We know that women students and staff remain underrepresented in Higher Education STEM disciplines. Even in subjects where equivalent numbers of men and women participate, however, many women are still disadvantaged by everyday sexism. Our recent research found that women who study STEM subjects at undergraduate level in England were up to twice as likely as non-STEM students to have experienced sexism. The main perpetrators of this sexism were not university staff, however, but were men STEM degree students.
There can’t be many places in uni where women are outnumbered by men. It seems like that are taking a majority and trying to make out they are not the minority.
They aren’t talking about university as a whole. They aren’t talking about courses where men are massively outnumber by women. It seems they are using the one group of people where women come off worse than men to fit a narrative.
Either use the data from all the the university or not at all. Otherwise it’s data selection and biased.
Also the self reported sexism is very tiring because it in itself is biased. You hear it all the time something like Woman A : I get so much sexism of man A. He always talks over me.
Man b: yea man A is an arsehole. He talks over everyone, I don’t think he can help kt.
Yet you use that data and it looks like sexism because it is self reported. It’s not, I’ve noticed many women struggle in loud environments, that’s not sexism if she is treated the same as everyone else and just struggles with it.
Dismissing sexism within a particular group because it is disproportionately prevalent in that group is, frankly, treating that sexism as acceptable.
You can just as easily extend this approach until you either reach a group where it’s evened out, or is the entirety of humanity.
“It’s more prevalent in stem? No, you have to look at university students overall”
“It’s prevalent in university students overall? No, you have to look at all students”
“It’s prevalent in students as a whole? No, you have to look at everyone involved in education”
“It’s prevalent in education in general? No, you have to look at public services as a whole”
“It’s prevalent in public services as a whole? No, you have to look at all non-private entities”
“It’s prevalent across non-private entities? No, you have to look at all forms of work”
This is the most “not all men” answer I could ever imagine. You literally got angry at the data, not because there’s sexism, but because there are other men who exist in other places who aren’t sexist.
It’s well-documented that women don’t go into STEM. When data explains why women don’t go into STEM, getting pissy because there are men who are in other fields who aren’t sexist completely misses the entire goddamned point.
No it doesn’t.
I’m getting pissy that it’s always about women and women alone that are underrepresented.
If this data also included data on subjects where women outnumber men to the same rate then it would be interesting as a control. But seeing as they are just looking at data where women are already outnumbered it is manipulating the data to either get nothing or the result you want. It won’t for example show the result you don’t want.
The question is are people just sexist when they outnumber the other sex? We don’t know because it doesn’t get asked. Something needs to be done but what is unknown until you find out.
Girls quite possibly don’t enjoy stem as much as boys. That’s an entire possibility for men outnumbering women. But nevertheless there is a push to put more women into the only departments were they don’t already outnumber men. But there is never any push to put men into areas they are under represented. Like I said one sex might naturally enjoy something at a higher rate and that’s not a problem I don’t think, but with one exception. I think teachers should largely be evenly distributed. Especially in primary school there was 0 male teachers we could talk to or could help us with anything. I was lucky I had male role models that could teach me about being a guy at home and in afterschool clubs. But some kids don’t, they might not get a male role model until they are 13, then it might be too late.
Yep. I was right. You turned a conversation about “women are being harrassed” into how upset you are that we aren’t talking about problems men face. If you want to advocate for the problems men face, actually do that, instead of bitching when we are discussing problems women face.
I think he may have stumbled past a interesting point (his main point was kind of dumb)-
While I would say the STEM crowd is more susceptable to a certain kind of intellectual narcissism that allows shitty behavior, anyone doing this kind of study should hopefully be making an effort to address the idea that if like 1/6 of dudes are extra shitty then are the STEM students uniquely shitty or are they just normal shitty and the classroom breakdown just means that there’s like 50% more shitty dudes and half as many targets for their shittyness.
That said, I’d love to see the stats on law schools as they tend have the “bro-est bros”
Woman A : I get so much sexism of man A. He always talks over me.
