If this was question about whether a new drug worked or not, the issue would be settled. Ergo, gender bias against women exists.
Then maybe try to fix that instead of complaining about bikinis in powerpoint presentations?
Would anyone raise even an eyebrow if a woman sliped a sexy male model photo in a slide?
The context is not symmetrical. Men have not been historically discriminated against in the workplace on the same massive scale that women have.
It doesn't get stopped because most people don't see it as a high priority.
No, the parent comment asked whether anyone would raise an eyebrow if a woman posted a sexy male picture, implying that men are being more reasonable in acquiescing to such humor. I was pointing out why most men aren't as disturbed by it.
1. You say "instead", as if this were a choice between two alternatives. This is known as the "false dilemma", and it is a logical fallacy.
2. It is not clear how to fix the problem about discrimination based on names on CVs/résumés, whereas the solution to bikinis in powerpoint slides is much simpler (delete the pictures from the slides, smartass). To use a much abused phrase, this is low-hanging fruit.
3. You also assume that the issues are unrelated or isolated, and that (for example) showing inappropriate pictures of women at tech conferences does not cause people to discriminate against women on CVs/résumés, when it is very plausible that the pictures of women in bikinis normalize / contribute to the measurable acts of discrimination.
> Would anyone raise even an eyebrow if a woman sliped a sexy male model photo in a slide?
You think this is a clever argument, but it is not. Let me illustrate for you a better analogy.
Suppose for a moment that you are a guy who just graduated from college, make $20,000 a year in your dream internship, and are on the long trek to success in your field. You're in a new city, and don't know many people. You're constantly bombarded with pictures of men who "made it", have $200k cars, wear $10k suits, drink $500 bottles of liquor, and buy their mistresses $80k pieces of jewelry.
Now I'm going to kick the analogy up a notch, so it's solidly in the "alternate reality" realm.
You date a girl, and she tells you, "My personal goal for you is for you to make six figures next year."
What a jerk, huh? Well, if you swap genders and replace the line with "lose fifty pounds this year", then you're back in our current reality.
Sexism is not a simple problem and you do not help anything by imagining what it would by like if a woman put sexy pictures of a man on a powerpoint slide. Fact is, men are not generally worried about getting raped.
How is this any different from our reality? You really don't need to venture into some alternate reality to experience this.
I think this describes exactly describes the frustration that many men experience. You can be called dumb your entire childhood; it is made clear to you that you are inherently a monster capable of anything, that you have most likely raped someone; it is funny if your genitals are mutilated because you probably deserved it; if a woman hits you, you probably deserved it and you should take it like a man; your life can be ruined by simple accusation by a woman and if she was lying there is no punishment for her; if you divorce, your children will automatically go to your wife unless she is a criminal; even if she initiated the divorce, you will still have to support her; political figures proclaim that women are the true victims of war even though you were the one who lost his legs in battle; if you want to stay at home and look after your kids, you are lazy, if you want to focus on your career you are an uncaring father (either is okay for a woman); you are portrayed as bumbling idiot on television; you are told that you are lucky if a woman gives you the time of day; if you approach a woman you can be called a creep, if you don't you are shy; if your wife hires a hitman to kill you, she will be acquitted because you apparently abused her despite no evidence of this; you are treated like a creep if you show any interest in being around children and any social pressure on you to be successful can apparently only exist in an "alternate reality" but NONE of this matters because you are in a "position of power" so you should just deal with it like a man and make sure you don't show any pictures of women in underwear at a conference (despite how stupid this is) because then you are a sexist pig.
The reason I said "alternate reality" was because the quote about "six figures" was a complete fabrication, based on something a man actually said to a woman, but altered to play on typical male insecurities.
If your point is, "Gosh, men have it hard, too." Sure, I'll agree. But, you're laying on the hyperbole a bit thick.
Regarding the actual issue, I agree with you that it is not okay to show women(or men) in underwear at a tech conference in most cases but I am not sure if it was sexist or not because I was no there and didn't see the presentation. I don't think that this kind of thing has any place in a professional environment under normal circumstances though.
edit: My point proven by halostatue. Who is hinting that just because I am a man, I have no right to complain because everything comes so easy to me despite him having no knowledge of my particular circumstances.
The point of Scalzi's "Straight White Male…" essay is that all else being equal, being born a straight white male in western culture will result in large amounts of unseen privilege that can be leaned upon without even thinking about it.
It says nothing about relative ease of accomplishment after that. It says nothing about the small, petty, and (generally) inconsequential ways in which men are discriminated against (think auto insurance, as a first order item) in general life.
It also doesn't say a damned thing about whether you have the right to complain or not. It says far more about you thinking whether you've got standing to complain in a particular case, as the reality is that most men do not face gender discrimination on a regular basis—and when said discrimination is systemic (as it is in custody and alimony arrangements), then it must also be addressed—and it generally is being addressed (slowly, but surely).
You replied "Always appropriate:" with a link to the essay in reply to klodolph.
I assume that you were replying to this part of his post:
>If your point is, "Gosh, men have it hard, too." Sure, I'll agree. But, you're laying on the hyperbole a bit thick.
By replying in this way, you were effectively dismissing any disadvantage men have or discrimination they face because they have it easy in life according to John Scalzi (and it is always appropriate to remind people of this). Was this not your reply's intention? If so, what was it?
I was absolutely dismissing your hyperbolic list because of its hyperbole, and I was doing so in part because Scalzi addressed the baseline (which is what's really at discussion here) and the oft-hyperbolic attempts (like yours) to pretend that because "Men Have Problems, Too" that the discussion of the baseline isn't even worthy of being talked about.
But if you really want to have that list dissected, here we go:
1. "You can be called dumb your entire childhood". Suggesting that only boys hear this sort of thing is laughable. In my experience, boys are more likely to be called smart and clever than girls, who are more likely to be considered adorable and pretty. Systemically, girls in America are told that they aren't supposed to be good at math or engineering from about grade four on (boys don't do better in math until about the seventh grade).
There are cultures that consider the education of girls to be a waste of time, money, and effort—and I'm not just referring to the hard-line Taliban. These girls aren't just told that they're dumb, they're told that they're not even worth being told that they're dumb.
2. "it is made clear to you that you are inherently a monster capable of anything, that you have most likely raped someone". This is, of course, pure hyperbole when it's said by those who say it against men, and equally so when a man repeats it as if it were an accepted truth about all men.
Even so, there are far too many men who simply do not understand that not only does "no" mean "no", but only "yes" means "yes" (sex while she's blindingly drunk is not consensual, sorry).
3. "it is funny if your genitals are mutilated because you probably deserved it". I remember a lot of jokes around the Bobbitt case, but I also remember jokes not too longer after the Challenger accident. That case is very difficult because Bobbitt was an abuser (and continued to be with future spouses) and may have raped (he was charged and acquitted) his wife (marriage does not mean automatic consent). She was considered not guilty by reason of insanity and was committed to an institution for a short period of time.
On the other hand, almost all of the campaigners that I know or have encountered against male circumcision are women.
4. "if a woman hits you, you probably deserved it and you should take it like a man". I don't even know what to say to this one, because I've never heard anything like it and don't know any woman who would say it. There's a few men I could imagine saying it, but they're "macho men" in any case. Women are charged with assault.
5. "your life can be ruined by simple accusation by a woman and if she was lying there is no punishment for her". With the first part of your statement, you highlight a legitimate (if rare) problem; with the second part of your statement, you go off the rails. Look at the DSK case: his accuser is facing a civil suit over the loss of face here. If someone lies about a case and is caught doing it and the embarrassment for the prosecutor is high enough, you're going to be facing some music.
6. "if you divorce, your children will automatically go to your wife unless she is a criminal". In most jurisdictions, this is no longer true. Family courts want amicable separations and arrangements where possible (they're substantially cheaper and more stable on the family) but will look at the stability offered by both parents when determining the primary caregiver and the visitation schedule. The cases that I have heard where this tends to be true have judges who make such judgements on fallacious "traditional" (e.g., "a mother's place is in the home" traditional) arguments. This is the same sort of fallacy that spurs on "covenant" marriage law efforts.
7. "even if she initiated the divorce, you will still have to support her". Once again, I'm not even sure where to go with this one, mostly because it's full of wounded male ignorance.
(1) Where this sexism is entrenched in law (and it depends on the jurisdiction; in Ontario, the law is income-balanced with equal division of property), this is based on the perception of the woman as the stay-at-home mother and homemaker. Income-balanced laws still tend to favour the woman because (2) women generally make less money than men; when my wife divorced her first husband, she could have been liable for a equalization payment to her then-husband because she made more than he did.
