The unpalatable truth is that women encounter this behavior in most professions. It often comes from well-intentioned men who are horrified when it is pointed out or oblivious when it is going on, as well as those who are less enlightened.
Don’t miss this event tomorrow!
Sunday, Jan 29, 2017 from 12:30 – 4pm
The Senator Theater
5904 York Rd
Aside from the movie itself, what looks particularly interesting about this screening is that there will be a panel discussion on the role of women in aerospace, engineering and other technical fields moderated by Ashley Llorens, chair of the JHU Diversity Leadership Council and Dr. Beverly Wendland, dean of the Krieger school.
Another nice write up of the Women of Hopkins Ribbon Cutting from the JHU student newspaper.
I created a new Facebook page to enable faster and easier posting of articles and to facilitate participation in the discussion of gender equity in STEM. The group is closed to avoid spam, but I’m open to participation from anyone who is interested. You can find it here:
I hope you will all join!
We will kick off the fall with a workshop on the question of whether or not evidence can impact attitudes. This is a really interesting paper that analyzes the public reactions to the evidence of gender bias in STEM fields.
The workshop will take place on Tuesday September 15 at 6pm in Maryland 109. If it is a nice day, we’ll be able to open the double doors and enjoy the fresh air. Pizza and beverages will be served.
Come prepared to discuss the following paper:
Corinne A. Moss-Racusin1, Aneta K. Molenda1, and Charlotte R. Cramer (2015) Can Evidence Impact Attitudes? Public Reactions to Evidence of Gender Bias in STEM Fields Psychology of Women Quarterly39: 194-209.
If you followed the workshops last year, you will be familiar with the Handelsman 2012 PNAS study whose reaction this workshop paper discusses. If not, it may help to review the 2012 study. The bottom line is that the 2012 article showed that both male and female faculty show an unconscious gender bias that favors male job applicants. This was true for US STEM faculty of all ages and over several disciplines. After its publication, there was quite a bit of press on the article, and the paper we will discuss this fall considers the reactions of the public.
Did the public believe the original study? Or did the evidence lead to a negative backlash? Could reactions be categorized by gender or anything else? We will think about and discuss these questions in this fall’s inaugural workshop on overcoming bias and barriers to women in STEM.
If you think you’ll come and want to eat pizza, please RSVP to me (Karen.Fleming@jhu.edu) so I can be sure to order enough!
Whether or not you agree that citation counts are a useful metric for evaluating research quality, a new study concludes that more men cite their own citations as compared to women.
Why do equally qualified women still earn less than men?
In the STEM fields, it is outrageous that women candidates for a lab technician position were offered 86 cents on the dollar as compared to their male counterparts. This was published in a seminal PNAS study that we discussed in our first workshop. In this study, identical resumes (excepting gender) were evaluated, and women candidates were still offered a lower starting salary.
Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students (2012) Moss-Racusin, C.A., J.F. Dovidio, V.L. Brescoll, M.J. Graham, & J. Handelsman, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109: 16474-9
Available open access here:
This is an interesting commentary published in the New York magazine (30 March 2015) on the Ellen Pao case on workplace sexism that you can’t quite prove. The opening paragraph describing the cocktail party rings very true for many women. To dismiss this kind of subtle sexism as unimportant is to be naive about how important networking is for workplace advancement.
Subtle sexism results in women getting fewer opportunities at work. It hurts their performance. It results in them receiving worse evaluations. It even opens them up to“aggression” in the workplace.
Link to the full article here:
These workshops were featured on the NSF blog this week! See the article here:
According to the Harvard Business Review, these are:
(1) Prove-It-Again; (2) The Tight Rope; (3) The Maternal Wall; (4) Tug of War; and (5) Isolationism.
We’ve discussed the origins of some of these in our workshops.
Read the full article here: