
Gender Bias 101 For Mathematicians - ColinWright
http://ilaba.wordpress.com/2013/02/09/gender-bias-101-for-mathematicians/
======
Claudus
I've worked with a lot of programmers. Some of them have character flaws that
make them unpleasant to work with. These character flaws do not affect their
ability to "get the job done", but I'd rather not work with them and take
steps to avoid doing so when possible.

From a link in the article:

 _Renowned conductors have asserted that female musicians have "smaller
techniques," are more temperamental and are simply unsuitable for orchestras_

I think that "simply unsuitable for orchestras" is vague and unquantifiable,
but "smaller techniques" and "more temperamental" seem like assertions that
could be challenged.

I have a general concept of what "smaller technique" means, is this something
that is difficult to measure in a standard audition? Do female musicians in
fact have "smaller technique" in general?

Are female musicians "more temperamental" than male musicians in general? Is
there a male equivalent of a "diva", if not does that support the assertion
that female musicians are more temperamental? Can you determine how
temperamental someone is from a blind audition? Is temperament a valid reason
to not hire someone?

To me, these senior conductors, scientists, etc. are asserting that, in
general, women differ from men in certain dimensions that factor into hiring
decisions but are not detectable in initial screening process.

If you really want to end sexism, I feel like these sorts of questions need to
be asked and answered. My observation of the subject is that many people have
an intuition, gut feeling, opinion formed from personal experience, etc. that
men and women in general have innate differences that make men (or women) more
suitable for certain functions.

The ONLY way that gender bias will ever end is to challenge these ideas and in
fact show that these innate differences do not exist.

On the other hand, if gender differences do exist, then fighting gender bias
is an eternal struggle that will never end. It is human nature to min / max
and game the system.

~~~
_Dude_
"The ONLY way that gender bias will ever end is to challenge these ideas and
in fact show that these innate differences do not exist."

The problem is that if you really do proper scientific examination of mental
capabilities between genders and races you might not like the results. Results
might turn out to be ugly and incompatible with the modern democracy. What
will we do then?

~~~
glomph
The commitment to equality should not be based on any assumption about 'mental
capabilities'. Supposing (against the general scientific consensus) for the
sake of argument, that you could show that women had on average less 'mental
capabilities' why should that lessen our commitment to fair evaluations in
employment or an equal consideration of interests?

We think people should be treated equally not because they are the same, but
because they deserve equal consideration. Women are people and they deserve to
be treated as such. Frankly the way I see it the cost of dehumanising half the
population is far higher than potentially employing people who belong to a
group that has on average less 'mental capabilities' than another.

Further unless your study shows that _all_ men have stronger 'mental
capabilities' than all women* it still makes sense to evaluate on a case by
case bases and not generalisations, even if we only think about hiring the
'best' person for the job. To pass over someone who is talented because they
happen to be the same gender as people who had a lower average score in some
intelligence test doesn't make sense _even_ thinking only about getting the
best person for the job.

------
UnoriginalGuy
The word "fact" is used extremely loosely in this article. While the first
"fact" is in fact factual it then very quickly goes down the rabbit hole of
personal opinion/perspective.

By the time we get to "fact 3" the author isn't even pretending any more and
the "fact" is just a bizarre "you're a mathematician, you can solve this!!1!"
point...

I'm happy to have a discussion about gender politics/equality, this article is
just a very poor starting point for such a discussion.

This is nothing more than a rant, pretending to be something more.

~~~
mhansen
You might be interested that this is such a common way to derail conversations
about privilege that it's made part of 'Derailing for Dummies'.

[http://birdofparadox.wordpress.com/derailing-for-dummies-
goo...](http://birdofparadox.wordpress.com/derailing-for-dummies-google-cache-
reconstruction/#opinion)

~~~
shardling
So, that website pulls my least favorite "social justice" trick: pretending
that every oppressive action is willful and premeditated. A lot of those
issues are very, very subtle from a privileged POV, and it doesn't do a damn
bit of good to pretend otherwise.

------
return0
It's hard to distinguish bias from genuine preconceptions based on experience
- for that one would need gender neutral data that is impossible to obtain.
The reverse kind of gender bias could be found in divorce custody cases for
example.

Maybe one could do an experiment in online job marketplaces: change the gender
of a large number of work providers and observe how payouts change.

In any case this was a shallow and one-sided article. [But suitable for Sunday
morning heated arguments over coffee and cookies]

[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.174-1617.2000.t...](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.174-1617.2000.tb00570.x/abstract)

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230359240457736...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303592404577361883019414296.html)

~~~
meredydd
I almost wish the author had included this trope too: "If I begin a
conversation about sexism I am experiencing, that means that sexism against
men must immediately become part of the focus of the conversation".

It's not that those issues are unimportant, but does it not strike you as
strange that the _very first comment_ doesn't discuss the content of the
article directly, but does make sure to bring up sexism against men? It's not
the first time this has happened, either, on HN or elsewhere.

(And, sure, this may be the first time _you've_ brought it up. But just like
the other issues she's bringing up, the "what about the men who are
discriminated against?" response is a durable and ubiquitous trend. Check any
other HN thread that mentions sexism if you don't believe me. It therefore
becomes very annoying to people trying to have a conversation about the
persistent sexism against women in technology/maths/science spaces.)

~~~
return0
No, my main point was that it's not pure bias, there might be real reasons why
women get paid less and men are considered bad fathers (personally, i don't
agree with both statements, but see the wsj article). I suggest, if we want to
get rid of this bias, change the underlying situation that perpetuates it
(e.g. not by introducing gender quotas, but by making childraising less time-
consuming, or educating men to be better fathers and getting rid of ridiculous
stereotypes that are perpetuated in mass culture).

~~~
shardling
You have (I hope unwittingly?) just fulfilled one of the specific tropes she
_does_ mention.