Let's be clear, though, that the ignorance in this statement is actively dangerous. It does not matter who initiated the divorce (that's sort of the point behind 'no-fault' divorces). Under your scheme, somene who is leaving an abusive partner would not be eligible for any part of what they gave up. This is a great way to ensure that these people never leave their abusers…and as such are more likely to be seriously injured or killed.
8. "political figures proclaim that women are the true victims of war even though you were the one who lost his legs in battle". I hear this more about kids than about women. I also hear this mostly from people who are, essentially, chickenhawks.
9. "if you want to stay at home and look after your kids, you are lazy, if you want to focus on your career you are an uncaring father (either is okay for a woman)". I'll have to tell the couple of guys that I know who are stay-at-home dads that they're considered lazy. And…I guess you've never heard of women being called "ambitious bitches". Look carefully at what you said here, and then go back and read what has been written about Marissa Mayer and her recent pregnancy. Not only was her suitability as a businessperson called into question because she was pregnant, her suitability as a mom was called into question because she didn't take a long maternity leave. Resolve that conundrum without determining that it's double-standards sexism…and maybe I'll give you this one.
10. "you are portrayed as bumbling idiot on television". That Chrissy Snow on Three's Company was so smart, what about Kelly Bundy! Not all characterizations of men on TV are Peter Griffin or Homer Simpson or Al Bundy. Going back to somewhat before the same period as Three's Company, you have Mike Stivic ("Meathead" played by Rob Reiner). You've got Alex P Keaton (not bumbling, not an idiot, but not like the rest of his family, either).
11. "you are told that you are lucky if a woman gives you the time of day" and "if you approach a woman you can be called a creep, if you don't you are shy". If you act like a creep, you probably are a creep. There is a time, place, and way to approach someone with respect…and acting outside of that realm is creepy. Look at the discussions that female cosplayers have had recently about the (negative) attention that they've gotten by creeps who think that it's okay to take rear shots without permission (and one thing I read recently was interesting, because she was more than happy to give permission for people to photograph her—she made her costume to be seen, after all—but the shots without permission and that completely sexualized her turned her off).
12. "if your wife hires a hitman to kill you, she will be acquitted because you apparently abused her despite no evidence of this". Huh. If you're talking about the Nicole Doucet case, it seems to be an unusual case, but it probably says much more about the RCMP's handling of the case than it does about her ex-husband. He is an unfortunate injured party in this case, but there are plenty of real convictions of women who have hired hitmen (successful or no) to kill their partners. Your knowledge of this case is probably as deep as my knowledge: not very deep at all, and it's a lightning rod case much like the old McDonald's coffee case. By the by, your characterization is typically wrong on one point: she was not acquitted. Her conviction was set aside, and the grounds were based on misconduct. (The laws are also different here in Canada; prosecutors can appeal acquittals.)
13. "you are treated like a creep if you show any interest in being around children" Once again, I'll have to tell all of the male teachers that I know that they are creeps! It's going to be shocking news to them.
I don't know you, but you've somehow picked up a lot of beliefs that are contrafactual or are at best truthy. I treated your list with derision because, frankly, that's all that a hyperbolic list like that actually deserves.
I just find this a huge simplification and generalisation. Sure, it may ring true with some people but it is an opinion piece. It doesn't present any evidence for its claims. Not everyone that reads it will draw the same conclusions about it as you. So it does nothing to change the validity of my hyperbolic list which I never presented as fact but as an illustration of the frustration that many men are feeling.
As stated above, the list is not a list of facts but it describes how the frustration that many men are experiencing so it is pointless to attempt to repudiate each point. Some of these points are huge issues however, and do seem to be indicative of systemic sexism towards men. Maybe you don't feel the same way but many people do.
Your "Always appropriate" comment hit a nerve because it basically says that any issues that men have with sexism towards them is null and void(regardless if it is in the form of an exaggerated list of issues) because this guy(Scalzi) says men have things easier and it doesn't matter in what context the issues arise because it is "always appropriate". Now maybe you didn't mean it that way but I cannot see how it can be taken any other way.
I do believe that the baseline (as you call it) needs to be discussed but believe it or not, not everyone sees it the same way as you or Scalzi. It is certainly not as simple as Scalzi makes it seem. Sexism towards men IS part of the "baseline".