Man b: yea man A is an arsehole. He talks over everyone, I don’t think he can help kt.
https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2017/07/07/men-interrupting-women
They’re grouping non-binary people as female and pretending like this isn’t a problem for presenting a statistical analysis?
Who the fuck gave the go ahead for doing this research?
There should be separate reports on non-binary discrimination and female discrimination not combining the two and labeling them women. (in case you’re unaware, males and females can both be non-binary so grouping non binary people from either sex into “women” completely de-legitimizes the research)
Completely unprofessional.
How is it unprofessional? It’s just a different data set, there’s nothing inherently professional or not about it.
Another way to say it would be “non-male” sexual discrimination. Which makes perfect sense given who are generally the target of that type of discrimination.
It’s just a statistic, dude. If you’re looking at it as something it isn’t, that’s on you.
Making wide claims on entire groups based on inferential data is inherently unprofessional. They didn’t stop at observing they’re making claims without evidence to back it up.
How one person feels about something does not automatically mean that someone was intentionally or even unintentionally hurting them.
That is the issue at heart here.
The conclusion are the same that you group or not : men in stem are male chauvinists who doesn’t tolerate those not like them and feel the need to oppress those.
They do include the effect size of including non-binary students when they write “(nb. Non-binary students account for 0.3% of this total)” etc. so the impact on the actual data is shown, if you’re concerned about the statistical analysis. It also does make sense to group them together in this context as they are both minorities in STEM. However the way the article is written makes it clear that including non-binary students was an afterthought; if it was clear in all the data and headings that the data is for both non-binary and female students with the interpretation that they are looking at just “students who aren’t men” then it would have been a lot better.
We cannot do effective corollary research if groups are not independently researched with their own data, a ‘minimum impact’ is still an impact, one which can be used to portray a larger or smaller effect than there is between the actual groups being compared against, especially when there’s a distinct call of ‘white males’ being a problem with no determination of class, culture or variance of religious vs non religious.
People are not blocks, they don’t vote as blocks they don’t work as blocks and they most assuredly do not behave as blocks. It’s important to specify, separate, and effectively research each group and sub group in order to determine the veracity rather than just applying a claim to a useful and popular current enemy, e.g. ‘white male’.
Non-binary people can experience sexism regardless of how they’re born though. Your suggestion that just acknowledging that non-binary people exist without being disrespectful means research should be ignored is making the researcher’s point for them.
Did you read what I wrote or just immediately respond the second I said ‘non binary’? Also the fact you’re making this statement also indicates you didn’t read the source material at all.
I said, in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, that they classified non binary people as women.
Your clear lack of reading comprehension is absolutely not my fault.
There’s no need to be disrespectful to me. I read you. I read your source you linked. I read the original article. You’re the only one that said anything about grouping non-binary people as women. Did you read the article? Clearly the people voting you up and me down didn’t. Make something else up to get outraged about.
I said, in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, that they classified non binary people as women.
Except no, they didn’t. I know this because we are having this conversation. They are grouped together in this statistic, but they make it very clear that they did that, and what % of the block were non-binary.
There’s nothing wrong with what they did. Nobody is trying to trick anyone, they are very transparent about including non-binary people (people who also experience discrimination).
I know you want so bad to be a victim, but men don’t experience sexual discrimination in STEM. Anyone in a STEM career can tell you that.
I’m a woman in STEM. I only went to a CC, so maybe there’s a difference there, but I didn’t experience much sexism in my time there.
I have experienced it at work, but usually from the younger, unsocialized men. Is it a problem? Sure, but I’ll take that over my bosses being sexist.
Also, along with the sexism does come some privilege. When I do something wrong, I tend to get taken easier on when it comes to punishment. I also am able to form… different (non-sexial) bonds with the higher ups. These dynamics are much different to any bonds I had with female bosses from my previous field of work, and they’re different than the bonds the higher ups have with my male counterparts. I can say that I don’t worry about being laid off or fired.
However, I’m also fairly certain that I have a sharp awareness of these bonds and how to manipulate them to get what I want.
Not trying to poo-poo any sexism claims, just that there’s also certainly a privilege to be had being a woman minority in a male-dominated field.