~~~
return0
... And which she outright dismisses citing an irrelevant study. (I did
mention it's a poor article, didn't i?)

    
    
      When we talk about real-life statistical evidence, that’s  
      not conclusive, either, because all differences are   
      explained by women having babies, other priorities, etc 
     (Except they’re not, as the linked document explains very clearly.)
    

The linked document is a report with some recommendations about how to measure
pay gap

Btw, can someone explain the usage of the word "trope" here?

~~~
shardling
A trope is a recurring theme. In this context, it refers to highly predictable
responses to particular arguments.

I don't think the post was super well written, but I also don't see how the
cited study was irrelevant -- it shows the existence of a gender bias that
operates _completely independently_ of the choices of any individual woman:

[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/09/19/...](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/09/19/scientists-
your-gender-bias-is-showing/)

------
shardling
A couple of background points I had to poke around the site for:

* The author is a professor of mathematics

* The thing about Math Overflow (which as a non-regular reader seemed to kinda come out of nowhere) is referencing another recent blog post: [http://ilaba.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/still-not-on-mathoverf...](http://ilaba.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/still-not-on-mathoverflow/)

------
sprash
The average man is pumped full of a hormone called testosterone. This leads
them to take more risks and have a generally more aggressive way of doing
things. This fact has been scientifically proven over and over again.

In a fast moving market with high competition you need these qualities hence
it is no secret why in average males are more employable in tech than women.
This is a healthy market response and has nothing to do with sexism.

~~~
fhars
Actually, organizing markets in a way that they favour one gender over another
_is_ an instance of sexist bias.

~~~
ivanmilles
An excellent example of structural discrimination - one group both organizes
and controls the perception of value in a field. It becomes hard to unless you
support the structure - hence women who are forced to act on male terms.
"Karen's alright, she's like one of the guys."

Such a structure becomes "sex inclusive" (accepting biological men and women
who act masculinely) and not "gender inclusive" (accepting biological men and
women who act masculinely or femininely).

------
wazoox
And really, in this thread people apparently come with the intention of
confirming everything in this article. The sexism proudly displayed by some
here is appalling: most shocking is the "sexism is based upon biology"
argument, because you know, so were segregation and apartheid.

------
hugh4life
" The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived
and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief
in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.

\- JFK "

So, you're going to start your blogpost on sexism with a quote from JFK... how
does that work?

[http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/timothy-noah/100566/jfk-
mons...](http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/timothy-noah/100566/jfk-monster)

------
_Dude_
It's funny how 'sexism' is used as if it could only be against women. Let's
just say it: a white straight middle class young male is a public enemy. Why
doesn't she just solve one of those Millennium Prize Problems? That would be a
really nice case against anti-women kind of sexism.

~~~
unconed
"Check your privilege!" you hear, after a woman scorned summons her white
knights with a simple retweet.

------
PeterisP
What's missing in the article - what the author wants to achieve.

I mean, I agree with the description of gender bias and the other stuff, I
have seen events like this first hand, and I have reflectively noticed my own
biases that were unfair, so I'd like to correct that.

But after the article, what would you like me (as a 'dude' in a science field)
to do? Your own point #5 states that you do not want just to be 'heard and
understood'; so what actions would you like to be the result of this?

------
speeder
Gender bias will never cease to exist, and for good reasons, the fight for
equality happened many times before in history, and never ended well.

Male and female are very dismorphic, we cannot change that easily, male and
female have very specialized roles and purposes.

Yes, I am happy that people now in general have more equal opportunity than
ever, and that we can have awesome workers on some areas from any background,
but we should not push it too much now, society now is already very different,
and failing in some aspects, more equality won't make things better, but can
make things worse, much worse.

Understand that past societies were not forced to be the way they were, they
just changed until they settled on something that works, and it worked for
good reasons.

Why several societies in the world are severely against gays, especially male
ones? It is because it was very important on these societies to have children,
not having children was unacceptable. Today having children became too
expensive, so the focus of relationships changed, and now several countries
even allow gay marriage or civil union, but the need to maintain your
population don't changed.

Some people will argue about over population, yes, I agree that it is a
danger, but we must remember that we are not even replacing our populations,
we are outright declining, and the result will be some cultures disappearing,
and others with higher birth rates taking their place.

The funny thing about equality seeking cultures, is that they tend to erase
themselves and give way to totally non equal cultures to take their place.

People forget that we still live in a world, where in many contexts, might
make right.

~~~
speeder
I love HN, I make a huge post, and when the page finishes loading the tread
again it is already downvoted

~~~
lutusp
> I love HN, I make a huge post, and when the page finishes loading the tread
> again it is already downvoted

Posts aren't judged based on size, but content. And anonymous voting is often
completely unfair -- just like life.

I suggest that you take this as useful feedback to improve how you express
yourself. Your post has word usage issues (as other have commented), a problem
with length versus content, things like that. At risk of quoting a cliche,
make lemonade.

~~~
speeder
It was downvoted in the time between me hitting submit and the page loading
again, how it was a judgement of content? The guy can read the whole wall of
text in the three seconds it took my 3g to reload?

~~~
lutusp
> The guy can read the whole wall of text in the three seconds it took my 3g
> to reload?

1\. Certainly. There are lots of speed-readers out there.

2\. Why do you assume the downvoter was a guy? That's an everyday example of
sexism.