I also take issue that you now feel that the list represents my beliefs. I never presented them as such. I have not made up my mind about them but I do feel that there are issues here. I am by no means a mens rights nut but I do feel that male issues are underrepresented and your "Always appropriate" comment is analogous to a "Don't worry your pretty little head about it" response to a woman bringing up sexism towards women. The fact that you don't see that is frustrating.
Having said that, I am not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine so this is pointless.
This is such a bad interpretation of halostatue it is not even funny. Here's a quote from halostatue:
> It also doesn't say a damned thing about whether you have the right to complain or not
I know what you're trying to get at with this but there are two types of people in the world - those who start to feel depressed because they haven't "made it" and those who take it as an inspiration for what they could become. Which direction one goes in is a choice. The losers will give up, the winners will fail over and over again until they succeed. I would not want to be in a world where success is hidden from me because I might cry over not having it myself.
For the record, I agree that bikini shots are not appropriate at a software conference whether women are present or not. I do not see it as sexist but I do think that it is entirely irrelevant and misplaced and would question what the person who put them in there was thinking and whether they might be drunk.
Logical fallacies are perfectly fine in some contexts. I "appeal to authority" every time I listen to my doctor instead of my friend's intuition without even checking what my friend said. Given insufficient time, you pretty much have too. You cannot check everything by yourself. Authority itself was established as a means of offloading some fact checking to the other's expertise. A doctor's degree DOES provide some assurance, it's not just an empty title.
That digression aside, the same thing applies here. What you call "false dilemma", I call a priority. In every situation, given limited resources, you get to make choices and compromises. If your house is on fire you don't stop to mow the lawn. You put the fire off.
>2. It is not clear how to fix the problem about discrimination based on names on CVs/résumés, whereas the solution to bikinis in powerpoint slides is much simpler (delete the pictures from the slides, smartass). To use a much abused phrase, this is low-hanging fruit.
The problem with low-hanging fruit is that they give you a false sense of accomplishment. In optimising code, the easy 1% fix doesn't mean anything if there is a slow function taking 60% of the call times.
Plus, there's an assumption that bikini slides are a problem. Unequal pay is a real problem with real consequences. Bikini slides is merely something that offends some prudes and that some people don't like, not the real issue with sexism. We see naked and half-naked men and women everyday, in TV, in the Movies, on the net, in ads, everywhere. Suddenly it's too much in a presentation? I think this is more about the separation between work/life (a protestant ideological remnant) than anything else. A notion that the workplace should not be sexy/playful/political/etc.
>3. You also assume that the issues are unrelated or isolated, and that (for example) showing inappropriate pictures of women at tech conferences does not cause people to discriminate against women on CVs/résumés, when it is very plausible that the pictures of women in bikinis normalize / contribute to the measurable acts of discrimination.
Very plausible? That is as far fetched idea as any I've ever heard. At the very least, citation needed.
>Would anyone raise even an eyebrow if a woman sliped a sexy male model photo in a slide?
>>You think this is a clever argument, but it is not. Let me illustrate for you a better analogy.
So my argument (with exactly the same situation as the one complained about) is not good, because I couldn't (theoretically) stand an entirely different situation that you describe?
Let's see your analogy for a moment. For one thing: I AM constantly bombarded by pictures of men who "made it". Especially in HN, it's all too easy to see people bragging about acquisitions and 6-figure salaries. And there ARE women that are attracted to that kind of thing, and wouldn't give a poor guy the eye. Just as you describe.
Now, what does this has to do with the situation? Is a bikini slide meant to mean "lose 50 pounds"? Or "women in the audience should look like these"?
If I showed a picture of Simon Peyton Jones would that equally imply "programmers in the audience have to be as smart as him else you are losers"? If I show Marc Zuckenberg or some other successful enterpreneur does that mean "Less than 1 billion net worth is for suckers"? Would anyone even think of it that way?
>Sexism is not a simple problem and you do not help anything by imagining what it would by like if a woman put sexy pictures of a man on a powerpoint slide. Fact is, men are not generally worried about getting raped.
Where's the equality then? Or is having different arbitrary demands for each gender acceptable?
It's a nice analogy. Please identify the fire, and tell me how to put it out. Your criticism is that I am behaving suboptimally if my goal is to fix discrimination, and the clearest way to demonstrate this is to explain how I can behave more optimally.
> The problem with low-hanging fruit is that they give you a false sense of accomplishment. In optimising code, the easy 1% fix doesn't mean anything if there is a slow function taking 60% of the call times.
