interesting to see how many are external appointments if there are no suitably experienced internal candidates at senior lecturer level. This will create even more ill feelings.