That entire post was an ode to Internalized misogyny.
Is it a problem? Sure, but I’ll take that over my bosses being sexist.
Both can be wrong…When someone asks you if you’ve experienced sexism, It isn’t to fill some imaginary, arbitrary quota we’re reaching. No need to omit. No one’s grading your essay here.
Ah yes someone has a different experience?? They must internally hate themselves. 🙄
I’m not omiting anything, just adding that some privilege comes along with the sexism.
You don’t know what internal misogyny is. This is sounding more and more like a pipe dream of an MRA incel trying to strawperson stories that situations women find themselves in are a privilege of power just so you can misogyny about it.
Not to mention that gay STEM students are more likely to face homophobia. It was rampant at my uni. We could not keep any sort of gay-related posters up without them getting ripped off and trampled within hours. Which in retrospect is wild because there were so many of us, and more who came out years later. lol
Uh… aren’t gay people the only segment likely to face homophobia? Like, you can’t be homophobic to a straight person…
Can’t you? What about not having “girly” hobbies because that “makes you gay”? Or having to dress a certain way? I feel like straight people aren’t excluded from homophobia…
I was called gay long before I ever had a gay thought in my head (on account of being prepubescent).
When I was being brutalized by bullies, gay was a generic derisive, associating things with homosexuality, the way cuck (now a generic derisive) associates with cuckold fetishists.
Meh not sure if it counts but an ex-client of mine decided to work out his fox news rage on me about my trans sister-in-law. Don’t worry, his manager was informed, the Google maps review of his employer now mentions it, and he really wasn’t expecting me when I knocked on his door late one night smirking and telling him what I did.
Christians going to Christian.
One truth about the modern media landscape: stories that pit groups against each other play well
If someone thinks that a claim of male on female sexism is an attack on men, that’s a them problem. If someone accuses me of sexism, I generally don’t go on the defensive immediately. Conscientious people ought to seek out ways they can improve themselves and not even unconsciously discriminate against their colleagues. Empathy is in rather short supply these days though.
The division was there already, some just didn’t notice it. If you think we’d do better united, maybe consider challenging the sexists and other bigots creating the division.
It reminds me of MLK Jr denouncing the “negative peace which is the absence of tension” as an obstacle to true equality, as opposed to the “positive peace which is the presence of justice”.
We can be less bigoted than the past while also having a long way to go still. You could even count as a sign of this improvement that these issues are taken seriously and discussed rather than ignored as “just the way things are”.
But we can’t take it for granted, because progress is not guaranteed and equality can decline. Say, such as the matter of abortion rights in the US and consequently how pregnancies are policed, leading to possible arrests even for natural miscarriages.
If you acknowledge that we aren’t finished fighting bigotry, I don’t really understand what’s your concern here.
We are, without a doubt, living in some of the least bigoted societies in history.
Me, an enlightened Roman, explaining to my house slave how he has it good
Bullshit and it’s time for the Western World to admit that is bullshit.
Just in my city, solid blue district in solid blue state, the local Jewish temple has a police car in-front of it every time they have services due to a bomb threat over a year ago. People dropped fliers in mailboxes complaining about a person putting up a sign on their door in Arabic that said “god bless this house” The fliers called it un-American. The city next to mine had a mass protest against a Mosque being built.
Ever been to Thailand? The tolerance of the pagan feels like an understatement. Everyone there believes whatever they want without any shame. People worshipping statues and making offerings to ancestors. Signs everywhere bragging about hallel food and prayer rooms. And before you even try it I am an atheist and have had zero issues there, unlike the US where I have to occasionally lie. The atheist groups I go to half the members don’t want their picture taken or name recorded.
In what way are we Westerners less bigoted? It isn’t racism, it isn’t feminism, it isn’t religion, it isn’t LGBT. Go ahead and get a few beers in any minority in your country and ask them what they really think. Or you know you could spend thirty minutes of your life looking at all the documented peer-reviewed evidence gathered that paints a picture of our supposed tolerance.
One truth about the world is that oppressor wants the oppressed to shut up and take abuse.