Please, figure out a way to identify the 60% function here, and identify how to solve it. If such an optimization exists, I'll go for it. Explain in further detail (1) what it is that we should fix and (2) how we should fix it. Otherwise, the low hanging fruit is what I'll go for because (1) we know it's a problem and (2) we know how to improve it.
> Very plausible? That is as far fetched idea as any I've ever heard. At the very least, citation needed.
There was a recent discussion about how much evidence you need in order to convince people that sexism is a real problem that we need to solve. But "citation needed" in this case very easily turns into "citation provided", if you would bother to go to Wikipedia or Google rather than dismiss claims offhand.
1. "exposure to seemingly innocuous sexually suggestive ads can lead to disturbing antifemale sentiments" http://www.psu.edu/dept/medialab/researchpage/newabstracts/o...
2. "women whose male partners objectified them scored lower than those whose partners didn't gaze at their bodies" http://www.livescience.com/11649-ogling-men-subtracts-women-...
If you'd like to read the studies and point out flaws in methodology, or provide studies that refute these claims, feel free to do so. I hope you consider these studies sufficiently relevant for the discussion, I don't want to have to track down the study which most closely replicates the conditions described in the article.
> If I showed a picture of Simon Peyton Jones would that equally imply "programmers in the audience have to be as smart as him else you are losers"? If I show Marc Zuckenberg or some other successful enterpreneur does that mean "Less than 1 billion net worth is for suckers"? Would anyone even think of it that way?
I think men have an enormous problem when they internalize the comparison of themselves against more successful men portrayed in media, and this can definitely have harmful consequences. There are plenty of stories about men who become unemployed during an economic downturn but don't tell the family. Every day the men would drive out to a parking lot, wait for ten hours, and return home, living off savings. They thought that the prospect of being unemployed was emasculating. They felt that being laid off is a personal failure — even in a recession, even if the company is going bankrupt for reasons beyond their control.
I think this would happen less if we reassured men that they do not become worthless creatures just because they are temporarily unemployed, that they have value as a human being beyond their careers. I think there aren't nearly enough men in media (movies, advertising, etc.) portrayed as valuable members of society through avenues other than what the traditional measures of success dictate.
For further reading, I recommend "Stiffed" by Faludi and "The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love" by hooks. I've been looking for a good book about men written by men, but I have not yet found one that incorporates the most basic lessons learned by the feminist movement. It's like the difference between Kant and Aristotle: Aristotle was a genius but his work is mostly irrelevant today, of course he wasn't well-read by modern standards since hardly anything had been written yet. Most men writing about male sexual politics haven't read enough from the past dozen or so decades of female sexual politics, and it shows in their sophomoric arguments.
> >Sexism is not a simple problem and you do not help anything by imagining what it would by like if a woman put sexy pictures of a man on a powerpoint slide. Fact is, men are not generally worried about getting raped.
> Where's the equality then? Or is having different arbitrary demands for each gender acceptable?
If I were really after just "equality", and I were a dictator, I could just order my secret police to rape men until the numbers match up for the two genders. I'd not like to get into a deeper discussion about "equality" but suffice it to say our resources are (as you stated) limited, and the problems for men and women are different, so we have no business e.g. allocating the same level of funding to men-only DV shelters because they are simply not needed as much. Also suffice it to say I think objectifying men is wrong too; but it is not as much of a problem (based on empirical evidence that suggests that it is not as much of a problem).
Target the major issues of discrimination?
From income inequality to the systemic wrongs that put a disproportionate number of black americans in prison.
Then you can worry about token BS issues like offending bikini slides in a tech conference where each man/woman attending makes $50000 or more and has paid like $2000 to attend.
Why can't we do both? Maybe the problems are related? It's wrong (although a common argument) to insist everyone be working on the single most important problem all of the time.
What are you working on right now? Grails app? Game? It's less important than curing malaria, so you should drop what you're working on and go do that.
That's a fair comment. But they might not be, and conflating the two might itself be a problem. See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5206857 for more.
Uh, yes? Why would anyone ever do that?
To take it further, just imagine if the "male programmer" stereotype was up on the slide as a "before" image with all of the insecurities of men highlighted--namely height and penis size. The "after" image shows the man visibly more endowed and taller. Again, if a WOMAN were to do this at a conference, she'd be ridiculed on the blogs for months after at the very least.
The rest of us think that this attitude is part of the problem.
EDIT: You're welcome to work on whatever problem you want. Don't try and tell me what my priorities are though. I disagree with you.
Oh, and using the "western world" as a sign of some "superiority" moral or otherwise, is extremely racist. The majority of the world doesn't think the "western world" as that advanced or superior anyway. Not to mention that the majority of the world still has deep scars and mourns its people because of the "western world" colonisation and treating them as slaves.
Not to mention that people living in a country where a young girl dies giving birth because she was denied an abortion don't get to say what the "western world" does.
(Nor do people living in a country that still has the death penalty and had black/white segregation until 40 years ago).
Probably not. The thing is that women on these conferences already feel unsafe because they are outnumbered and often inappropriately hit on.
How do you know the fix isn't to complain about bikinis in presentions?
Notably, the effect of the faculty participant's gender was not significant, so the study did not show men discriminating against women, but both men and women taking gender into account.
Perhaps, but the modern law says you cannot take gender into account. The people reviewing the CVs claimed not to be taking this into account. But this evidence shows that they are.
"Katrina. That sounds hot. Do you think Katrina's probably hot? Let's give her an interview."
This was in 2006, by the way, not 1956.
The Harlem Globetrotters picked the best of the african-american basketball players, who were not welcome on other teams. The result was predictable in hindsight, they beat the other teams by humiliating margins.
The other side of the coin is that the white-shoe firms didn't touch certain types of businesses (like M&A or IPOs) because those businesses were considered "ungentlemanly." So they were left to the Jewish firms, who developed an expertise in the fields during the decades that they were considered unimportant.
If you really want to trace the origin of the Jewish finance/law stereotypes back to their root, it goes all the way back to Middle Ages (and possibly earlier). Money handling and the trades were considered unclean/uncouth professions, and the landed aristocracy were so rich that they didn't need to concern themselves with such business. Some countries even mandated that Christians couldn't engage in such businesses. Jews took up finance, merchandizing, artisanry, etc., and placed a great deal of importance on professional success -- it being the only way that Jews could advance in society. To whatever extent that my people are stereotyped as "naturally" good at finance, etc., it's usually because nobody else was touching those things for hundreds of years.
Another part of the medieval stereotype I think came from Jewish cultural emphasis on literacy so good Jewish boys could read the Torah. As a side effect, it's hard to do e.g. banking if you can't read.
Or that Jews couldn't take up other professions.
Jewish American doctors, facing discrimination from the WASP elite of the era, leveraged their talents, innate ability, and entrepreneurial drive to create institutions with names that now stand for the best in the business.
My 4 year old boy goes to a day-care where one of the care givers is a man. I know of at least a mother that refused to leave her kid there scared that he was a sexual predator. The same prejudice is faced by male obstetricians.
In the end, whenever you stigmatize a profession as belonging for a specific gender you do sexism, doesn't matter how you do it and who you target.
Crude? yes - inappropriate? absolutely - funny? not in my mind - "against" women? I don't understand how.
I make this distinction because I think about an old professors of mine who stupidly would try to make women welcome by saying things like "Nice to have such a beautiful young lady here". His intent was to make them feel better, but he didn't get that it doesn't work that way.
Note that it included sexual imagery of women, not just sexual imagery. Making a commodity of women's bodies is a big theme of sexism in media, so to introduce that kind of imagery at conference where women will be a smaller percentage of the audience compared to men, you are essentially saying that those women present don't have value outside of their bodies. This kind of thing is hugely alienating.
However it's mostly women that are excluded from more jobs. The idea that "men are excluded and discriminated as much as women" is false.
In my understanding, the point of the article is that it proves that sexism is much more prevalent, serious, and harmful than I am able to discern as a white male. Reading things like this make it much easier to emphasize with women (and men) who get upset over sexist humor.
Also, sexism is not about intent, most of it isn't deliberate, and much of it is committed accidentally by people such as myself, despite my best intentions to generally do otherwise.
So they don't ask because if they did it would harm them.
(You include evidence in quotes, to imply it's not real evidence. You can see the paper there, what's wrong with the evidence? If you don't want to accept the evidence just because you dislike what it tells us about the world, you are not a scientist)
> If you don't want to accept the evidence just because you dislike what it tells us about the world, you are not a scientist
Further, please avoid ad hominem attacks, it is unprofessional and does not further your point.
The people reviewing CVs didn't claim to be taking this into account (and odds are, weren't). This evidence shows they were taking things into account that they thought they were.